Abstract: Parent-offspring communication has evolved under strong selection to guarantee that the valuable resource of parental care is expended efficiently on raising offspring. To ensure allocation of parental care to their own offspring, individual recognition becomes established in higher vertebrates when the young become mobile at a time when a nest site can no longer provide a safe cue to recognition. Such recognition needs to be established by rapid, sometimes imprinting-like, processes in animals producing precocial offspring. In parents, offering strategies that stimulate feeding and entice offspring to approach the right site have evolved. Such parental signals can be olfactory, acoustic, or visual. In offspring, begging strategies involve shuffling for the best place to obtain food – be this the most productive teat or the best position in the nest. This involves signals that make the offspring particularly obvious to the parent. Parents often feed young according to their signaling intensity but may also show favoritism for weaker offspring. Offspring signals also serve to communicate the continuing presence of the young and may thereby maintain brood-care behavior in parents. Internal processes in parents may end parental care irrespective of further signaling by offspring, thus ensuring that offspring cannot manipulate parents into providing substantially more care than is optimal for their own fitness.

Abstract: We examined if time spent in turnout influenced behaviour during turnout for horses maintained in stalls and given either 2 h/week (n = 7) or 12 h/week (n = 7) of turnout. Horses turned out for 2 h/week were more likely than those turned out for 12 h/week to trot, canter, and buck. Frequency of trotting and cantering was also higher and frequency of grazing lower in horses turned out for 2 h/week. These results have welfare implications and support previous studies showing that horses react to confinement with increased activity when not confined.

Abstract: Article Outline
References
The ‘h index’ was developed recently as a measure of research performance [1]: a researcher's h is the number of his or her papers that have been cited at least h times. In their thoughtful critique of the index, Kelly and Jennions [2] point out many ways in which h is no better than ‘traditional’ bibliometrics, such as total citation counts. However, there is one way in which, for researchers, it could be very much better, especially if (as Hirsch suggests [1]) it is to inform hiring and promotion decisions. The skewed nature of the distribution of citations among publications means that most researchers have several papers that nearly but not quite count. Consequently, h can be distorted much more easily than can total citation count just by finding a subtle way to cite one's own papers that are ‘bubbling under’. Incidentally, bats show broadly the same life-history allometries as other mammalian clades [3].

Abstract: In recent years, the concept of self-organization has been used to understand collective behaviour of animals. The central tenet of self-organization is that simple repeated interactions between individuals can produce complex adaptive patterns at the level of the group. Inspiration comes from patterns seen in physical systems, such as spiralling chemical waves, which arise without complexity at the level of the individual units of which the system is composed. The suggestion is that biological structures such as termite mounds, ant trail networks and even human crowds can be explained in terms of repeated interactions between the animals and their environment, without invoking individual complexity. Here, I review cases in which the self-organization approach has been successful in explaining collective behaviour of animal groups and societies. Ant pheromone trail networks, aggregation of cockroaches, the applause of opera audiences and the migration of fish schools have all been accurately described in terms of individuals following simple sets of rules. Unlike the simple units composing physical systems, however, animals are themselves complex entities, and other examples of collective behaviour, such as honey bee foraging with its myriad of dance signals and behavioural cues, cannot be fully understood in terms of simple individuals alone. I argue that the key to understanding collective behaviour lies in identifying the principles of the behavioural algorithms followed by individual animals and of how information flows between the animals. These principles, such as positive feedback, response thresholds and individual integrity, are repeatedly observed in very different animal societies. The future of collective behaviour research lies in classifying these principles, establishing the properties they produce at a group level and asking why they have evolved in so many different and distinct natural systems. Ultimately, this research could inform not only our understanding of animal societies, but also the principles by which we organize our own society.

Abstract: To determine whether wild Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) at Mikura Island, Japan, show asymmetry of eye or flipper use during a social behaviour, we investigated the laterality of flipper-to-body (F-B) rubbing, in which one dolphin (“rubber”) rubs the body of another (“rubbee”) with its flipper. We analysed 382 episodes of video-recorded F-B rubbings performed by identified individuals (N = 111 rubbers). F-B rubbing was conducted significantly more frequently with the left flipper than with the right flipper. The duration of F-B rubbings was also significantly longer with the left flipper than with the right flipper. Of 20 dolphins, nine individuals showed significant left-side bias as the rubber in this behaviour, whereas no dolphins showed significant right-side bias. The results indicate a population-level left-side bias of the rubber in F-B rubbing. An analysis of the swimming configurations during this behaviour suggests that the asymmetry in F-B rubbing was caused not only by the laterality of the rubber, but by a preference for use of the left eye in both dolphins during this behaviour. Dolphins used the left eye significantly more frequently than the right eye during the inquisitive behaviour, while they showed no significant bias in flipper use during the object-carrying behaviour. These facts also suggest that the asymmetry of F-B rubbing is caused by the preference for using the left eye. Significant left-side bias was observed only in F-B rubbings initiated by the rubbee, in which the rubbee determined its position during this behaviour. This suggests that this behavioural asymmetry was enhanced by the rubbees choosing the left side of the rubber to ensure better and longer rubs.