Further insights into the behaviour of corellas and other cockatoos
(writing in progress)
The book ‘My Parrot, My Friend’ by Doane and Qualkinbush (1994, https://www.amazon.com.au/My-Parrot-Friend-Owner%E2%80%B2s-Behavior/dp/0876059701 and https://avianpublications.com/shop/my-parrot-my-friend/) is based on psychological case-studies, and is intended to help the human keepers of psittaciform birds to understand the nature of the relationship. It is essentially an ‘owner’s manual’.
It has additional credibility because it was written in direct consultation with expert Irene Pepperberg.
I shall cite this book, particularly w.r.t. corellas and their closest relatives, while ‘reading between the lines’ as insightfully as I can.
On page 91, the authors put it almost as plainly as I would: “Why do parrots talk?
Could the answer be: for the same reasons people do. They use language (either natural vocalisation or learned speech) to communicate.”
Note that D & Q, like Pepperberg, stop short of stating what this seems to mean, in plain English: that parrot-like birds can speak English.
D & Q emphasise that psittaciform birds do not learn from harsh punishment. This technique of instruction/training just does not work, given their psychology. One cannot force a parrot to do anything, as it were.
D & Q state: “Parrots cannot be treated ‘generically,’ any more than can people...Parrots are more than intelligent enough to understand that they are not human”, emphasising that socialising a parrot is, nevertheless, very like rearing a child.
Although not analysing the question of ‘wild-caught’ or ‘hand-reared’ as directly as I would have liked, D & Q discuss this enough for me to read between the lines.
My conclusion is as follows:
Most successful relationships between psittaciform bird and human are the result of rearing in captivity. It is sometimes possible to tame a wild-caught psittaciform individual to the point of having a close personal relationship with it, which is remarkable and can be extremely rewarding. However, this seems to depend on the personality of the two individuals (i.e. human AND bird), and the empathy and insight of the human.
A point relevant here is that, as D & Q point out, even a hand-reared individual does not usually ‘believe that it is human’. I infer that the function of hand-rearing is not to achieve a kind of brainwashing (along the lines of Niko Tinbergen’s geese) in which the animal sees the human as a member of its own species. Rather it is to achieve a cultural education.
Do readers see the difference? For a human to achieve a good relationship with a parrot-like bird is a matter of mutual education, not just modifying the bird’s instincts by ‘imprinting’ at an impressionable age.
So, the inference is that the relationship is essentially a mutual one. The human knows he/she is human and seeks a personal relationship with a parrot-like bird. The parrot-like bird knows it is a bird and accepts this relationship with the human.
The circumstances can be arranged by the human to promote this agenda (e.g. by captive rearing), but ultimately it is up to the bird as much as the human. This is because
- some individuals of the bird species in question do not accept the relationship owing to their personality or to their dislike of the human individual in question, and
the bird operates from intelligence more than from programming.
The use of human language by the bird, to communicate with the human, seems fully consistent with this interpretation. I.e. parrot-like birds can learn to speak human languages because they want to, not because they either- simply mimic without understanding, or
are programmed to think they are human, and thus adopt human habits such as verbalisation.
Although no species of psittaciform bird has been fully domesticated in the sense of extensive selective breeding, this process has indeed begun in the case of the budgerigar and one species of cockatoo, namely the cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus). What is interesting is that in both of these species an unintended consequence of selective breeding has been the shortening of lifespan. The budgerigar normally lives about 15 years, but the form now commonly kept as a pet lives only half this time. The cockatiel has been known to live to as much as 36 years, but most captive individuals do not reach anywhere near this age.
The cockatiel is the smallest species of cockatoo, and I have been focussing particularly on cockatoos in recent Posts. So, I shall quote in detail from D & Q as follows:
One big difference between cockatiel and budgerigar is that the former does not share the latter’s love of physical contact with the human keeper. “Just take away most of the desire for physical contact [of the budgie] and you’ve got a cockatiel. The adult cockatiel does not even like contact with another cockatiel in the usual way of things...It is very social, however...Cockatiels have delightful personalities, and many are able to develop large vocabularies. They are also talented whistlers and many times can learn to whistle several tunes, sometimes from beginning to end, and note-perfect into the bargain!...It is a peculiar trait of this bird, that when biting, it does not let go immediately as do most parrots. Instead, it hangs on and grinds.”
I see from my previous analyses that the cockatiel has an encephalisation score, relative to the psittaciforms of the world, of only about 4/10.
Referring to corellas and their closest relatives, i.e. the genus Cacatua in the loose sense, D & Q state:
“The birds of this genus are...outstandingly intelligent and affectionate to the point of being pests (if not properly raised). They are also some of the noisiest creatures in aviculture...cockatoos can be the most delightful companions imaginable...Keeping a cockatoo as a companion requires the same commitment necessary to raise a child; the same determination to see to it that it grows into a ‘good citizen’ rather than a juvenile delinquent.”
One aspect affecting the potential for a relationship with a human ‘keeper’ is whether the species of psittaciform in question is naturally monogamous and pair-bonding. I will keep this as a search image w.r.t. cockatoos in future: I think all cockatoos are monogamous and ‘get married’, but I will check. The most likely exception is the cockatiel. If the cockatiel is in fact not monogamous, its success as a cage bird is all the more remarkable.
