|
|
Thornton Alex, & Lukas Dieter. (2012). Individual variation in cognitive performance: developmental and evolutionary perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 367(1603), 2773–2783.
|
|
|
|
Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Review of Animal Intelligence: An Experimental Study of the Associative Processes in Animals. Psychol. Rev., 5(5), 551–553.
Abstract: Reviews the article “Animal Intelligence: An Experimental Study of the Associative Processes in Animals” by E. L. Thorndike. In this monograph are presented the results of some experiments which the author has been carrying on during two years, and some theories which these results seem to support. The subjects of the experiments were dogs, cats and chicks, and the method was to put them, when hungry, in boxes from which they could escape and so get food by manipulating some simple mechanism (e. g., by pulling down a loop of wire, depressing a lever, turning a button). The author reports on the behavior of the animals. The author's conception of mental evolution is briefly explained, and applications of his results to education, anthropology and theoretical psychology are made. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
|
|
|
|
Tennie, C., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Untrained chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) fail to imitate novel actions. PLoS One, 7.
|
|
|
|
Tebbich Sabine, Griffin Andrea S., Peschl Markus F., & Sterelny Kim. (2016). From mechanisms to function: an integrated framework of animal innovation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 371(1690), 20150195.
Abstract: Animal innovations range from the discovery of novel food types to the invention of completely novel behaviours. Innovations can give access to new opportunities, and thus enable innovating agents to invade and create novel niches. This in turn can pave the way for morphological adaptation and adaptive radiation. The mechanisms that make innovations possible are probably as diverse as the innovations themselves. So too are their evolutionary consequences. Perhaps because of this diversity, we lack a unifying framework that links mechanism to function. We propose a framework for animal innovation that describes the interactions between mechanism, fitness benefit and evolutionary significance, and which suggests an expanded range of experimental approaches. In doing so, we split innovation into factors (components and phases) that can be manipulated systematically, and which can be investigated both experimentally and with correlational studies. We apply this framework to a selection of cases, showing how it helps us ask more precise questions and design more revealing experiments.
|
|
|
|
Taubert, J., Weldon, K. B., & Parr, L. A. (2016). Robust representations of individual faces in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) but not monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Anim. Cogn., , 1–9.
Abstract: Being able to recognize the faces of our friends and family members no matter where we see them represents a substantial challenge for the visual system because the retinal image of a face can be degraded by both changes in the person (age, expression, pose, hairstyle, etc.) and changes in the viewing conditions (direction and degree of illumination). Yet most of us are able to recognize familiar people effortlessly. A popular theory for how face recognition is achieved has argued that the brain stabilizes facial appearance by building average representations that enhance diagnostic features that reliably vary between people while diluting features that vary between instances of the same person. This explains why people find it easier to recognize average images of people, created by averaging multiple images of the same person together, than single instances (i.e. photographs). Although this theory is gathering momentum in the psychological and computer sciences, there is no evidence of whether this mechanism represents a unique specialization for individual recognition in humans. Here we tested two species, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), to determine whether average images of different familiar individuals were easier to discriminate than photographs of familiar individuals. Using a two-alternative forced-choice, match-to-sample procedure, we report a behaviour response profile that suggests chimpanzees encode the faces of conspecifics differently than rhesus monkeys and in a manner similar to humans.
|
|
|
|
Tanoff, G. F., & Barlow, C. B. (2002). Leadership and Followership: Same Animal, Different Spots? Consult Psychol J Pract Res, 54(3), 157–165.
Abstract: This study examined the relationship between the constructs of leadership, as operationalized through the Leadership Personality Survey (LPS; G.J. Curphy, 1998), and followership, as op-era-tion-al-iz-ed by the Power of Followership Survey (PFS; R.E. Kelley, 1992). The LPS is based on the 5-factor model of personality that is widely regarded as the premier model for understanding trait personality dimensions (R.R. McCrae & O.P. John, 1992). The PFS is based on R.E. Kelley's (1992) model of followership styles. Data were collected from 130 students at a military college as part of their involvement in an academic course on leadership. Correlational analyses revealed numerous significant positive relationships between these 2 constructs. Regression modeling provided insight into the relations of personality dimensions and followership. Limitations to this study and implications of these findings as well as future research directions are discussed.
|
|
|
|
Taberlet, P., Waits, L. P., & Luikart, G. (1999). Noninvasive genetic sampling: look before you leap. Trends Ecol. Evol, 14(8), 323–327.
Abstract: Noninvasive sampling allows genetic studies of free-ranging animals without the need to capture or even observe them, and thus allows questions to be addressed that cannot be answered using conventional methods. Initially, this sampling strategy promised to exploit fully the existing DNA-based technology for studies in ethology, conservation biology and population genetics. However, recent work now indicates the need for a more cautious approach, which includes quantifying the genotyping error rate. Despite this, many of the difficulties of noninvasive sampling will probably be overcome with improved methodology.
|
|
|
|
Szabó, L., Heltai, M., Szucs, E., Lanszki, J., & Lehoczki, R. (2009). Expansion range of the golden jackal in Hungary between 1997 and 2006. Mammalia, 73.
|
|
|
|
Suter, S. M., Giordano, M., Nietlispach, S., Apollonio, M., & Passilongo, D. (2016). Non-invasive acoustic detection of wolves. Bioacoustics, .
Abstract: Monitoring wolves (Canis lupus) is a difficult and often expensive task due to high mobility,pack dynamic, shyness and nocturnal activity of this species. Wolves communicate acoustically trough howling, within pack and with packs of the neighbourhood. A wolf howl is a low frequency vocalization that can be transmitted over long distances and thus be used
for monitoring tasks. Animated howling survey is a current method to monitor wolves indifferent areas all over the world. Animated howling, however, may be invasive to residential wolf packs and could create possible negative reactions from local human population. Here we show that it is possible to detect wolves by recording spontaneous howling events. We measured the sound pressure level of wolf howls on captive individuals and we further found that simulated howling may be recorded and clearly identified up to a distance of 3 km. We finally conducted non-invasive acoustic detection of wolves in a free ranging population. The use of passive sound recorders may provide a powerful non-invasive tool for future wolf monitoring and thus help to established sustainable management plans for this species.
|
|
|
|
Sueur, J., Aubin, T., & Simonis, C. (2008). Seewave: a free modular tool for sound analysis and synthesis. Bioacoustics, 18.
|
|
