Abstract: Avian literature on sibling recognition is rare compared to that developed by mammalian researchers. We compare avian and mammalian research on sibling recognition to identify why avian work is rare, how approaches differ and what avian and mammalian researchers can learn from each other. Three factors: (1) biological differences between birds and mammals, (2) conceptual biases and (3) practical constraints, appear to influence our current understanding. Avian research focuses on colonial species because sibling recognition is considered adaptive where 'mixing potential' of dependent young is high; research on a wider range of species, breeding systems and ecological conditions is now needed. Studies of acoustic recognition cues dominate avian literature; other types of cues (e.g. visual, olfactory) deserve further attention. The effect of gender on avian sibling recognition has yet to be investigated; mammalian work shows that gender can have important influences. Most importantly, many researchers assume that birds recognise siblings through 'direct familiarisation' (commonly known as associative learning or familiarity); future experiments should also incorporate tests for 'indirect familiarisation' (commonly known as phenotype matching). If direct familiarisation proves crucial, avian research should investigate how periods of separation influence sibling discrimination. Mammalian researchers typically interpret sibling recognition in broad functional terms (nepotism, optimal outbreeding); some avian researchers more successfully identify specific and testable adaptive explanations, with greater relevance to natural contexts. We end by reporting exciting discoveries from recent studies of avian sibling recognition that inspire further interest in this topic.

Abstract: The capacity to construct a cognitive map is hypothesized to rest on two foundations: (1) dead reckoning (path integration); (2) the perception of the direction and distance of terrain features relative to the animal. A map may be constructed by combining these two sources of positional information, with the result that the positions of all terrain features are represented in the coordinate framework used for dead reckoning. When animals need to become reoriented in a mapped space, results from rats and human toddlers indicate that they focus exclusively on the shape of the perceived environment, ignoring non-geometric features such as surface colors. As a result, in a rectangular space, they are misoriented half the time even when the two ends of the space differ strikingly in their appearance. In searching for a hidden object after becoming reoriented, both kinds of subjects search on the basis of the object's mapped position in the space rather than on the basis of its relationship to a goal sign (e.g. a distinctive container or nearby marker), even though they have demonstrably noted the relationship between the goal and the goal sign. When choosing a multidestination foraging route, vervet monkeys look at least three destinations ahead, even though they are only capable of keeping a maximum of six destinations in mind at once.

Abstract: In most cooperatively breeding birds and mammals, reproductive rates are lower for social subordinates than for dominants, and it is common for reproduction in subordinates to be completely suppressed. Early research conducted in captivity showed that losing fights can increase glucocorticoid (GC) secretion, a general response to stress. Because GCs can suppress reproduction, it has been widely argued that chronic stress might underlie reproductive suppression of social subordinates in cooperative breeders. Contradicting this hypothesis, recent studies of cooperative breeders in the wild show that dominant individuals have elevated GCs more often than do subordinates. The findings that elevated GCs can be a consequence of subordination or a cost of dominance complicate the conventional view of social stress, with broad ramifications for the evolution of dominance and reproductive suppression.

Abstract: Prey species show specific adaptations that allow recognition, avoidance and defense against predators. For many mammalian species this includes sensitivity towards predator-derived odors. The typical sources of such odors include predator skin and fur, urine, feces and anal gland secretions. Avoidance of predator odors has been observed in many mammalian prey species including rats, mice, voles, deer, rabbits, gophers, hedgehogs, possums and sheep. Field and laboratory studies show that predator odors have distinctive behavioral effects which include (1) inhibition of activity, (2) suppression of non-defensive behaviors such as foraging, feeding and grooming, and (3) shifts to habitats or secure locations where such odors are not present. The repellent effect of predator odors in the field may sometimes be of practical use in the protection of crops and natural resources, although not all attempts at this have been successful. The failure of some studies to obtain repellent effects with predator odors may relate to (1) mismatches between the predator odors and prey species employed, (2) strain and individual differences in sensitivity to predator odors, and (3) the use of predator odors that have low efficacy. In this regard, a small number of recent studies have suggested that skin and fur-derived predator odors may have a more profound lasting effect on prey species than those derived from urine or feces. Predator odors can have powerful effects on the endocrine system including a suppression of testosterone and increased levels of stress hormones such as corticosterone and ACTH. Inhibitory effects of predator odors on reproductive behavior have been demonstrated, and these are particularly prevalent in female rodent species. Pregnant female rodents exposed to predator odors may give birth to smaller litters while exposure to predator odors during early life can hinder normal development. Recent research is starting to uncover the neural circuitry activated by predator odors, leading to hypotheses about how such activation leads to observable effects on reproduction, foraging and feeding. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.