Abstract: I review literature on four different approaches to the study of traditions in animals: observation of free-living animals, laboratory experiment, armchair analysis, and field experiment. Because, by definition, a tradition entails social learning of some kind, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to establish that a behavior is in fact traditional without knowledge of how it develops. Observations of free-living animals often provide strong circumstantial evidence of a tradition. However, even in the view of several researchers who have studied possibly traditional behaviors in natural populations, observation alone has not proven sufficient to show that social learning contributes to development of behaviors of interest. The relevance of laboratory experiments to the understanding of the development of behaviors in free-living animals is always open to challenge. Armchair analyses of field data can produce interesting hypotheses but cannot test them. Field experiments to determine how behaviors of interest develop in population members provide a promising way forward.

Abstract: In a recent paper, Kaminski, Call and Fischer report pioneering research on word-learning in a dog. In this commentary we suggest ways of distinguishing referential word use from mere association. We question whether the dog is reasoning by exclusion and, if so, compare three explanations – learned heuristics, default assumptions, and pragmatic reasoning – as they apply to children and might apply to dogs. Kaminski et al.'s work clearly raises important questions about the origins and basis of word learning and social cognition.

Abstract: In an experiment on the effects of social environment and training on the human-animal relationship, 20 horses were handled according to a defined schedule. Eight horses were housed singly and 12 horses were housed in four groups of 3 horses. Horses were handled three times per week in 10 min sessions from an age of 6 months until 2 years of age during two winter periods. A total of 50 and 70 sessions were given in the first and second period, respectively. Five randomly allocated people performed the training. The training scheme involved leading, tying up, touching, lifting feet, etc. in 43 stages. The horse had to fulfil the performance criteria of each stage in order to get to the next stage. In the first winter period, horses were led to the stable when they had “passed” a stage or after 10 min of training. In the second winter period, horses would start off at stage 1 again, and when they “passed” a stage they went on to the next stage within the same training session. Because of the change in training procedure results were analysed separately for the two winter periods. There was a significant difference between trainers in the number of times they allowed a horse to “pass” a stage within each winter period (χ32, P<0.05; χ32, P<0.001 for the first and the second winter period, respectively). Group housed horses “passed” more stages than single housed horses (17 versus 14; 27 versus 18 in the first and second winter period, respectively; P<0.05 for the interaction). Singly housed horses bit the trainer more frequently than did group housed horses (P<0.01). The responses of group housed horses to training clearly demonstrate the benefits of raising young horses in groups.

Abstract: In contrast to horses in pastures, it is thought that free-ranging horses do not perform latrine behaviour, i.e. a behavioural pattern whereby the animals graze and defecate in separate areas. However, few studies deal with this particular subject, reporting contrasting conclusions. We hypothesize that horses free-ranging in large heterogeneous areas do not perform latrine behaviour. Thus, we believe that grazing and elimination behaviour are spatially related: where horses graze, they will also defecate. Behavioural data were collected from Konik horses, Haflinger horses, Shetland ponies and donkeys, grazing in different nature reserves (54-80 ha). Data for the different equids were analyzed separately, as well as data for mares and stallions (Konik and donkey stallions only). We investigated the proportion of the number of defecations/urinations while grazing on the total number of defecations/urinations; furthermore, we searched for the sequence of behaviours representing latrine behaviour in the strict sense. Additionally, we analyzed the correlation between grazing behaviour and eliminative behaviour on both vegetation type level and patch level. All the female equids often continued grazing while defecating. During urination, grazing ceases in the majority of instances. Cases where a mare terminated grazing in a certain vegetation type and sward height to eliminate in another vegetation type or in another sward height within the same vegetation type were rarely observed. On the vegetation type level as well as on the patch level, there was a highly significant (P<0.001) positive correlation between grazing time and number of eliminations (or eliminating time). The high values of the correlation coefficients (in case of the defecation variables r ranges between 0.553 and 0.955; in case of the urination variables r ranges between 0.370 and 0.839) illustrate that the spatial distribution of the eliminative behaviour can be explained to a high degree by the spatial distribution of the grazing behaviour. Results in the case of the stallions are preliminary, but indicate the same pattern. Horses, free-ranging in large heterogeneous areas, do not perform latrine behaviour, but defecate where they graze. Possibly, animal density is of major importance to explain this behavioural difference with horses in pastures. We suggest that also spatial vegetation heterogeneity and plant productivity of the grazed area, as well as parasite status of the grazing animals could play a role.

