User:Dvalev1997/sandbox

Implications for cognition
Cooperative hunting is sometimes thought to reflect advanced cognitive processes, such as foresight, planning, and theory of mind and involve complex communication between hunters. However, several lines of evidence indicate that many instances of cooperative hunting rely on simple principles and can be observed in species without large brains or advanced cognitive abilities. Nevertheless, cooperative hunting occurs at different levels of complexity, and the most advanced levels may reflect a higher level of cognitive ability. In addition, frequent and successful pack hunting may depend on a higher level of social harmony, complexity, or intelligence, which may facilitate concerted group activities. In general, not much data has been collected on this topic, and new technologies and equipment may allow the collection of enough observations to answer these questions.

Levels of complexity
Many species, including spiders, have been observed to take down prey in groups. However, the mere act of multiple animals killing and sharing prey does not by itself indicate any level of advanced coordination. To differentiate between different levels of cooperative hunting, Boesch & Boesch developing a scheme for categorizing group hunts:


 * Similarity occurs when hunters focus similar actions on the same prey, but without temporal or spatial coordination, as is the case with the aforementioned spiders.
 * Synchrony occurs when hunters display temporal coordination, for example initiating the hunt at the same time, but display no spatial coordination.
 * Coordination occurs when hunters coordinate both temporally and spatially, adjusting their positions based on the behaviour of their partners.
 * Collaboration occurs when hunters do not merely perform the same or similar actions in a coordinated manner, but adopt different and complementary roles such as driving and ambushing.

A variety of social carnivores, such as wolves, lions, and African wild dogs have been observed to operate at the level of coordination and occasionally collaboration, while some populations of chimps have been observed to collaborate frequently with several distinct roles.

Arguments against cognitive complexity
While it is easy to attribute complex cognitive processes to animals hunting in a coordinated manner, this apparently complex behaviour may be explained in terms of more simple mental operations. For example, the hunting tactics of wolves, which involve fanning out and encircling prey, are argued to have been replicated in a computer simulation where the wolves were programmed with two simple rules: (1) Get within a minimum safe distance from the prey (2) Once this distance is achieved, move away from hunting partners. Ambushing is also argued to have been represented in this simulation by wolves who begin randomly at different locations. This simulation matches the coordination level of complexity, leaving open the question of the cognitive processes necessary for collaboration.

Another argument consists of observations that several animals not usually thought of as cognitively complex have been observed to hunt cooperatively, and in some cases collaboratively. For example, grouper fish have been observed to recruit giant moray eels into collaborative hunts, where their complementary hunting strategies increase the feeding success of both. The gestures performed by the grouper fish fulfill the criteria for a referential gesture, a signalling behaviour previously only observed in humans, great apes, and ravens. In addition, cooperative and collaborative hunting has been observed in other unlikely candidates, such as crocodiles and Cuban boas.

Arguments for cognitive complexity
In contrast to social carnivores, who normally hunt cooperatively and only occasionally take on complementary roles, chimpanzees in Taï National Park regularly hunt collaboratively. They have been observed to use four different specialized roles, including ambushing, blocking, chasing, and driving. Christophe Boesch has argued that this level of collaborative complexity is indicative of several advanced cognitive processes. For example, chimps must successfully attribute physical abilities to their prey and use this information to predict which tree they may reach and when. In addition, chimps require knowledge of their partner's roles and the information they possess about the prey's location in order to infer the direction of the prey and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Finally, chimps take up to 20 years to learn the most complex hunting roles, indicating that these do not operate by simple rules.

Even more advanced than these predictive abilities may be the ability to participate in collaborative activities with shared goals and intentions, which Micheal Tomasello calls shared intentionality. Tomasello claims that this ability involves unique mental representations and a level of cognitive and social complexity only achieved by humans. However, Boesch counters this by pointing out that Taï chimps fulfill all the hallmarks of shared intentionality, bringing into question either the uniqueness or the complexity of this cognitive process.

Social intelligence and cooperative hunting
While the majority of group hunting behaviours do not seem to take much cognitive complexity, it has been observed that species that receive a large portion of their food from cooperative hunts tend to have a complex or harmonious social structure. This includes many of the prototypical social carnivores, such as wolves and wild dogs. A harmonious pack structure may allow for the emergence of more frequent cooperative hunts, as group activities and food sharing are facilitated by lower levels of aggression and fear. For example, spotted hyenas have been found to be better at a cooperative problem-solving task with a food reward than chimpanzees. In addition, their performance is modulated by social factors, such as the presence of an audience and the social rank of their partner. Bonobos were likewise found to be better at a cooperative task with a food reward than other, more aggressive chimpanzees.