Abstract: The genus Thelazia (Spirurida, Thelaziidae) includes a cosmopolitan group of eyeworm spirurids responsible for ocular infections in domestic and wild animals and transmitted by different species of muscids. Bovine thelaziosis is caused by Thelazia rhodesi Desmarest 1828, Thelazia gulosa Railliet & Henry 1910, and Thelazia skrjabini Erschow 1928, which occur in many countries; T. gulosa and T. skrjabini have been reported mainly in the New World, while T. rhodesi is particularly common in the Old World. In Italy, T. rhodesi was reported in southern regions a long time ago and, recently, T. gulosa and T. skrjabini have been identified in autochthonous cattle first in Apulia and then in Sardinia. Thirteen species of Musca are listed as intermediate hosts of eyeworms, but only Musca autumnalis and Musca larvipara have been demonstrated to act as vectors of Thelazia in the ex-URSS, North America, ex-Czechoslovakia and more recently in Sweden. In Italy, after the reports of T. gulosa and T. skrjabini in southern regions, the intermediate hosts of bovine eyeworms were initially only suspected as the predominant secretophagous Muscidae collected from the periocular region of cattle with thelaziosis were the face flies, M. autumnalis and M. larvipara, followed by Musca osiris, Musca tempestiva and Musca domestica. The well-known constraints in the identification of immature eyeworms to species by fly dissection and also the time-consuming techniques used constitute important obstacles to epidemiological field studies (i.e. vector identification and/or role, prevalence and pattern of infection in flies, etc.). Molecular studies have recently permitted to further investigations into this area. A PCR-RFLP analysis of the ribosomal ITS-1 sequence was developed to differentiate the 3 species of Thelazia (i.e. T. gulosa, T. rhodesi and T. skrjabini) found in Italy, then a molecular epidemiological survey has recently been carried out in field conditions throughout five seasons of fly activity and has identified the role of M. autumnalis, M. larvipara, M. osiris and M. domestica as vectors of T. gulosa and of M. autumnalis and M. larvipara of T. rhodesi. Moreover, M. osiris was described, for the first time, to act as a vector of T. gulosa and M. larvipara of T. gulosa and T. rhodesi. The mean prevalence in the fly population examined was found to be 2.86%. The molecular techniques have opened new perspectives for further research on the ecology and epidemiology not only of Thelazia in cattle but also of other autochthonous species of Thelazia which have been also recorded in Italy, such as Thelazia callipaeda, which is responsible for human and canid ocular infection and Thelazia lacrymalis, the horse eyeworm whose epidemiological molecular studies are in progress.

Abstract: Aging pets often suffer a decline in cognitive function (eg, memory,learning, perception, awareness) likely associated with age-dependent brain alterations. Clinically, cognitive dysfunction may result in various behavioral signs, including disorientation; forgetting of previously learned behaviors, such as house training; alterations in the manner in which the pet interacts with people or other pets;onset of new fears and anxiety; decreased recognition of people, places, or pets; and other signs of deteriorating memory and learning ability. Many medical problems, including other forms of brain pathologic conditions, can contribute to these signs. The practitioner must first determine the cause of the behavioral signs and then determine an appropriate course of treatment, bearing in mind the constraints of the aging process. A diagnosis of cognitive dysfunction syndrome is made once other medical and behavioral causes are ruled out.

Abstract: Dogs can use the placement of an arbitrary marker to locate hidden food in an object-choice situation. We tested domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in three studies aimed at pinning down the relative contributions of the human's hand and the marker itself. We baited one of two cups (outside of the dogs' view) and gave the dog a communicative cue to find the food. Study 1 systematically varied dogs' perceptual access to the marker placing event, so that dogs saw either the whole human, the hand only, the marker only, or nothing. Follow-up trials investigated the effect of removing the marker before the dog's choice. Dogs used the marker as a communicative cue even when it had been removed prior to the dog's choice and attached more importance to this cue than to the hand that placed it although the presence of the hand boosted performance when it appeared together with the marker. Study 2 directly contrasted the importance of the hand and the marker and revealed that the effect of the marker diminished if it had been associated with both cups. In contrast touching both cups with the hand had no effect on performance. Study 3 investigated whether the means of marker placement (intentional or accidental) had an effect on dogs' choices. Results showed that dogs did not differentiate intentional and accidental placing of the marker. These results suggest that dogs use the marker as a genuine communicative cue quite independently from the experimenter's actions.

Abstract: Twelve domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) were given a series of trials in which they were forbidden to take a piece of visible food. In some trials, the human continued to look at the dog throughout the trial (control condition), whereas in others, the human (a) left the room, (b) turned her back, (c) engaged in a distracting activity, or (d) closed her eyes. Dogs behaved in clearly different ways in most of the conditions in which the human did not watch them compared with the control condition, in which she did. In particular, when the human looked at them, dogs retrieved less food, approached it in a more indirect way, and sat (as opposed to laid down) more often than in the other conditions. Results are discussed in terms of domestic dogs' social-cognitive skills and their unique evolutionary and ontogenetic histories.

Abstract: Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) were tested in four experiments for their understanding of means-end connections. In each of the experiments, the dogs attempted to retrieve a food treat that could be seen behind a barrier and which was connected, via string, to a within-reach wooden block. In the experiments, either one or two strings were present, but the treat was attached only to one string. Successful retrieval of the treat required the animals to pull the appropriate string (either by pawing or by grasping the wooden block in their jaws) until the treat emerged from under the barrier. The results showed that the dogs were successful if the treat was in a perpendicular line to the barrier, i.e. straight ahead, but not when the string was at an angle: in the latter condition, the typical response was a proximity error in that the dogs pawed or mouthed at a location closest in line to the treat. When two strings that crossed were present, the dogs tended to pull on the wrong string. The combined results from the experiments show that, although dogs can learn to pull on a string to obtain food, they do not spontaneously understand means-end connections involving strings.