Have your newts learned to play?

Just finished reading this article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101019132045.htm

And started thinking that if turtles can play, would salamanders play? It is difficult to imagine a mole salamander play in the soil. Maybe one day we will discover that all mole salamanders party in their burrows. It sound very ridiculous to me. But do salamander play in some way that we just didn't know? Maybe their hunting of food is a play. Maybe a bite at another animal is a play. Maybe going out to take a walk around the pond is a play. What do you think?

I´m hugely skeptical about this. While play is an integral part of the lives of many creatures (the majority of mammals for starters), i personally think the hability to play is intrinsically linked to one factor: social life.
Play is a way of "practising life" and learning new skills. It´s obvious why a young gorilla should play. The very same for dolphins, rats, even some birds. But what would be the point for a creature like a salamander?
It has absolutely no social life, reduced parental care in the best cases, and a very primitive nervous system. I can see no reason why it should play.

The problem i have with the concept i think it is that it would seem that people generalize the behaviour. If one animal can, then why shouldn´t the rest? So we look for behaviours that we can interprete as playing. However those behaviours may be something completely unrelated like perhaps simple exploring of a new object.
To me, playing is an acquired hability specific of those creatures that benefit from it and it requires a set of conditions that can only be achieved in a social group (one of the main ones being the security the group offers). It´s not something that all animals have in different degrees.

Well that is my personal view anyway, hehe.

I didn´t even read the paper, cause my opinion is integraly the same as azhael's. I think he is absolutly sure in everything so caudates are really those beings that live alone in crevices and dark humid borrows and only care about finding prey once a week and mate once a year. Besides that, 90% of their live is alone, in the dark.

I observed my axolotls taking turns swimming into the bubble column of the air stone, rising to the top, and then madly swimming around the tank to do it again, one after another. I honestly think this was some sort of 'play'. They would line up for it!

Well, if you believe what you read in children's books, they have wild parties under the moon at night!

And they even can try to take over the world!!!

It reminds me of the funny book by Karel Capek (see Karel) who published a satire in 1936 called "War with the newts", which actually deals with giant salamanders taking over the world. So, playing is just a minor thing they are up to!

I loved that book! I reviewed it here.

Kaysie said:

I observed my axolotls taking turns swimming into the bubble column of the air stone, rising to the top, and then madly swimming around the tank to do it again, one after another. I honestly think this was some sort of 'play'. They would line up for it!

Click to expand...

Axolotls are extremely social actually, and a lot of owners claim to have one and the little thing never moves much and barely eats and they get another, a playmate, and they both perk up and play with the air stones, bubblers, I've even heard a story of one guy who used some colored rings meant for parrots that he put in there and the axolotls swim through it and play with it.
I think it depends on the type of salamander. Some caudates are recluses and rarely ever meet others, like mole salamanders or firebellies, whereas some get lonely without others, like axies.

I wouldn't call axolotls social, exactly. In the wild, they don't naturally form herds, or seek out each other for companionship. They will look for others for mating, but they would just as easily eat their own offspring as they would anything else of suitable size and consistancy. I do, however, think that all animals need enrichment in their lives. Living in a glass box has to be boring, no matter what species. By providing activities and obstacles, their lives are more similar to the ones they would experience in the wild, minus the predators.

As for mine riding the 'bubble coaster', I don't believe they did it for the sake of playing in it, but did it because it felt good physically. I take this for 'play', as being a mammal, I would do the same thing and call it playing. As for the axolotl in the rings, it probably isn't swimming through the rings because the rings are fun, but sees the rings as an obstacle or maybe a portal to another area in which there might be food. The owner could possibly conditionally reinforce this activity with food, since he finds it amusing to watch, and therefore feeds the axolotl more when it does such an activity.

I am glad that everyone enjoyed discussing about this article and the blizzard idea it introduced.

The scientist in the article (Burghardt) published an article in 1996, which appears to be the source of the story. The paper "Problem of reptile play: Environmental enrichment and play behavior in a captive Nile Soft-Shelled Turtle, Trionys triunguis" was published in 1996 in Zoo Biology. I skimmed through it after seeing these posts. The idea of reptile "play" is really interesting. It's something that I haven't really considered before because I think of reptiles (and amphibians) as fairly robotic in their actions, actions that have been shaped by millenia of evolution. The important thing to look at is Burghardt's definition of play:
"Play is repeated behavior that is incompletely functional in the context or at the age in which it is performed and is initiated voluntarily when the animal or person is in a relaxed or low-stress setting."

