There are two other aspects of curiosity that should be discussed: reactions to novelty, and the effect of the environment on behavior. Both will confuse the observer and make it very hard to determine the exact type of behavior being observed. Well-researched publications on polecat reactions to novelty are scarce, so I have been forced to contact researchers directly via email for answers to some of my questions. The consensus of the responding polecat experts is that the reactions of wild-bred polecats are similar to those of other mustelids and generally the same as any carnivore. Reactions appear to differ in intensity in some areas of behavior, but the basic carnivore pattern is generally followed. What this means is that polecats generally take one of three approaches to novel items in a known environment: they can ignore it, they can aggressively investigate it, or they can cautiously investigate it. This begs the question, "Are ANY of the three reactions properly termed 'curiosity'?" Ignoring a novel item MAY be a reactive response, and not indicative of the polecat's natural degree of curiosity at all. Aggressive investigation may appear to show the polecat is extremely curious, but MAY also be nothing more than a reactive reaction as well. A cautious investigation may be interpreted to indicate fearfulness and a lack of curiosity, but it may also be a reactive response, and not a correct gage of the polecat's overall curiosity. Complicating the entire mess is that both ferrets and polecats will preferentially investigate complexity over novelty, so you have to consider the effects of the immediate environment on the observation. Clearly, the investigation of novel items in an environment can be used to determine the reactive responses of a ferret or a polecat, but applying those observations to the determination of curiosity is extremely difficult. This is why my definition of curiosity is so specific, and why I emphasized it so frequently. In the studies made of polecats, polecat-ferret hybrids, and ferrets, side-by-side comparisons indicate ferrets show overall less fearfulness, more investigative behaviors (sniffing, playing with, rolling over, manipulating, chewing, carrying, etc.) than either polecats or polecat-ferret hybrids. Individuals may argue my definition of curiosity is subject to review, but it is based on published and accepted definitions. For example: "Curiosity implies a voluntary form of exploratory behaviour, and the term is NOT USED FOR REFLEXIVE FORMS OF EXPLORATION." (McFarland 1981 The Oxford Companion to Animal Behaviour). "[Exploratory behavior] is the behavior of curiosity. It allows an animal to explore a novel situation, location, or object even though there is NO SPECIFIC NEED TO DO SO." (Beaver 1994 The Veterinarian's Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior). "Curisoity behavior; exploration. Search for and active investigation of novel situations IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESSING NEED." (Immelmann and Beer 1989 A Dictionary of Ethology). Reactive responses indicate immediate need. Was that sound or object a predator? Was it food? Exploratory responses in these situations are ultimately designed to preserve the life of the animal, and are not considered "curiosity." Curiosity implies conscious intent, the simple desire to investigate something within the environment that is unknown to the investigator, despite no pressing need to do so. In the past, such implications were alarming to animal behaviorists because it implied animal consciousness. With the introduction of Darwinian principles into ethology (the study of animal behavior), such objections are increasingly being discounted (as they should). Bob C [Posted in FML issue 4307]