Data from: Reader, S. M., Hager, Y. & Laland, K. N. 2011. The evolution of primate general and cultural intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 1017-1027. FILENAME: ESM_ReaderHagerLalandPhilTrans2011_rstb20100342supp1.pdf Filetype: PDF. Description: Electronic Supplementary Material (ESM) accompanying the paper. FILENAME: Data_ReaderHagerLalandPhilTrans2011.csv Filetype: csv, comma-separated values. Description: Primate behavioural flexibility dataset. Columns in the file are as follows: 1. Species: Species of primate. The ESM details the species names and alternative names used to identify species and in the surveys of research effort. 2. Genus: Genus of primate. 3. SpeciesPurvis: Species named according to Purvis (1995). 4. GenusPurvis: Genus named according to Purvis (1995). 5. Taxon: Species categorised as simian, prosimian, or tarsier. 6. Great ape: Species categorised as great apes or not. (Used for sensitivity analysis). 7. Innovation: Number of examples of behavioural innovation found during the literature survey. 8. Tool use: Number of examples of tool use found during the literature survey. 9. Extractive foraging: Number of examples of extractive foraging found during the literature survey. 10. Social learning: number of examples of social learning found during the literature survey. 11. Innovation (Reduced): Number of examples of behavioural innovation found during the literature survey, after cases that simultaneously qualified as tool use, extractive foraging or tactical deception were removed. This data reduction was conducted to avoid the possibility of an inflated correlation between variables. The 'reduced' data were used for all but one analysis in the 2011 article (namely analysis 5 in section 5a of ESM). Note that the choice between the reduced and 'raw' (unreduced) data will depend on what analysis is planned. 12. Tool use (Reduced): Number of examples of tool use found from the literature survey, after cases that simultaneously qualified as innovation, extractive foraging or tactical deception were removed. 13. Extractive foraging (Reduced): Number of examples of extractive foraging found from the literature survey, after cases that simultaneously qualified as innovation, tool use or tactical deception were removed. 14. Journal Search Article Count: The total number of reports on each species found during the search of back issues of journals, regardless of whether those reports contained an example of a behaviour of interest or not. 15. Zoological Record Article Count: The intensity of behavioural research on each species was assessed by surveying the number of published articles per species in the Zoological Record, between years 1993-2001. The measure was used to account for differences between species in research effort. A search was conducted for each species using the alternative names as described in the ESM. Data were also collated on species without behavioural data to allow genus-level estimates of research effort to me made. This measure is an expanded version of the research effort estimate described in Reader & MacDonald (2003). Columns 16-19 contain data utilized in Reader & Laland (2002). The 2002 dataset is superseded by the 2011 dataset. 16. Journal reports (2002 dataset): The total number of reports on each species found during the search of back issues of journals, regardless of whether those reports contained an example of a behaviour of interest or not. Used to estimate research effort for analyses in Reader & Laland (2002). 17. Innovation (2002 dataset): Number of examples of innovation found during the 2002 literature survey. 18. Social learning (2002 dataset): Number of examples of social learning found during the 2002 literature survey. 19. Tool use (2002 dataset): Number of examples of tool use found during the 2002 literature survey. NOTES: Please see the article and its Electronic Supplementary Material (ESM), and the references therein, for additional details on data collection, definitions of behavioural categories, methodology, examples, and discussion of potential reporting biases. Reader & MacDonald (2003) provides an extended discussion of the approach taken and includes an appendix of brain volumes. Cells with no data are left blank. Social learning, innovation and tool use data were collated by Reader for the Reader & Laland (2002) dataset, with additional data added by Hager to form the Reader et al. (2011) dataset. Extractive foraging data were collected by Hager. Research effort data were collated by Reader. Contact Simon Reader (simon.reader@mcgill.ca) for questions. REFERENCES: Purvis, A. 1995. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 348, 405-421. Purvis, A. & Rambaut, A. 1995. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data. Computer Applications in the Biosciences, 11, 247-251. Purvis, A. & Webster, A. J. 1999. Phylogentically independent comparisons and primate phylogeny. In: Comparative Primate Socioecology (Ed. by Lee, P. C.), pp. 44-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reader, S. M., Hager, Y. & Laland, K. N. 2011. The evolution of primate general and cultural intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 1017-1027. Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. 2002. Social intelligence, innovation and enhanced brain size in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 99, 4436-4441. Reader, S. M. & MacDonald, K. 2003. Environmental variability and primate behavioural flexibility. In: Animal Innovation (Ed. by Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N.), pp. 83-116. Oxford: Oxford University Press. This file was last updated 08-11-2012.