Thanks for visiting! TONMO is the world's greatest online cephalopod enthusiast community, with interactive content going back to May of 2000, and a biennial conference. If you'd like to join in on the fun, become a TONMO member -- it's easy and free. You can follow us on Facebook and Twitter for more cephy goodness.
Kinda like orangatangs and humans! Put them in a wrestling ring during a cage match and say bye bye human! But give em' both a book and the orangatang (scuze my terrible spelling) wont know what to do! LOL! Actually that had amlost no relevence to what we were just discussing.....
Nonhuman intelligence is difficult to gauge. The study of animal behavior only paints a limited picture of what an animal is thinking or experiencing. Most of the time, you have to look at the development of the brain and ganglia to get an idea of what the brain may be capable.
No offense intended, but I'm not sure why you lumped monogamous mating in with intelligence. While is very uncommon in invertebrates, its not that common in vertebrates either. If you think about it, its not even a good idea from a reproductive point of view.
Second of all, I would have to disagree wholeheartedly. Don't get me wrong; stomatopods have a massive pedal ganglion, and the ganglial development shown in the eyes and antennae are pretty impressive (I've just spent the better part of the day looking at slides of porcelain crab and Pandalus cross sections), but the brain structure of octopuses shows a great deal more development.
For example, octos have larger cranial nerves, and bundles of ganglia which form a three lobed brain. I don't know how much MRI information has been done on octos, but, there is evidence of brain activity including problem solving, individual recognition, and massive amounts of sensory processing. Also, the sheer amount of neurons and fine motor control you see in the cephalopod requires a lot of brain power. Inteligence is generally the by-product of this type of cranial development.
"equal to octos ion an octo board"
Speculating on intelligence is like tilting at windmills...all you can compare them to is your own intelligence (human) which is subjective at best...Mantis shrimps are smart enough to be successful, as are cephs...perhaps much smarter than Homo sapiens...
Fujisawas Sake (sorry, I forgot to answer. ): On several points you make I whole-heartedly agree. It is true that octopuses (and most any cephalopod's) cerebral ganglia are far more developed. And yes, monogamous mating does not DIRECTLY tie into intelligence(more on that later), and you are right-on-the-money when it comes to difficulty of defining animal intelligence (I DID say "it depends"). On others, however, I must make a point. You mentioned massive amounts of sensory processing(for example). Stomatopods have easily as much sensory data to process as cephalopods, as their eyes and other senses detect far more than even humans can (as if that's hard for the animal kingdom ). Stomatopods eyes(for example) are constantly taking in data from their surroundings, and with their eyes viewing capabilities (i.e. infrared, polarized, ultraviolet, etc.), that is an immense amount of data. Not only that, but they control their antennal scales "special function": polarized signalling. Also, instead of killing each other (like an octo would), mantises have highly developed ritualistic behaviors to reduce encounters that "come to blows" at all. The monogamous mating raises the likelyhood of the young surviving (dad gets food and mom stays with the kids), and creates a necessaty(sp?) for individual recognition, as well as other things.
Look, I could rant and rave on and on, but it's pointless to do so. I believe Octomush has gotten his answer, and I don't wish to highjack this thread. Continuing to rant will just get more people dissagreeing with me. I have gotten my point in, which is enough for me. This isn't from just one book, so I can't really tell you that, BTW.
Actually, it has nothing to do with being on an octopus board. My opinion is formed soley through observation of the animal, its histology and anatomy, and taking a helluva lot of biology classes.
Also, as far as intelligence is concerned, its not simply a matter of comparison to humans, even thought that has been the approach taken since time out of mind. Success on the evolutionary scale mostly has to do with adaptability instead of intellect. The reason we have been so successful in the short term is that we are generalists and it can also be attributed to our ability to change the environment to suit ourselves. Conservation and ethical issues aside, this has made us stand out among all dominant species ever to inhabit the planet.
I guess I take the subject of animal intelligence seriously, mostly because the brain, human or otherwise, is one of the most remarkable structures in all of biology. If you think about it, intelligence is probably more an evolutionary addition to having a more complex neurology. I personally like to view intelligence as the sum total of neural activity added to the ability to adapt to situations utilizing behavioral changes with speed and efficiency.
I see your points... Oh, and on the web mechanics, for some reason your last post must have come out almost at exactly the same times that I posted the last message(above)... Sorry about that. I would love to know where this information could be found (espececially since Stomatos are WAAAAY interesting). And here's a funny thing; I lost track of who started this thread, so when I asked you about where you read this, I meant that question for Octomush... Sorry about that. Lots of great answers, though.
Oh, and feel free to rant and rave. I think we all do.