From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000113078204876&rtmo=ln7Hwlnt&atmo=llllll1
x&pg=/et/00/4/27/ecfchik27.html
>Electronic Telegraph. 27.04.00 ... She's a lot smarter than you think
Although
>chickens don't top the list of clever animals, their particular abilities
are surprisingly
>impressive ... although chickens might not top the list of clever animals,
their
>particular abilities are important - and sometimes surprisingly impressive.
...
>Readers may be impressed by the chicken that learnt to peck a key to obtain
access
>to a perch suspended over a tank of water. It then crossed the perch,
pulled a
>string three times to unlock a door, turned right at a T-junction, and
jumped across
>water to reach a nestbox. ... In fact, most animals can be trained to
perform
>seemingly complex tasks with the promise of a food reward. The "clever"
chicken
>may not even have envisaged the final nestbox when it performed the first
keypeck
>of the sequence. Dr Christine Nicol, ... has been impressed most by how
they can
>teach, which has otherwise only been studied extensively in primates. ...
[As more
>animals are trained to perform impressive feats, the achievements of chimps
may
>not seem so special? The article also discusses suffering and emotions in
animals.]
As usual, anyone interested in any of the articles mentioned by Stephen
would be well advised to read the originals, rather than rely on Stephen's
butchered versions. Here Stephen conveniently omitted the following
paragraphs:
"They seemed to rate their chances somewhat better if the stranger was
beaten by the dominant flockmate, and braved an attack on it in half the
cases. Such "cleverness" comes as no surprise given the notorious pecking
order among chickens, and the injuries they inflict. It shows how mental
abilities are specific to a species's needs and evolutionary history."
I can see why this reference to evolutionary history wouldn't suit Stephen.
"These examples of chicken intelligence may not be on a par with guide dogs
finding novel routes home, or communication among dolphins. They do suggest
that chickens are not entirely witless - but wits are a separate issue from
suffering."
The first sentence tends to undermine Stephen's ludicrous implication that
the feats of chickens are comparable to those of chimps, so it wouldn't do
to include that one, would it?
Stephen, I appreciate your links to interesting articles, but why don't you
save yourself the trouble of editing them and just provide the links? Is it
because the full articles don't support your absurd conclusions? If so,
you're wasting your time, because your edited versions usually don't support
your conclusions either!
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 13:21:58 EDT