|
Kirkpatrick, J. F., Vail, R., Devous, S., Schwend, S., Baker, C. B., & Wiesner, L. (1976). Diurnal variation of plasma testosterone in wild stallions. Biol Reprod, 15(1), 98–101.
|
|
|
Macholc, E. J. A. (2006). Equine interspecies aggression (Vol. 159).
|
|
|
Thrower, W. R. (1970). Aggression in horses. Proc R Soc Med, 63(2), 163–167.
|
|
|
Pichardo, M. (2000). Valsequillo biostratigraphy. III: Equid ecospecies in Paleoindian sites. Anthropol Anz, 58(3), 275–298.
Abstract: Greater precision in North American Pleistocene equid taxonomy makes it now possible to exploit the ubiquitous horse remains in Paleoindian sites as ecological index-fossils. The horses of Central Mexico and the Southern Plains can be sorted by tooth size alone, except for two rare large horses of the Southern Plains. The species endemic to these grasslands and south to Central Mexico are Equus pacificus (large), E. conversidens (small), E. francisci (smallest). The Southern Plains were also occupied by a specialized grazer E. excelsus (Burnet and Sandia caves) and E. occidentalis (Dry and Sandia caves). West of the Rocky Mountains E. occidentalis was dominant. East of the Mississippi River two woodland species are found: E. fraternus and E. littoralis.
|
|
|
Wang, L. Y. (1975). Host preference of mosquito vectors of Japanese encephalitis. Zhonghua Min Guo Wei Sheng Wu Xue Za Zhi, 8(4), 274–279.
Abstract: The host preference of 4 Culex mosquito species collected in Miaoli and Pingtung counties, Taiwan was studied by capillary precipitin method. Antisera to alum-precipitated sera of man, bovine, swine, rabbit, horse, dog, cat, mouse, chicken, duck, and pigeon were produced in rabbits and reacted with 758 mosquito blood meals among which reactions to one or more antisera. Culex annulus and Culex tritaeniorhynchus summorosus showed a great avidity for pig, and Culex fuscocephala for bovine. Culex pipiens fatigans was ornithophilic. None of 110 C. t. summorosus and 2.4% of 223 C. annulus had fed on man. Among 66 samples of C.p. fatigans tested 10.3% had fed on man, while none of 359 C. fuscocephala did. It seems that the latter does not act as a primary vector of Japanese encephalitis.
|
|
|
Chmel, L., Hasilikova, A., Hrasko, J., & Vlacilikova, A. (1972). The influence of some ecological factors on keratinophilic fungi in the soil. Sabouraudia, 10(1), 26–34.
|
|
|
Gallup, G. G. J. (1985). Do minds exist in species other than our own? Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 9(4), 631–641.
Abstract: An answer to the question of animal awareness depends on evidence, not intuition, anecdote, or debate. This paper examines some of the problems inherent in an analysis of animal awareness, and whether animals might be aware of being aware is offered as a more meaningful distinction. A framework is presented which can be used to make a determination about the extent to which other species have experiences similar to ours based on their ability to make inferences and attributions about mental states in others. The evidence from both humans and animals is consistent with the idea that the capacity to use experience to infer the experience of others is a byproduct of self-awareness.
|
|
|
Reznikova, Z. I. (2006). [The study of tool use as the way for general estimation of cognitive abilities in animals]. Zh Obshch Biol, 67(1), 3–22.
Abstract: Investigation of tool use is an effective way to determine cognitive abilities of animals. This approach raises hypotheses, which delineate limits of animal's competence in understanding of objects properties and interrelations and the influence of individual and social experience on their behaviour. On the basis of brief review of different models of manipulation with objects and tools manufacturing (detaching, subtracting and reshaping) by various animals (from elephants to ants) in natural conditions the experimental data concerning tool usage was considered. Tool behaviour of anumals could be observed rarely and its distribution among different taxons is rather odd. Recent studies have revealed that some species (for instance, bonobos and tamarins) which didn't manipulate tools in wild life appears to be an advanced tool users and even manufacturers in laboratory. Experimental studies of animals tool use include investigation of their ability to use objects physical properties, to categorize objects involved in tool activity by its functional properties, to take forces affecting objects into account, as well as their capacity of planning their actions. The crucial question is whether animals can abstract general principles of relations between objects regardless of the exact circumstances, or they develop specific associations between concerete things and situations. Effectiveness of laboratory methods is estimated in the review basing on comparative studies of tool behaviour, such as “support problem”, “stick problem”, “tube- and tube-trap problem”, and “reserve tube problem”. Levels of social learning, the role of imprinting, and species-specific predisposition to formation of specific domains are discussed. Experimental investigation of tool use allows estimation of the individuals' intelligence in populations. A hypothesis suggesting that strong predisposition to formation of specific associations can serve as a driving force and at the same time as obstacle to animals' activity is discussed. In several “technically gifted” species (such as woodpecker finches, New Caledonian crows, and chimpanzees) tool use seems to be guided by a rapid process of trial and error learning. Individuals that are predisposed to learn specific connections do this too quickly and thus become enslaved by stereotypic solutions of raising problems.
|
|
|
Salzen, E. A., & Cornell, J. M. (1968). Self-perception and species recognition in birds. Behaviour, 30(1), 44–65.
|
|
|
Menzel, E. W. J. (1971). Communication about the environment in a group of young chimpanzees. Folia Primatol (Basel), 15(3), 220–232.
|
|