Sapolsky, R. M., Romero, L. M., & Munck, A. U. (2000). How Do Glucocorticoids Influence Stress Responses? Integrating Permissive, Suppressive, Stimulatory, and Preparative Actions. Endocr Rev, 21(1), 55–89.
Abstract: The secretion of glucocorticoids (GCs) is a classic endocrine response to stress. Despite that, it remains controversial as to what purpose GCs serve at such times. One view, stretching back to the time of Hans Selye, posits that GCs help mediate the ongoing or pending stress response, either via basal levels of GCs permitting other facets of the stress response to emerge efficaciously, and/or by stress levels of GCs actively stimulating the stress response. In contrast, a revisionist viewpoint posits that GCs suppress the stress response, preventing it from being pathologically overactivated. In this review, we consider recent findings regarding GC action and, based on them, generate criteria for determining whether a particular GC action permits, stimulates, or suppresses an ongoing stress-response or, as an additional category, is preparative for a subsequent stressor. We apply these GC actions to the realms of cardiovascular function, fluid volume and hemorrhage, immunity and inflammation, metabolism, neurobiology, and reproductive physiology. We find that GC actions fall into markedly different categories, depending on the physiological endpoint in question, with evidence for mediating effects in some cases, and suppressive or preparative in others. We then attempt to assimilate these heterogeneous GC actions into a physiological whole.
|
Müller, A. E., & Thalmann, U. (2000). Origin and evolution of primate social organisation: a reconstruction. Biological Reviews, 75, 405–435.
Abstract: Abstract
The evolution and origin of primate social organisation has attracted the attention of many researchers, and a solitary pattern, believed to be present in most nocturnal prosimians, has been generally considered as the most primitive system. Nocturnal prosimians are in fact mostly seen alone during their nightly activities and therefore termed “solitary foragers”, but that does not mean that they are not social. Moreover, designating their social organisation as “solitary”, implies that their way of life is uniform in all species. It has, however, emerged over the last decades that all of them exhibit not only some kind of social network but also that those networks differ among species. There is a need to classify these social networks in the same manner as with group-living (gregarious) animals if we wish to link up the different forms of primate social organisation with ecological, morphological or phylogenetic variables. In this review, we establish a basic classification based on spatial relations and sociality in order to describe and cope properly with the social organisation patterns of the different species of nocturnal prosimians and other mammals that do not forage in cohesive groups. In attempting to trace the ancestral pattern of primate social organisation, the Malagasy mouse and dwarf lemurs and the Afro-Asian bushbabies and lorises are of special interest because they are thought to approach the ancestral conditions most closely. These species have generally been believed to exhibit a dispersed harem system as their pattern of social organisation (“dispersed” means that individuals forage solitarily but exhibit a social network). Therefore, the ancestral pattern of primate social organisation was inferred to be a dispersed harem. In fact, new field data on cheirogaleids combined with a review of patterns of social organisation in strepsirhines (lemurs, bushbabies and lorises) revealed that they exhibit either dispersed multi-male systems or dispersed monogamy rather than a dispersed harem system. Therefore, the concept of a dispersed harem system as the ancestral condition of primate social organisation can no longer be supported. In combination with data on social organisation patterns in “primitive” placentals and marsupials, and in monotremes, it is in fact most probable that promiscuity is the ancestral pattern for mammalian social organisation. Subsequently, a dispersed multi-male system derived from promiscuity should be regarded as the ancestral condition for primates. We further suggest that the gregarious patterns of social organisation in Aotus and Avahi, and the dispersed form in Tarsius evolved from the gregarious patterns of diurnal primates rather than from the dispersed nocturnal type. It is consequently proposed that, in addition to Aotus and Tarsius, Avahi is also secondarily nocturnal.
|
|
Dyer, F. C. (2000). Individual cognition and group movement: insights from social insects. In P. Garber, & S. Boinski (Eds.), Group Movement in Social Primates and Other Animals: Patterns, Processes, and Cognitive Implications.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
|
Connor, R. C., Wells, R. S., Mann, J., & Read, A. J. (2000). The bottlenose dolphin: Social relationships in a fission-fusion society. In J. Mann, R. C. Connor, P. L. Tyack, & H. Whitehead (Eds.), Cetacean Societies: Field Studies of Dolphins and Whales. (pp. 91–126). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Abstract: Book Description
“Part review, part testament to extraordinary dedication, and part call to get involved, Cetacean Societies highlights the achievements of behavioral ecologists inspired by the challenges of cetaceans and committed to the exploration of a new world.”-from the preface by Richard Wrangham
Long-lived, slow to reproduce, and often hidden beneath the water's surface, whales and dolphins (cetaceans) have remained elusive subjects for scientific study even though they have fascinated humans for centuries. Until recently, much of what we knew about cetaceans came from commercial sources such as whalers and trainers for dolphin acts. Innovative research methods and persistent efforts, however, have begun to penetrate the depths to reveal tantalizing glimpses of the lives of these mammals in their natural habitats.