D & Q mention Cacatua moluccensis in particular as “very skilled at manipulating mechanical objects such as padlocks (some are even able to open combination locks) and highly perceptive. Mollucans are endlessly entertaining, and can be very willful and independent.” D & Q state that Cacatua alba, also from Indonesia, is similar in these ways to C. moluccensis although more active, skittish, high-strung, and attention-seeking (and, like C. moluccensis, sometimes stubborn and willful).
As for Cacatua sanguinea (which is the ‘urban pest’ species I have here in my suburb in Perth, Western Australia), D & Q state that “this little parrot is delightful, with all of the typical cockatoo traits, plus the ability to talk well, which most other cockatoos lack.”
I see from my previous analyses of encephalisation that Cacatua moluccensis (body mass 850g, brain vol. 15.6 ml) scored only 6/10, relative to the full range of encephalisation in the psittaciform birds of the world. I.e. it is above average among parrot-like birds in its braininess, but not much so.
To put this into perspective, C. moluccensis has similar body mass to that of the kea (Nestor notabilis) of New Zealand, which has brain volume of 13 ml and scores only less than average for a parrot-like bird.
Cacatua alba has body mass 631g, brain vol. 14.2 ml, which confirms that it is exceptionally brainy for its genus. Cacatua alba, by my reckoning, scores 7/10 relative to the psittaciform birds on Earth, which means that it is not exceptionally brainy for a parrot-like bird although it is so for a corella.
This seems to established the facts w.r.t. the relationship between behaviour and braininess in corellas and their closest relatives, as follows:
The outstanding qualities of corellas as captive birds are only partly a reflection of braininess, and as much a reflection of an emphasis on ‘social intelligence’ in this group.
The various species of corella (and allied genera e.g. Eolophus and Lophochroa) do vary considerably in braininess. Two of the most engaging and intelligent species of this whole group, namely C. moluccensis and C. alba, are considerably more encephalised than species such as L. leadbeateri and E. roseicapillus.
However, no corella scores more than 7/10 in braininess for a psittaciform bird on a global basis. Furthermore, we can see from the cockatiel that a cockatoo can be exceptionally ‘smart’ in some ways in captivity without being above average in braininess for a psittaciform bird.
So both things are true: the smartest corellas are the best captive birds, but the exceptionally rewarding nature of corellas in general is more about the particular KIND of intelligence in these extremely social birds - which happens to make them cognitively empathetic towards humans.
One aspect of this:
Although corellas in general are not brainy enough to have the intellectual capacity to match e.g. the African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) in mastering human language, their WILLINGNESS to speak with humans means that they make the most of their ability in this regard. Thus a cockatoo such as the cockatiel, scoring not much more than half the braininess of the African grey parrot, turns out to make the most of its verbal and musical capacities, enough to achieve some renown for these talents, depending on the individual.
D & Q state that the beaks of corellas are so strong that they can break even the steel wire of chainlink fences. I find this incomprehensible.
As evidence for the intelligence of psittaciform birds, I quote from pages 78-79:
“Trial and error learning...Cockatoos are particularly adept at this kind of learning and apply it with great success in escaping from their cages. One such bird known to the authors is named Houdini, in honor of his extraordinary expertise as an escape artist! Insight learning requires great intelligence and is basically problem solving in nature. Parrots excel at this. One of the author’s cockatoos has learned how to steady a swinging perch while eating by observing how close to the cage bars the perch is, moving it much closer, then wedging it between the bars to achieve stability. Only then does she select a piece of food and climb to this favored perch to eat. Tool use is also a form of insight learning. Mikey, the cockatoo to whom we referred earlier, learned to obtain the key, which was thought to be out of reach by the owner, for the padlock securing his cage. He then inserted it in the padlock, opened the device, climbed out, relocked the lock and proceeded to the top of his cage to await the return of his owner and surprise her when she found him in this liberated situation. He also had the foresight to toss the keys into the bottom of the cage, where they could not be retrieved until the entire unit had been dismantled!”
On page 121, D & Q mention the fact that parrot-like birds use dilation of the pupil as a form of social expression. However, their treatment of this topic is desultory; I infer that nobody has really studied this. Instead, D & Q assume that the main way in which psittaciforms communicate at close quarters (intraspecifically) in the wild is by means of vocalisation - something that I find questionable.
As I understand it, no cockatoo learns human language (whether English or any language) unless put in a position where, craving social engagement but finding itself socially dependent on a human instead of its own species, it attempts to communicate with the human in human terms.
No cockatoo ‘prefers’ to speak language. However, the wonder of it is that, when learning human language is what is required to engage socially with the keeper, the birds are capable of rising to the challenge of
- learning the human language, and
- (depending on the individual bird) doing so without any particular attempt to teach them language on the part of the human.
In cockatoos, I am not yet clear about the degree to which one captive individual will speak human language to another. This is an interesting question.
I think it is hypothetically possible that the following scenario could occur:
Imagine an indivual of the cockatiel and an individual of a corella. Both are kept captive by the same person, but in different parts of a single house, where they cannot hear each other. The cockatiel learns some English in order to communicate with the human of the house – if only because this human is the only company the bird has. Then the human goes away for a while, putting the two birds in the same room to keep each other company. The cockatiel will presumably turn to the corella for social engagement, but be unable to communicate in the ‘language’ natural to the corella. Could it be that under such circumstances the cockatiel would speak to the corella in English, allowing the latter bird to adopt human language as a kind of ‘lingua franca’?
Do readers see that such experiments might have been done already, had scientists had the humility and truthfulness to acknowledge that parrot-like birds do in fact have the ability to ‘speak English’?
(writing in progress)
תגובות
הוספת תגובה