|
|
Beaver, B. V. (1981). Problems & values associated with dominance. Vet Med Small Anim Clin, 76(8), 1129–1131.
|
|
|
|
Beecher, M. D., Burt, J. M., O'Loghlen, A. L., Templeton, C. N., & Campbell, S. E. (2007). Bird song learning in an eavesdropping context. Anim. Behav., 73(6), 929–935.
Abstract: Bird song learning is a major model system for the study of learning with many parallels to human language development. In this experiment we examined a critical but poorly understood aspect of song learning: its social context. We compared how much young song sparrows, Melospiza melodia, learned from two kinds of adult `song tutors': one with whom the subject interacted vocally, and one whom the subject only overheard singing with another young bird. We found that although subjects learned from both song models, they learned more than twice as many songs from the overheard tutor. These results provide the first evidence that young birds choose their songs by eavesdropping on interactions, and in some cases may learn more by eavesdropping than by direct interaction.
|
|
|
|
Beerwerth, W., & Schurmann, J. (1969). [Contribution to the ecology of mycobacteria]. Zentralbl Bakteriol [Orig], 211(1), 58–69.
|
|
|
|
Begall, S., Malkemper, E. P., Cervený, J., Nemec, P., & Burda, H. (2013). Magnetic alignment in mammals and other animals. Mamm. Biol., 78(1), 10–20.
Abstract: Magnetic alignment (MA) constitutes the simplest directional response to the geomagnetic field. In contrast to magnetic compass orientation, MA is not goal directed and represents a spontaneous, fixed directional response. Because animals tend to align their bodies along or perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, MA typically leads to bimodal or quadrimodal orientation, although there is also growing evidence for a fixed unimodal orientation not necessarily coinciding with the magnetic cardinal directions. MA has been demonstrated in diverse animals including insects, amphibians, fish, and mammals. Alignment can be expressed by animals during resting as well as on the move (e.g. while grazing, hunting, feeding, etc.). Here, we briefly survey characteristic features and classical examples of MA and review the current knowledge about the occurrence of MA in mammals. In addition, we summarize what is known about mechanisms underlying MA and discuss its prospective biological functions. Finally, we highlight some physiological effects of alignment along the magnetic field axes reported in humans. We argue that the phenomenon of MA adds a new paradigm that can be exploited for investigation of magnetoreception in mammals.
|
|
|
|
Bell, F. R. (1972). Sleep in the larger domesticated animals. Proc R Soc Med, 65(2), 176–177.
|
|
|
|
Benard, J., Stach, S., & Giurfa, M. (2006). Categorization of visual stimuli in the honeybee Apis mellifera. Anim. Cogn., 9(4), 257–270.
Abstract: Categorization refers to the classification of perceptual input into defined functional groups. We present and discuss evidence suggesting that stimulus categorization can also be found in an invertebrate, the honeybee Apis mellifera, thus underlining the generality across species of this cognitive process. Honeybees show positive transfer of appropriate responding from a trained to a novel set of visual stimuli. Such a transfer was demonstrated for specific isolated features such as symmetry or orientation, but also for assemblies (layouts) of features. Although transfer from training to novel stimuli can be achieved by stimulus generalization of the training stimuli, most of these transfer tests involved clearly distinguishable stimuli for which generalization would be reduced. Though in most cases specific experimental controls such as stimulus balance and discriminability are still required, it seems appropriate to characterize the performance of honeybees as reflecting categorization. Further experiments should address the issue of which categorization theory accounts better for the visual performances of honeybees.
|
|
|
|
Bentley-Condit, V., & Smith, E. O. (2010). Animal tool use: current definitions and an updated comprehensive catalog. Behaviour, 147(2), 185–32.
Abstract: Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study.
|
|
|
|
Bergstrom, C. T., & Lachmann, M. (1998). Signaling among relatives. III. Talk is cheap. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 95(9), 5100–5105.
Abstract: The Sir Philip Sidney game has been used by numerous authors to show how signal cost can facilitate honest signaling among relatives. Here, we demonstrate that, in this game, honest cost-free signals are possible as well, under very general conditions. Moreover, these cost-free signals are better for all participants than the previously explored alternatives. Recent empirical evidence suggests that begging is energetically inexpensive for nestling birds; this finding led some researchers to question the applicability of the costly signaling framework to nestling begging. Our results show that cost-free or inexpensive signals, as observed empirically, fall within the framework of signaling theory.
|
|
|
|
Bertram, D. S. (1971). Mosquitoes of British Honduras, with some comments on malaria, and on arbovirus antibodies in man and equines. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg, 65(6), 742–762.
|
|
|
|
Beveridge, W. I. (1993). Unravelling the ecology of influenza A virus. Hist Philos Life Sci, 15(1), 23–32.
Abstract: For 20 years after the influenza A virus was discovered in the early 1930s, it was believed to be almost exclusively a human virus. But in the 1950s closely related viruses were discovered in diseases of horses, pigs and birds. Subsequently influenza A viruses were found to occur frequently in many species of birds, particularly ducks, usually without causing disease. Researchers showed that human and animal strains can hybridise thus producing new strains. Such hybrids may be the cause of pandemics in man. Most pandemics have started in China or eastern Russia where many people are in intimate association with animals. This situation provides a breeding ground for new strains of influenza A virus.
|
|