Cetacean Societies presents the first comprehensive synthesis and review of these new studies. Groups of chapters focus on the history of cetacean behavioral research and methodology; state-of-the-art reviews of information on four of the most-studied species: bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, sperm whales, and humpback whales; and summaries of major topics, including group living, male and female reproductive strategies, communication, and conservation drawn from comparative research on a wide range of species.
Written by some of the world's leading cetacean scientists, this landmark volume will benefit not just students of cetology but also researchers in other areas of behavioral and conservation ecology as well as anyone with a serious interest in the world of whales and dolphins.
Contributors are Robin Baird, Phillip Clapham, Jenny Christal, Richard Connor, Janet Mann, Andrew Read, Randall Reeves, Amy Samuels, Peter Tyack, Linda Weilgart, Hal Whitehead, Randall S. Wells, and Richard Wrangham.
Keywords: cetacean social behavior, male alliance formation, most cetacean species, platanistid river dolphins, cetacean sociality, strategies and social bonds, female cetaceans, many cetologists, most mysticetes, sperm whale calves, passive fishing nets, variant whistles, historical whaling records, cetacean systematics, stable matrilineal groups, peak calving season, suction cup tags, mutualistic groups, cetacean vocalizations, focal animal studies, larger odontocetes, predictive signaling, individual cetaceans, sperm whale clicks, resident killer whales
|
Lyn, H., & Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. (2000). Observational word learning in two bonobos (Pan paniscus): ostensive and non-ostensive contexts. Language & Communication, 20(3), 255–273.
Abstract: Word learning has been extensively studied in humans. Children seem to be able to map new words onto objects with only one exposure to the referent. This ability has been called “fast mapping”(Carey, 1978 and Carey). Using a modified human paradigm, this paper explores two language-competent bonobos' (Pan paniscus) abilities to map new words to objects in realistic surroundings with few exposures to the referents. This paper also investigates the necessity of the apes maintaining visual contact (ostensive context) with the item to map the novel name onto the novel object. The bonobos tested in this experiment were able to map new words onto objects and could do so without visual contact with the items.
|
|
Wilson O. E.,. (2000). Sociobiology: The new Synthesis (Vol. 25th edition). Cambridge: Belknap Press.
|
Mandal, M. K., Bulman-Fleming, M. B., & Tiwari, G. (Eds.). (2000). Side Bias: A Neuropsychological Perspective. Netherlands: Springer.
Abstract: The beginnings of the idea about a book on “side bias” began in the year
1994 during the senior editor"s research association with late Professor M.P.
Bryden and colleagues at the University of Waterloo, Canada. Over many
discussions with Professor Bryden, it was clear that the concept of “side bias”
encompasses all aspects of motor behaviour within the context of human
(and non-human animal) laterality. The tendency to favour one side or limb
over the other is important not only from the perspective of understanding
the functional asymmetries of the cerebral hemispheres, but also to an
understanding of a myriad of aspects of human behaviour, as the
contributions to this volume will attest.
By side bias, most people would think of bias in terms of hand
preference or performance. The phenomenon of side bias, however, is more
general and influences motor behaviour of all kinds, ranging from simple
hand movement to complex behaviours like facial expression and attention.
Therefore, the concept has been operationalized in terms of bias reflected in
the motor expression of paired (such as hands, feet, eyes, or ears) or
nonpaired organs (such as the face) as a function of preference, performance
or attentional/intentional factors. ....
More see: http://www.springerlink.com/content/gr1726/front-matter.pdf
|
|
Houpt, K., & Kusunose, R. (2000). Genetics of behaviour. In A. Ruvinsky A. T. Bowling (Ed.), The Genetics of the Horse (pp. 281–306). New York: CABI Publishing.
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2000). Social Awareness in Monkeys. Amer. Zool., 40(6), 902–909.
Abstract: Tests of self-awareness in nonhuman primates have to date been concerned almost entirely with the recognition of an animal's reflection in a mirror. By contrast, we know much less about non-human primates' perception of their place within a social network, or of their understanding of themselves as individuals with unique sets of social relationships. Here we review evidence that monkeys who fail the mirror test may nonetheless behave as if they recognize themselves as distinct individuals, each of whom occupies a unique place in society and has a specific set of relations with others. A free-ranging vervet monkey, baboon, or macaque recognizes other members of his group as individuals. He also recognizes matrilineal kin groups, linear dominance rank orders, and behaves as if he recognizes his own unique place within them. This sense of “social self” in monkeys, however, is markedly different from self-awareness in humans. Although monkeys may behave in ways that accurately place themselves within a social network, they are unaware of the knowledge that allows them to do so: they do not know what they know, cannot reflect on what they know, and cannot become the object of their own attention.
|
|
Houpt, K. A., & Kusonose, R. (2000). Genetic of behaviour. In A. T. Bowling, & A. Ruvinsky (Eds.), Genetics of the Horse (pp. 281–306). Wallingford Oxfordshire: Cab Intl.
|