What he mentions in the paper (from Zoo Biology) I would not necessarily consider play, rather I would consider it foraging behavior in an artificial environment. However, I suppose that given Burghardt's definition, it could be play.

Also, I know very little about this topic, especially compared to Burghardt who has made it his life's work and published a book about it.

Either way, it certainly is an interesting idea to ponder. Maybe our pets aren't so robotic after all.

Alex

Hey all,

I recently joined, but I am actually glad that this topic came up. I am one of Dr. Burghardt's former students and may be able to shed a bit of light on this topic (Or at least give my opinion). Yes, I believe that reptiles and amphibians "play". In fact, I give my savannah monitor dog toys to play with. It peaks his interest he seems to really enjoy these toys. Alex, concerning your quote, "because I think of reptiles (and amphibians) as fairly robotic in their actions, actions that have been shaped by millenia of evolution." I disagree with this statement as reptiles especially are not hard wired just to eat, reproduce, and eat some more. I have witnessed several reptilian taxa seem to "play" or at least explore their environment and interact with the objects around them. It basically relates to mental stimulation and animal enrichment. Providing forms of enrichment allows the animals to "play" and I think be much happier. I especially believe this for higher level reptiles such as the more evolved lizards (varanids) as well as crocodilians. Now determining whether amphibians "play" is another story as some seem not to be as curious as others. However numerous amphibians have more social lives and even form complex social groups. These animals probably socialize more than we know or realize. In fact, Atelopus zeteki and other amphibians have social forms of communication such as waving to conspecifics. This indicates that they have a social system and may indicate that they may exhibit other behaviors such as "play", however these are just recently being discovered. Reptilian learning and enrichment (play) really only has been explored in the past 20 or so years and is becoming more important in the zoological realm. I would forecast that amphibian learning and enrichment may become an interesting topic in the future and we may learn much more about the complex interactions that I think we really are unable to detect at the moment. Hope this helps, or at least triggers more discussion

Just a little observation. The behaviour you describe in Atelopus i believe is not a method of social communication but an alternative for vocal calling in an environment full of noise. Therefore it´s intended to atract the opposite sex in the same way as calling, if i´m not mistaken.

I do think that some higher level reptiles may be able to do something akin to play, but i´m skeptical as to wether they can trully play. To me, playing can only happen in the relaxed environment provided by a social group. You can see that the most easily recognizable cases of animals trully and unmistakably playing all happen among the safety of close, protecting social groups (or families). This is a basic requirement the way i see it. That does not mean that other creatures can´t display relaxed behaviours with no aparent purpose, but for me that´s not necessarily playing.

Just a note:

Atelopus does call as well, the waving is just another method of communication. Also, calling and waving are both forms of social communication. It is communicating to other males who is in the area and telling females that he is there and ready to mate.

Well, it´s certainly a form of social communication, but barely a social behaviour. A territorial conduct is actually quite the opposite of the kind of social behaviour i think is essential for individuals to devote time to play.

Actually, come to think of it, puffer fishes are not social as well. But I do have some experience keeping them and have learned for many pet keepers suggestions that puffer fishes need occasional changes in the aquarium setup, so that they treat the tank as a new environment. Without changes, it get bored.

xxianxx said:

In the wild one axolotl would see another as competition for food or a potential threat so may not relish company, however in captivity we remove this competition which may allow a form of axolotl behavior which is not so readily observed in the wild. Could this potential difference be purely situational?, i will give you an example, my boss is a sob in work, he is highly goal orientated, highly demanding(both to himself and others), highly critical and unsympathetic to any error. How ever take out of his work environment and he is like a different guy, witty, jovial and kind. Same guy , different situation.

Click to expand...

Well considering that the poor axolotl is almost extinct in its natural habitat we may never know but I do feel that this idea of an artifical habitat has a huge implication. I feel that we have been breeding essientialy social axolotl, at least in the sense that they would all go their seperate ways after birth in the wild, not stick around with 40 others to be fed till their bellies were full.

Play is a huge concept, that was mentioned in another post and I agree there is a big movement in this theory and defining play, and in the Doctors definition they would have to be in a social group. So I feel it boils down to have we created a captive social caudate over hundreds or thousands of generations that could indeed play? Or are these signals and actions exploring the environment and learning?

Fantastic topic! This is the reason I live!!