We argue that the operational definition proposed by Ramsey et al. does not represent a significant improvement for students of innovation, because it is so restrictive that it might actually prevent the testing of hypotheses on the relationships between innovation, ecology, evolution, culture, and intelligence. To avoid tautological thinking, we need to use an operational definition that is taxonomically unbiased and neutral with respect to the hypotheses to be tested.

Ramsey et al. attempt to clarify methodological issues for identifying innovative behaviour. Their effort is seriously weakened by an underlying presumption that the behavior of primates is generally learned and that of non-primates is generally “innate.” This presumption is based on a poor grasp of the non-primate literature and a flawed understanding of how learned behaviour is genetically assimilated.

We agree with Ramsey et al. regarding the need for new methods and concepts in the study of innovation, and welcome their initiative, but are concerned that their operationalization is over-reliant on subjective judgements.

For the authors of the target article, innovations are underdetermined by environmental inducement – but are still adopted in the future. For a productive technology to be adopted, the technology must also be efficient. To be efficient, it must be determined by constraints or environmental inducements. However, this contradicts the authors' notion of “underdetermination.” To make matters clear, we need to distinguish between two kinds of determination: the “source” of the innovation as opposed to “inducement” that makes the organism adopt it in the future.

An important form of innovation involves use of the voice in a new way, usually to solve some environmental problem. Vocal innovation occurs in humans and other animals, including chimpanzees. The framework outlined in the target article, appropriately modified, may permit new perspectives on the use of others as tools, especially by infants, and the evolution of speech and language.

Much of the importance of innovation stems from its capacity to spread via social learning, affecting multiple individuals, thus generating evolutionary and ecological consequences. We advocate a broader taxonomic focus in the field of behavioral innovation, as well as the use of comparative field research, and discuss the unique conservation implications of animal innovations and traditions.

Much attention has been paid to innovative foraging methods, but little to innovative sexual displays. Innovations may be common in behavioural display, such as song or object use, and could occur in both male display form and female preferences. Similar evidence exists for innovation in display as in foraging methods, but in smaller quantities. Ramsey et al.'s methodology permits rigorous data collection in this field.

Great promise for the evolutionary analysis of animal behavior lies in the distinction between generative novelties and the evolutionary innovations to which they can give rise. Ramsey et al. succeed in emphasizing the contribution of individual learning and intelligence to behavioral innovations, but do not correct the tendency to confound individual invention with socio-ecological or group-level innovation.

According to Ramsey and colleagues the main constituent psychological processes of innovation are response to novelty, exploration, and the ability to recognize a novel solution. I fully support this view but point out that novelty reactions are often context-specific. I will expand on this and discuss the possible consequences of context-specific novelty reactions on the emergence of innovations.

Behavioral innovations induced by the social or physical environment are likely to be of great functional and evolutionary importance, and thus warrant serious attention. Innovation provides a process by which animals can adjust to changed environments. Despite this apparent adaptive advantage, it is not known whether innovative propensities are adaptive specializations. Furthermore, the varied psychological processes underlying innovation remain poorly understood.

Research on animal innovation is an underdeveloped field, and for this reason we welcome the efforts Ramsey and colleagues have made to stimulate its study in wild populations. However, we feel that in attempting to find an operational definition the authors have overstretched the idea of what we should consider innovation in some areas and over-restricted it in others.

Our concern is with Ramsey et al.'s method for identifying innovation. We show that either it yields false positives or the authors offer insufficient guidance for its application. To avoid these results, the authors need to modify the key or offer better guidelines for delineating input. Either choice requires addressing the processes that generate a behavior.

Although the authors' ingenuity in identifying criteria for innovation for field studies is appealing, most field studies will lack adequate data. Additionally, their definition does not clearly distinguish innovation from individual learning and is vague about cognitive mechanisms involved. We suggest that developmental data are essential to identifying the causes and consequences of learning new behaviors.

We contend that Ramsey et al.'s definition of animal innovation sensu process may be partially misleading when investigating mechanisms underlying animal innovation. By excluding social learning from the “process” of innovation, they may be reproducing a dichotomous schema that does not accurately correspond to our knowledge of the acquisition of novel behavioral variants. This gives us some reason to doubt the functional specification of the defined process of innovation.

The commentaries have both drawn out the implications of, and challenged, our definition and operationalization of innovation. In this response, we reply to these concerns, discuss the differences between our operationalization and the preexisting operationalization if innovation, and make suggestions for the advancement of the challenging and exciting field of animal innovation.