Abstract: In many of the studies reviewed in this book, eavesdropping takes the
following form: a subject has the opportunity to monitor, or eavesdrop upon, an
interaction between two other animals,Aand B. The subject then uses the information
obtained through these observations to assess A`s and B`s relative dominance
or attractiveness as a mate (e.g. Mennill et al., 2002; Ch. 2). For example, Oliveira
et al. (1998) found that male fighting fish Betta splendens that had witnessed two
other males involved in an aggressive interaction subsequently responded more
strongly to the loser of that interaction than the winner. Subjects-behaviour could
not have been influenced by any inherent differences between the two males, because
subjects responded equally strongly to the winner and the loser of competitive
interactions they had not observed. Similarly, Peake et al. (2001) presented
male great tits Parus major with the opportunity to monitor an apparent competitive
interaction between two strangers by simulating a singing contest using two
loudspeakers. The relative timing of the singing bouts (as measured by the degree
of overlap between the two songs) provided information about each “contestants”
relative status. Following the singing interaction, one of the “contestants” was
introduced into the male`s territory. Males responded significantly less strongly
to singers that had apparently just “lost” the interaction (see also McGregor &
Dabelsteen, 1996; Naguib et al., 1999; Ch. 2).
What information does an individual acquire when it eavesdrops on others?
In theory, an eavesdropper could acquire information of many different sorts:
about A, about B, about the relationship between A and B, or about the place of
Animal Communication Networks, ed. Peter K. McGregor. Published by Cambridge University Press.
c.
Cambridge University Press 2005.
583
P1: JZZ/... P2: JZZ/...
0521823617c25.xml CU1917B/McGregor 0 521 582361 7 October 7, 2004 22:31
584 D. L. Cheney & R. M. Seyfarth
A`s and B`s relationship in a larger social framework. The exact information acquired
will probably reflect the particular species social structure. For example,
songbirds like great tits live in communities in which six or seven neighbours
surround each territory-holding male. Males appear to benefit from the knowledge
that certain individuals occupy specific areas (e.g. Brooks & Falls, 1975), that
competitive interactions between two different neighbours have particular outcomes,
and that these outcomes are stable over time. We would, therefore, expect
an eavesdropping great tit not only to learn that neighbour A was dominant to
neighbour B, for example, but also to form the expectation that A was likely to
defeat B in all future encounters. More speculatively, because the outcome of territorial
interactions are often site specific (reviewed by Bradbury & Vehrencamp,
1998), we would expect eavesdropping tits to learn further that A dominates B
in some areas but B dominates A in others. In contrast, the information gained
from monitoring neighbours interactions would unlikely be sufficient to allow
the eavesdropper to rank all of its neighbours in a linear dominance hierarchy,
because not all neighbouring males would come into contact with one another.
Such information would be difficult if not impossible to acquire; it might also be
of little functional value.
In contrast, species that live in large, permanent social groups have a much
greater opportunity to monitor the social interactions of many different individuals
simultaneously. Monkey species such as baboons Papio cynocephalus, for
example, typically live in groups of 80 or more individuals, which include several
matrilineal families arranged in a stable, linear dominance rank order (Silk et al.,
1999). Offspring assume ranks similar to those of their mothers, and females maintain
close bonds with their matrilineal kin throughout their lives. Cutting across
these stable long-term relationships based on rank and kinship are more transient
bonds: for example, the temporary associations formed between unrelated
females whose infants are of similar ages, and the “friendships” formed between
adult males and lactating females as an apparent adaptation against infanticide
(Palombit et al., 1997, 2001). In order to compete successfully within such groups, it
would seem advantageous for individuals to recognize who outranks whom, who
is closely bonded to whom, and who is likely to be allied to whom (Harcourt, 1988,
1992; Cheney & Seyfarth, 1990; see below). The ability to adopt a third party`s perspective
and discriminate among the social relationships that exist among others
would seem to be of great selective benefit.
In this chapter, we review evidence for eavesdropping in selected primate
species and we consider what sort of information is acquired when one individual
observes or listens in on the interactions of others. We then compare eavesdropping
by primates with eavesdropping in other animal species, focusing on both
potential differences and directions for further research