Abstract: 1. Dominance/subordinance is a relationship between two individuals in which one defers to the other in contest situations. Each such relationship represents an adaptive compromise for each individual in which the benefits and costs of giving in or not giving in are compared. Familiar associates in groups or neighbours on nearby territories may develop relatively stable dominant-subordinate relationships based on individual recognition. Although the aggressive aspects of dominance are usually emphasized, the less conspicuous actions of the subordinate individual are actually more important in maintaining a stable relationship. 2. In evolutionary terms, dominance essentially equals priority of access to resources in short supply. Usually the subordinate, who would probably lose in combat anyway, is better off to bide its time until better able to compete at another time or another place. Both individuals save time, energy, and the risk of injury by recognizing and abiding by an established dominant-subordinate relationship. 3. Dominance can be either absolute or predictably reversible in different locations or at different times. Of the various forms of dominance behaviour, rank hierarchies and territoriality represent the two extremes of absolute and relative dominance, respectively. A dominance hierarchy is the sum total of the adaptive compromises made between individuals in an aggregation or organized group. Many animals seem to be capable of both absolute and relative dominance, and within species-specific limits the balance may shift toward one or the other. High density, or a decrease in available resources, favours a shift from relative to absolute dominance. Some species may exhibit both simultaneously. Social mammals may have intra-group hierarchies and reciprocal territoriality between groups, while the males of lek species may exhibit 'polarized territoriality' by defending small individual territories, with the most dominant males holding the central territories where most of the mating takes place. 4. Territoriality is a form of space-related dominance. Most biologists agree that its most important function is to provide the territory holder with an assured supply of critical resources. Territoriality is selected for only when the individual's genetic fitness is increased because its increased access to resources outweighs the time, energy, and injury costs of territorial behaviour. 5. Territoriality was first defined narrowly as an area from which conspecifics are excluded by overt defence or advertisement. The definition has been variously expanded to include all more or less exclusive areas without regard to possible defence, and finally to include all areas in which the owner is dominant. I define territory as a fixed portion of an individual's or group's range in which it has priority of access to one or more critical resources over others who have priority elsewhere or at another time. This priority of access must be achieved through social interaction. 6. My definition excludes dominance over individual space and moving resources, and includes areas of exclusive use maintained by mutual avoidance. It differs from most other definitions in its explicit recognition of time as a territorial parameter and its rejection of exclusivity and overt defence as necessary components of territorial behaviour. There is an indivisible continuum of degrees of trespass onto territories, and functionally it is priority of access to resources that is important rather than exclusive occupancy. 7. There is a similarly indivisible continuum in the intensity of behaviour needed to achieve priority of access to resources. Deciding whether or not an exclusive area is defended leads to the pointless exercise of trying to decide which cues indicating the owner's presence are conspicuous enough to merit being called defence. Concentrating on overt defence emphasizes the aggressive aspects of territorial behaviour rather than the equally or more important submissive aspects such as passive avoidance.

Abstract: Blood was collected every 3 days for 13 months from 4 captured [female][female] of proven fertility kept adjacent to a teaser stallion. Basal plasma LH level was greater during Apr.-July (8.1+or-0.5 ng/ml) than during Nov.-Jan. (2.2+or-0.2). A total for 21 LH peaks occurred between 13 Apr. and 31 Aug. among the 4 [female][female]; many peaks exceeded 20 times the basal level, and there was a trend to a higher LH level with each succeeding peak. On all occasions except one, LH peaks were associated with progesterone levels of 0.5 ng/ml and with increases of oestrogen (peak average 43.1+or-12.1 pg/ml). Basal progesterone level during Apr.-July (1.5+or-1.2 ng/ml) did not differ significantly from that during Oct.-Jan. (1.1+or-0.7), nor did basal oestrogen level differ significantly between those 2 periods (8.4+or-3.2 and 12.9+or-4.6 pg/ml resp.). Behavioural oestrus always occurred with LH and oestrogen peaks during Apr.-July. However, behavioural oestrus was occasionally observed during Aug.-Oct., when LH peaks no longer occurred.

Abstract: Dominance hierarchies are widely described in nature. Commonly, an individual's ordinal rank is used as a measure of its position in the hierarchy, and, therefore its priority of access to resources. This use of ordinal ranks has several related drawbacks: (1) it is difficult to assess the magnitude or the significance of the difference in degree of dominance between two individuals; (2) it is difficult to evaluate the significance of differences between dominance matrices based on different behaviours or on the same behaviour at different times, and (3) it is difficult to use parametric statistical techniques to relate dominance rank to other quantities of interest. In this paper we describe a method for assigning cardinal dominance indices that does not suffer from these drawbacks. This technique is based on the Bradley-Terry model from the method of paired comparisons. We show how this model can be reinterpreted in terms of dominance interactions. and we describe a simple iterative technique for computing cardinal ranks. We then describe how to evaluate (1) whether the rank differences between individuals are significant, and (2) whether differences in the cardinal hierarchies based on different behaviours or the same behaviour at different times are significant. We then show how to generalize the method to deal with behaviours that sometimes have ambiguous outcomes, or behaviours for which the rank difference between a pair of individuals affects the rate of interaction between them.

Abstract: Hearst and Jenkins proposed in 1974 that elicited responding accounts for the feature-positive effect. To test this position, pigeons were exposed to a feature-positive or feature-negative discrimination between successively presented displays--one consisted of a red and a green response key and the other consisted of two green response keys. There were four main conditions: 5-5 (5-sec trials, 5-sec intertrial intervals), 5-30, 30-30, and 30-180. Conditions 5-30 and 30-180 should produce the largest amount of elicited responding, and therefore the largest feature-positive effects. A response-independent bird was yoked to each response-dependent bird to allow direct assessment of the amount of elicited responding generated by each condition. Contrary to the predictions by Hearst and Jenkins's theory, response-dependent birds showed large feature-positive effects in each condition. The largest feature-positive effect was obtained in condition 5-5. Response-independent birds produced similar results, but manifested low response rates.

Abstract: In most cases, the social organisation of each of the seven species of Equidae existing today outside captivity is either territorial or non-territorial. The striking differences found between these two types of organisation in the social grouping and bonds, mating behaviour, leadership and dominance hierarchies of the animals are examined. It is thought that the non-territorial species show a less primitive type of organisation than the territorial animals. Infant Equidae are precocious animals and are able to follow their dams soon after birth. They stay close by their dams and travel with the herd from an early age and are therefore classified as “followers”, in contrast to the species which have a period of hiding after birth. Dams recognise their foals immediately after birth, whereas it takes 2 or 3 days for a foal to form an attachment to its dam. Being in close proximity to their dams, foals are able to nurse frequently and, unless artificially weaned, a foal will nurse until its dam foals again. Foals start to graze during their first week and as they grow older they spend more time grazing and less time nursing and resting. It is normal for foals to be corprophagic until one month old, and this provides them with bacteria essential for the digestion of fibre. Play behaviour is solitary in very young foals, but after 4 weeks of age, foals play together, with male foals playing more than females and showing more aggressive, fighting movements in play.