Innate or learned behaviors

[] who knows!
 
I think the development of a skill such as birdsong would definitely depend on the environment, but then that too has a genetic basis doesnt it? Since most birds will only pick up features of song specific to that same species?
 
Another cool innate behaviour (I can't quite remember the details) is honey bee communication- the waggle dance that they do to show where food is shows differences depending on what specific species (?) or population the bees are from.

kennel_keeper, even imprinting isn't that clearcut. Cuckoos are raised in other bird's nests, but still know they're a cuckoo when they fledge. I also know that rock wallabies fostered to tammar wallaby mothers have no doubt that they're rock wallabies and should therefore be climbing trees despite their mother's distress when they hop up into places a tammar wallaby can't go. And yet, other animals imprint blindly to whoever feeds them as a baby. It can be unpredictable, and unpredictable observations are a real pain in the neck for any behavioural ecologist. They're meaningless until you can find a pattern.

 
The behaviors you discribe in your examples are NOT imprinting, they are FAP's. They are performing a behavior that is "innate" and NOT learned. If it were learned, then they would have had to have an example set for them. Since they didn't, it's innate.
 
I have raised lion cubs and they were imprinted on me, but innately LION! I didn't teach them how to be lions, they instinctively knew that.
 
I do agree that, it can be difficult distinquish where FAP's begin and end and when other behaviors take over.

To clarify....

This is what Wikipedia says:

In [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology]ethology[/link], a fixed action pattern (FAP) is a complex [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior]behavioral[/link] sequence that is indivisible and runs to completion. FAPs are invariant and are produced by the [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_releasing_mechanism]innate releasing mechanism[/link] that responds to a external sensory stimulus ([linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_stimulus]sign stimulus[/link]). '
 
ETA: so all FAPs are innate behaviours, but not all innate behaviours are FAPs...

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

The behaviors you discribe in your examples are NOT imprinting, they are FAP's. They are performing a behavior that is "innate" and NOT learned. If it were learned, then they would have had to have an example set for them. Since they didn't, it's innate.

So, the act of imprinting is an FAP but if an animal imprints on the wrong animal but still acts like the right animal, it's an innate behaviour? And when an animal imprints on the wrong animal and acts like that animal, it's an imprinting FAP?

My problem with this is that how do you tell when an animal has imprinted on the correct species or just has an innate tendency to gravitate towards its own species? I guess it's like those baby herd animals that imprint on their mothers, but when they can't find their mother they'll go for the nearest thing that looks like their mother. Did they really imprint in the first place?

Anyway, it's really neither here nor there if scientists have dropped the term FAP. I did a lot of behavioural ecology in uni, but we avoided a lot of this terminology and theory and they taught us from an evolutionary perspective instead. In fact, I didn't run into any of it even in all my lit searches. Probably because I was working on the wrong species. []

I have raised lion cubs and they were imprinted on me, but innately LION! I didn't teach them how to be lions, they instinctively knew that.

This made me wonder - who taught them to hunt, or did they simply "get it" on their own?  I always thought that the hunting part of being a lion was a learned behavior, and that captive-raised animals didn't learn it as well as if they had a lioness to teach them. (No flames, please - I am *not* calling you a lioness LOL - not that that would be a negative).

I think that captive raised lions don't get the chance to practice the hunt, which is to their disadvatange. But the ability to hunt is innate, with some fixed action patterns, potayto, potahto, tomayto, tomahto, it doesn't matter what words are actually used, we are talking about behaviors and responses that are indicative of a species. Jade practices her hunting skills and I haven't taught her a thing about hunting. Shadow hunts squirrels like a wolf, and mice like a terrier, and I didn't teach him that, either.

The cues to a dog's behavior, such as the dominant aggression stance, is not anything any of us taught our dogs to do, but they do it, in response to a challenge or a hunting quest. The signs they give for fear, happiness, defense, are all things we did not teach them, even if they imprint on us as their nominal leader.

ETA:
The original criticisms of Lorenz' work were along the lines of say, questions about the cat I mentioned. To me, the criticisms only pointed to a refinement needed but did not, in and of themselves negate Lorenz' work. His terms are still used in some educational venues but even if they weren't, the concepts are, as they are also a fairly straight forward extension of Darwin's work.

A friend told me of a stray kitten that had wandered while a female dog she knew was nursing pups. The kitten found a spare teat and took up residence. The dam was confused. She knew she had 5 pups but there were 6 nursing. Anyway, the cat grew up with the pups and would bark, in a cat-fashion. So, while the imprinting leads to modified behavior in the cat, the imprinting action itself is innate, and the drive to find a teat, is also innate or even an FAP, without which, she would have starved.

There are some other behaviors that may be innate or FAP.
 
