Animal Behavior

Over on my H-animal List Serv, an academic List-Serv for those with an interest in animal studies, there is an ongoing debate about the definition of a "non-human." Something along the lines of "is a non-human an animal and is an animal a non-human?" The general idea is to try and define what we call those who have fur, tails and four feet in terms that do not apply to those who have skin and two feet. You get the picture. It is complicated.

Well it turns out that the behavior of those we call animals is equally as elusive. An article in the New York Times details Daniel Levitis' quest to define "animal behavior" for a course, by the same name, in which he was serving as a teaching assistant. To his surprise, he discovered that there is no universal definition of the term nor do biologists agree with each other on what a behavior actually is.

To come up with a definition, Levitis and his team came up with a survey in which they list 13 "potentially diagnostic" definitions about behavior and 20 instances of natural phenomenon. Respondents could agree or disagree with each statement, some of which contradicted each other.

They're tricky. Things like the statement: "Behaviors are always actions," which contradicts the "inaction" of an animal because of the weather (think hibernation for example) and pinpoint just how difficult it is to determine whether what animals do is a behavior. "We didn't have complete consensus for any item on the survey," said Mr. Levitis.

Nonetheless, the researchers came up with a definition of the term. "As they pitch it, a behavior is the internally coordinated response that an individual or a group makes to a stimulus. The response can be an action or lack of action. The stimulus can come from inside or out."

All of which leaves lots of room for interpretation and may or may not put an end to the discussion. Which may be the point. If you think about a definition and come up with one, that may be a behavior. But so is the fact that you think about it and don't.