 Alternatively, however, one could take these remarks to be a description of the HBEs primary method rather than the nature of their hypotheses, and that their hypotheses are (as the above quote also suggests) similar to those of non-human behavioral ecology. This is consistent with other theoretical discussions of HBE work including some by the same authors—see for example, Irons (1998), Smith (2000), Winterhalder and Smith (1992). On this interpretation, the purpose of Kaplan and Hill’s work is to test the hypothesis that humans have a behavioral adaptation for prey choice, of which the Ache’s prey choice strategy is only a local manifestation. Showing that the Ache’s behavior is highly adaptive is supposed to be a local test of the hypothesis: the Ache are a group that have to engage in prey choice and hence it is possible to test for a human behavioral adaptation in this context. By confirming this hypothesis, Kaplan and Hill can then achieve two further goals: they can determine which conditions led to the evolution of the larger prey choice strategy and, by confirming a functional description of that strategy, they can determine what causes the Ache (specifically) to choose the prey they do in their local environment.