Wolves form packs, they kill for food, they also kill competitors, such as coyotes and badgers, when going after rodents. Their diet changes depending on the time of year and availability of food. They do fight each other for dominance or to maintain the alpha position. They do kill each other.
 
Here are some links concerning that.
 
[linkhttp://academic.evergreen.edu/s/stidav22/reports/WolfBehaviorReport.pdf]http://academic.evergreen.edu/s/stidav22/reports/WolfBehaviorReport.pdf[/link]
 
[linkhttp://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/wolves.html]http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/wolves.html[/link]
 
[linkhttp://www.defenders.org/magazinenew/guest/varleymag.html]http://www.defenders.org/magazinenew/guest/varleymag.html[/link]
 
[linkhttp://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/scientific/mech_pdfs/267alphastatus_english.pdf]http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/scientific/mech_pdfs/267alphastatus_english.pdf[/link]
 
[linkhttp://www.wolftrust.org.uk/depredation.html]http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/depredation.html[/link]
 
[linkhttp://www.kidsplanet.org/tt/wolf/intro/faq.pdf]http://www.kidsplanet.org/tt/wolf/intro/faq.pdf[/link]

Additionally, dogs that are left to their own devices in the wild will form packs and hunt other animals, exhibiting a similar range of behaviors like those seen in wolves. Phenotypic differences like size, ears, etc. will often return to a more "wolf-like" state as the animals outcross and breed freely
from rawfed.com

Dogs do form packs, especially when gone feral. That is, dogs that might have once lived in a family with some "training" when gone feral, exhibit wolf-like behavior. Innate? FAP?
 

This made me wonder - who taught them to hunt, or did they simply "get it" on their own? I always thought that the hunting part of being a lion was a learned behavior, and that captive-raised animals didn't learn it as well as if they had a lioness to teach them. (No flames, please - I am *not* calling you a lioness LOL - not that that would be a negative).

 
The ability to hunt prey is an innate behavior. The technique used to hunt is learned by imitation. While captive-born and kept animals aren't as adept at using their hunting skills, they could still hunt, albeit with a higher failure rate, thus decreasing their chance of survival in the wild.
My cubs were captive born and will remain captive. My job was to socialize them since they were to always be "handled" by humans. Even though they were removed from their mother at just a few days old, I saw innate behaviors as they grew. They did "stalk" and "throat-bite" and while they weren't taught to do this, they somehow knew that was the thing to do.
 
Most of the wildlife I release, instinctively know how to behave. I have only had one animal that I couldn't release and he stays with me to this day. He is a social creature that was raised alone, so his chances of survival in the wild are slim.

Hi folks,
 
Interesting debate.   I stumbled upon this thread whilst searching for help for our new puppy's "mouthing" problem 2 weeks ago.   Needless to say, with some patience, and some correction,  and a lot of attention, he completely stopped doing that, and is now very good friends with us, the 6 cats, and his companion labrador
 
Now I'm a) a newb and b) still learning this "dog" thang, but I do have some qualifications in the way that I did study ethology.
 
I saw names like Konrad Lorenz flashing by, and although I truly admire his work (I think he got a Nobel Prize ?), things have moved on.
 
Basically, it goes like this: nature/nurture is not a dichotomy.   You can' t (in general) say: "this behaviour was caused by their genes, and that behaviour was "learned".   It's a very complex interaction between both. 
 
People from your side of the pond to tend to overestimate the "innate" part, people on my side of the pond tend to ignore the genetical role in behaviour.   Skinner versus Nico Tinbergen if you like.
 
From my studies, I have learned to never underestimate the "genetical" make-up of animals, especially dogs (or, erm, humans).   They are survivors, and they will do anything to survive (like cats BTW).   OTOH, our pets are never really growing up in their natural habitat.   They are not wolves, they are both culled & trained to be companions, or guide dogs, or pretty good in finding drugs...  In many ways, they continue to show puppy behaviour (!) But they will become wolves again, when pushed.
 
Anyway, sorry if this sounds "knowitally" for a first post, but it is my "pet peave".
 
Personally, we always had cats (12 of them at one point in time, down to six today), but we got a female choc Lab 3 years ago, and are now addicted to these critters.   We got a "golden" (male) Lab 3 months ago, and enjoying every minute of it
 
As much as we considered ourselve "cat people", we were amazed like hell on how deep dogs can get under your skin.   As I type this, both dogs are "fighting" and making very agressive noises towards each other.   Good thing I know that "tha bow" they showed before engaging in this conundrum, seems to mean: "OK, this is play, right ?"
 
 

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

This made me wonder - who taught them to hunt, or did they simply "get it" on their own? I always thought that the hunting part of being a lion was a learned behavior, and that captive-raised animals didn't learn it as well as if they had a lioness to teach them. (No flames, please - I am *not* calling you a lioness LOL - not that that would be a negative).

