Rank the Inteligence (IQ) of Groups of Zoo Animals from What You Have Seen

I have asking myself, whether a tiger looking at you standing in front of his enclosure in a zoo, knows that if there was no a fence, he will have a chance to attack you or ''play'' with you? Or in other words, thinks in advance that ''you are lucky because the fence protects you from me attacking you''.

From what I have read, and seen in several zoos, I would rank according to intelligence, the next groups of zoo animals:
(Most intelligent >> to less intelligent in general):

-Apes
-Cockatoos, African gray parrot
-Cebids (New World monkeys)
-Old world monkeys and gibbons
-Elephants
-Crows
-California sea lion or sea mammals in general
-Amazon parrots
-Hornbills
-Macaws, toucans
-Foxes, jackal, small carnivorous mammals, lemurs
-Spotted hyena
-Leopards


What would be most intelligent reptiles, will you agree that:
-Komodo dragons,
-Crocodiles, and,
-King cobra, black mamba & coastal (and Papuan) taipan - are one of the most intelligent reptiles?


I have also realised that marsupials are one of the least intelligent mammals, and not able to form a human-animal bond like that that can be formed between most mammals and humans. Koalas have exceptionally small brain floating in large amount of cerebrospinal fluid - a possible adaptation via cushioning from eventual drop from the trees.

 

Forming a bond with humans isn't a very good indicator of intelligence, one suspects.

I'd be curious to know how you have distinguished the intellects of cockatoos from those of macaws, and perhaps spotted hyenas from leopards?

 

As can be seen by the many humans who somewhat successfully bond with other humans

 

/Hix bites his tongue so hard it bleeds

 

They're quite sharp for New Zealanders, I suppose.

 

You cannot rank intelligence in any meaningful way since there are of course different types of intelligence. Rather than looking at it in a linear way it is like the brances of a bush. A cetacean has a different take on the world to a primate. How can you compare an octopus with a cockatoo?

Nevertheless intelligence is an interesting concept that intuitively all understand. There are a range of life history characters that correlate with intelligence such as altricial young, long developmental periods, long life-span, social, well developed cerebral hemispheres, complex vocalisations and well developed play in juveniles.

The groups that tick all the boxes and are the very brightest are cetaceans, larger primates, larger parrots, crows, elephants.

Among parrots cockatoos and keas are really exceedingly intelligent and among the crows it is the ravens.

At the bottom of the heap, there are a range of species that are not well endowed with brainpower and among birds these are ratites, megap[odes and gamebirds.

A great thread, lets have some more views..

 

Well, what does that say about Kiwis who move here for work, then?

 

Of course that we can not objectively compare intelligence between different taxa, but we can try in a generalised way. The list is just my generalised view.
In respect to several questions addressed to me:
@CGSwans : Once I read that cockatoos, and particularly blue-eyed cockatoos are those parrots wich can form deepest connection to humans, beeing kept as pets. I do not realy compare leopards and spotted hyenna, I am just mentioning them as such because they looks such in my eyes (and in comparison to other cats), wich doesn't mean it is accurate. I am just supposing.
@Chlidonias: answer in respect to leopards, and parrots above; I have read that cebids have greatest intellect capabilities from monkeys, and comparable to those in apes. I don't wrote that marsupials CAN'T form bond with humans, but they can't form a bond like that for example between dog and human (or most mammals) - I have read this.

Once again this is for debating, it doesn't mean it is accurate, It is just my point of view how I percieved animals (in regard to intelligence or intellect capabilities, including interaction with humans), and from what I have read.

@Hix: Why you are bitting your tongue?

 

Additionally, different species of parrots tend to form a pair-bond with each other when nothing else is available, as do a lot of bird species.

For Nikola, it is very hard to put "intellegence" into perspective. For example, it was assumed that kittiwakes were 'dumb' in comparison to other gulls, as they aren't able to tell the difference between their own young and their neighbour's young. But kittiwakes nest on cliffs, and therefore naturally don't need to, while gulls nesting on beaches do need it. The evolutionary principle of "use it or lose it" also works on cognitive properties.

Humans tend to measure animal intellegence by comparing their cognitive properties to humans, using human methods. Of course animals that are a lot alike us score higher. I suggest reading the newest book from Frans de Waal.

 

Top: great apes, capuchins, corvids, parrots, elephants, true dolphins, the aye aye. Runners up: other higher primates, spotted hyenas, other toothed cetaceans, woodpeckers, owls.

Owls actually are predicted wise for unknown reasons - their telencephalon is expanded. Social animals are smarter than their solitary ancestors (exception - tigers are smarter than lions based on brain size and structure) and resource extactors such as woodpeckers and the aye aye are also smart.

 

Though that might depend on the level of imprinting it has received i.e. captive-bred/handraised versus wildcaught. Most wildcaught parrots e.g. African Greys remain nervous and unhandlable, and never bond with human owners- a very unsatisfactory situation for both parrot and owner.

 

I am not sure; Wild ancestors of domestic animals (like wolfs for dogs) have bigger brain than their equivalent domestic animals because they are in constant struggle to survive.

 

Human brain size has also decreased since the Holocene (same reason).

 

That being Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are, I'm assuming? I bought it a couple of months ago; definitely a good book for anyone who's interested.