Apes lack pockets, not foresight

Mulcahy and Call report that bonobos and orangutans can pick up, transport and store useful tools for later in the day. This is akin to what they call "one of the most formidable human cognitive achievements", future planning. This is unexpected:

Although various animals can plan and execute multiple actions toward a goal, they may achieve this without taking into account future needs, just current ones. Thus, when chimpanzees transport stones to use them to crack open nuts, or New Caledonian crows make hook-shaped tools to fish for insects, they do so in an attempt to satisfy their current hunger state, not some future one.

We humans are indeed cognitively impressive, but also spend much more time in crow-like proximate gratification than in future planning mode. There is a possible sampling problem here: we see the occasional chimp occasionally do something apparently clever (a word which can be an arrogant synonym for "human-like") such as transport stones for nut-cracking and we proceed to rank their intelligence on that basis, forgetting that many billions of humans spend much of their time in similarly unimpressive yet survival-compelled immediacy. The authors acknowledge this in their conclusion (my emphasis):

apes do not store food or objects in their natural habitats because those are generally available throughout the year

and note that this argues against the apparent future planning being just an unlearned activity like nest-building. Interesting paper.
Aside: What, if any, evidence is there that there is such a big gap between humans and the other apes? Well, there's brain size and culture and the wheel and the internet and war and the ability to cut cheese triangles and all that, but the first is poorly correlated and the others are the consequences of whatever the difference is rather than the nature of the difference. Now that tool-use has gone (even limbless dolphins do that!) and Mulcahy and Call have here demolished toolbox-use, language is the favourite. But the gap may not be a gulf. Even if language is a one-off, single measures aren't compelling - imagine elephants who ranked species by nose length and marvelled at their own wondrous probosces while disdaining others' tiny facial equipment. As soon as you break down human cognitive so-called superiority into bits, you find the bits, or bits of the bits, all over the animal kingdom (including some of the bits of language we thought made us special). Measure them objectively and you find that the difference in degree is rarely as impressive as we secretly thought; the trend is for retrenchment and retreat away from the presumption of humans as pinnacles and paragons and an increasing awareness that we are special only by dint of our combination of capabilities.
Lastly: there's a wonderful piece of semi-anthropomorphism in this paper: Mulcahy and Call tabulate the performance of the 10 test animals in the four experiments by name! Dokana did better than Walter; Limbuku was nowhere near as good as Kuno. You only get this in primate studies.