The ability to hunt prey is an innate behavior. The technique used to hunt is learned by imitation. While captive-born and kept animals aren't as adept at using their hunting skills, they could still hunt, albeit with a higher failure rate, thus decreasing their chance of survival in the wild.
My cubs were captive born and will remain captive. My job was to socialize them since they were to always be "handled" by humans. Even though they were removed from their mother at just a few days old, I saw innate behaviors as they grew. They did "stalk" and "throat-bite" and while they weren't taught to do this, they somehow knew that was the thing to do.

Most of the wildlife I release, instinctively know how to behave. I have only had one animal that I couldn't release and he stays with me to this day. He is a social creature that was raised alone, so his chances of survival in the wild are slim.

Well, I get what you and ron are saying, but why do dogs left as strays often starve or at least become emaciated?  Some of that seems to have to come from us humans breeding the kill drive out.  So, we get the herder that can chase the "prey", but often lacks the follow through to complete the job.  It's almost like the circuitry is there, but the no one plugs in the appliance.

Basically, it goes like this: nature/nurture is not a dichotomy. You can' t (in general) say: "this behaviour was caused by their genes, and that behaviour was "learned". It's a very complex interaction between both.

 
Why can't you? There are alot of behaviors that are innate. FAP's for example, are NOT a learned behavior.
 
While I do agree that most of the behavioral issues we see in our pets are a combination of their genetics, their experience, and their environment (B=G+E+E if you will), You can't deny that ALL animals (including humans) have certain "behaviors" that are "in born". A babies first crys after birth are instinctual "innate", but eventually will use his cry's to communicate and realize that when he crys, he gets fed or changed or picked up. SO, the cry, though changed from it's original purpose, has become learned by reinforcement by the parent(s).
 
 
 

Anne,  dogs fail to thrive on their own because:
 
1- Their innate behaviors, while present, have not be "fined tuned" by immitation. Dogs that "grow up wild" from birth, to a dam that has grown up in the wild, will be "taught" necessary skills that "hone" their innate abilities. Without the influence of an experienced mother, they still retain the ability to hunt, but their success (kill) rate is alot lower.
2- Canids are social creatures, that left to their own devises will and do form packs (if other members are available). A "pack" members have a much better survival rate, than the solitary "dog".
A "lone wolf", for example, stands little chance of finding enough food to make it throught the winter, plus he has no territory and is forced to wander, and endure the threats from neighboring "packs".
 
" Some of that seems to have to come from us humans breeding the kill drive out.  So, we get the herder that can chase the "prey", but often lacks the follow through to complete the job.  It's almost like the circuitry is there, but the no one plugs in the appliance. "
 
This is a good analogy as well. We humans have messed with genetics through responsible breeding programs and have in essence "bred out" certain abilities, but I still don't believe that we have altered the innate behaviors.

I too, still believe there are innate behaviors. But then, I'm a traditionalist in several respects. For example, the scientific method. I've even gone as far as to say Einstein was wrong. He had once pondered in his autobiographical sketches that much of his stuf might be proven wrong because it can't be tested. Now, there is a current shake-up in the theoretical physics world as there are a few people who believe Hawking is wrong, and much of Hawking's work is based on Einstein's General Theory, which in turn is based on the Special Theory. So, this wouldn't be the first time I've not agreed with a modern approach to something.
 
While I think there is some cross-over between innated and learned, my use of the idea of cross-over still implies a distinction between to the two, just as an average is the middle of two "extremes". I will go as far as to say that there are innate behaviors in a dog, regardless if it was raised with humans or was raised feral. To that point, I would have to defer to you, Kennelkeeper, as you have actually worked with NGSD and not just read about it in a book. You are, indeed, a valuable resource here, one of the few who's actually provided caretaking and up close, live, in color, observation of wild animals.
 
So, for example, there are going to be similar behaviors that are shared by dogs, wolves, NGSDs, three different species of varying contact with man or varying states of wildness, if one prefers, and yet, all will exhibit some similar behaviors, though they may be adapted to the environment they are in.
 
 

So, for example, there are going to be similar behaviors that are shared by dogs, wolves, NGSDs, three different species of varying contact with man or varying states of wildness, if one prefers, and yet, all will exhibit some similar behaviors, though they may be adapted to the environment they are in

