Reptile Activity 
197 
the environment (curiosity, exploration), 
occur without extrinsic reward (Kavanau, 
1967; Neuringer, 1969). 
Intelligence is not a useful concept in dis- 
cussing such behavior. Sitting and waiting 
may be an “intelligent” foraging strategy 
for most lizards, considering their limita- 
tions, yet the behavior should not be credited 
to “brain power.” Spontaneous exploration 
may, however, be a prerequisite for the ac- 
quisition of large amounts of complex data 
and the development of information-retrieval 
strategies and hence provide the basis for 
higher order decisions, associations, and 
responses. 
A question that emerges from this discus- 
sion: Will some degree of curiosity and ex- 
ploration be found among the intensive- 
foraging lizards? 
Frequent tongue flicking and apparent 
visual scanning accompanied the high rates 
of movement in recently fed Ameiva (Fig. 
1). [Chisar et al., 1976, regarded tongue 
flicking as a valid index of investigatory be- 
havior.]. In additional tests, Ameiva fre- 
quently approached, “explored,” and often 
entered small 3 x 5 cm canisters placed in 
the open fleld. Even the most active individ- 
uals of Leiocephalns ignored the canisters. 
While it appeared that recently fed Ameiva 
were purposefully exploring the open fleld, I 
regard the study as preliminary. Tests con- 
trolling for alternative possibilities are in- 
dicated. 
Searching, Stalking and Capture Strategies 
We would predict that a sophisticated ac- 
tive forager will not simply move about. It 
will adopt different behaviors for different 
sorts of prey living in different microhabits 
within its range. 
So doing would require not only an en- 
larged memory, but the ability to make asso- 
ciations between the sights, sounds, or smells 
of particular species, as well as their micro- 
habits and occurrence in time; and beyond 
this, associations between particular species 
and one's own motor patterns that will opti- 
mize the chances of securing particular types 
of foods. 
The concept of the search image (Croze, 
1970; Murton, 1971; Krebs, 1973; Mueller, 
1975) is useful here, but it is incomplete to 
think simply of “learning to see” certain 
prey items against a complex configurational 
background. Our idealized active forager will 
form a search strategy as well as a search 
image and we may expect a variety of search 
images and strategies. 
On this basis, one would expect euch 
“mammalian” behaviors to be at least par- 
tially developed among some of the intensive- 
forager lizards. Auffenberg’s detailed report 
of the Komodo dragon’s predatory behaviors 
is of considerable interest in this connection. 
Cooperation 
There may be advantages for active forag- 
ers to cooperate in feeding and also in cul- 
tural transmission between and within 
generations (“transfer of search images,” 
Turner, 1964; Davis, 1973, for a recent re- 
view), particularly where the prey is rare 
or patchy in distribution, has evolved effec- 
tive concealment or escape mechanisms, or is 
large and dangerous. 
By contrast, more passive reptilian feed- 
ing strategies largely demand only the tolera- 
tion of other individuals. “Companions” are 
relatively unimportant to sit-and-wait 
foragers. Greenberg (1976) describes social 
feeding in two species of iguanids in the 
laboratory. However, this may be social facil- 
itation rather than advanced cooperation. 
Among the intensive-foraging teiids and 
varanids, rare instances of group foraging 
have been noted in Cnemidophorus inornatus 
and C. tessellatus (Milstead, 1961). Auffen- 
berg (this volume) has also noted gregarious 
foraging in young Komodo dragons, and 
Cott (1961) summaries the evidence for co- 
operation between pairs of Varanus niloticus. 
One varanid will draw a female crocodile 
away from its nest while another excavates 
the eggs. The first then returns to join in 
eating the eggs. 