 
One thing that I have noticed with working with different species of caninies (wolves, NGSD, and domestics) is the innate behavior of communication. They all communincate with each other and while some of the partiucular "skills" are learned (tone, pitch, duration, etc) there is STILL the innate desire to let each other know "what's up". In domestic dogs, it really doesn't matter WHAT breed (I have several rescues of different breeds) they still vocalize at a certain time EVERY evening. Even the pittie (that belongs to my son) will "howl" with the rest of the pack. Now, he did "learn" to howl, but that doesn't mean that he learned the "desire" to communicate. That is "in-born" as with all canines. Hell, even the Chihuahua's will start their own form of communicating at the same time in the evening. They hear the others howling and they start "barking" to make sure "everyone" knows they are there as well.
Another "trait" that all canines (that I have worked with) show is the desire to "pack up". They are hardwired to form packs and somehow "know" which members they want and which ones they dont'. It's amazing!
Ami and Joppa (wolves) were just two, but Ami (male) was always trying to "grow" his pack. Any female (human) was fair game, he would prance and strut and try SO hard to impress with his displays, but males (humans) he DID NOT like. He would growl, groan, and snarl. He meant business either way. Don't ask me how he knew a female HUMAN from a male HUMAN, but he did! I had witnessed it on MANY occasions. The only male he would allow in his enclosure, was the owner of the facility, but any other would be intimidated from the moment he got anywhere CLOSE to the fence. If another male had of went into the enclosure, he would have done some serious damage, I have no doubt. Females, on the other hand would have become a part of his "pack" whether they wanted to be or not.
 
The NGSD, had ONE alpha male and ONE alpha female and several other females (daughters) and a son. As soon as the offspring reached sexual maturity, the male was "marked". He had to be transfered to another facility in order to not be killed, but the females were fine staying (according to Faldo, the alpha male). There were power struggles amoung the female members of the pack (except for the alpha) for position, but they figured it out fairly quickly. They aquired a "new" pack member (female) and the first one to great her was Faldo and he "allowed" the other females to greet her after he was done "inspecting" her.
 
With my beagles, you can take 5 totally "stranger" dogs and they WILL pack to hunt. Understand, these dogs have NEVER seen each other before, but to accomplish their purpose, will "pack up" in order to account for the game. It is RARE to have a Beagle fight as  a trial. Also, each "pack" is either all male or all female, and it's almost unheard of for there to be any altercation in a hunting situation. They are just so attune to the "pack" mentality, that fighting is just not prevalent. I believe this is an INNATE behavior and NOT a learned behaivor.
 

I personally like where Anne was going when she was talking about genetics leading to potential. I think about impulse control in a Border collie. A good dog is born with it, but they are also born with a high level of reactivity. In a natural setting, reactivity would win out - it's the adaptive characteristic. But impulse control allows the dog to be useful, not to mention livable.

I don't believe there's a Border collie alive that would starve to death in a field of unprotected small ruminants, particularly if he had help from other dogs. I'm not sure about other breeds but I'm pretty sure about mine. [] Chase-and-kill would win out over impulse control in that situation, too, no matter how many years of training the dog were coming from.

Herding instinct is not "hunting instinct with the kill bred out." Good dogs would be a heck of a lot easier to train if that were true! You can't breed "kill" out any more than you can breed "reproduce" out - you can breed the other characteristics UP to enable a trainer to bring that out - but "kill it" is down there in the part of the brain with "eat it" "mount it" "fight it" and "run from it" - too primitive to reach without changing DNA, at least so I believe. So as I say we breed for dogs that have the impulse control to balance that. But you have to train that impulse control or the "kill" will win out.

80% of Border collies will see sheep bolting away from them for the first time and go, "Wheeeeeeee! The game's afoot!" and then they proceed to run, yup, straight up the middle. There's a few dogs that have it so much together that they will go right around to the nose of the escaping sheep the very first time, but dollars to donuts there will then be a "BAMMO" collision when they get there. Or the dog will clap down to the ground, get run over, and that's the last time THAT dog will go near a sheep.

This is, of course, all without the help of a skilled trainer to make it easier for the first time dog.

Breeders and trainers of Border collies have to think about this topic all the time. We're trying to produce certain behaviors in a breed in each generation, because we're going for balance of a whole bunch of behaviors, not a single fixed behavior (like chasing prey). We think of behaviors in terms of dicotomies for that reason - eye/circle, chase/control, pressure/pace, head/balance - the list goes on and on.

We have a checklist of what we want the dogs to do innately if possible - group stock, sense and manipulate flight zone, turn back prey, control the bite impulse, use eye to control the stock - all of this occurs in the first two exercises of the herding trials, when the handler is not allowed to give his dogs any commands. On top of this are character traits that make the dogs more suitable for advanced training or quick self-learning: initiative, work ethic, biddability, intelligence of course.

Of course, we can train the dogs to do these things, even on their own - as they start to face the same exercise over and over they learn it. But then you'll get an occaisional trial where things are different. The sheep are farther away. The dog has to go out of sight of the handler. The course is changed. Then you can see which dogs are running on training and which have it naturally. That's fun. That's when you see the difference between the dogs that are born with it and the mediocre dogs that are trained and handled well.

And that's why trial testing is so important to us. We want to keep this as the kind of breed that you can get a pup, raise it, send it for the cows one day, get a cup of coffee, and when you get your sugar stirred in the cows have come up.