|
Cohen, J. (2007). Animal behavior. The world through a chimp's eyes (Vol. 316).
|
|
|
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Russell, A. F., Sharpe, L. L., Brotherton, P. N., McIlrath, G. M., White, S., et al. (2001). Effects of helpers on juvenile development and survival in meerkats. Science, 293(5539), 2446–2449.
Abstract: Although breeding success is known to increase with group size in several cooperative mammals, the mechanisms underlying these relationships are uncertain. We show that in wild groups of cooperative meerkats, Suricata suricatta, reductions in the ratio of helpers to pups depress the daily weight gain and growth of pups and the daily weight gain of helpers. Increases in the daily weight gain of pups are associated with heavier weights at independence and at 1 year of age, as well as with improved foraging success as juveniles and higher survival rates through the first year of life. These results suggest that the effects of helpers on the fitness of pups extend beyond weaning and that helpers may gain direct as well as indirect benefits by feeding pups.
|
|
|
Clayton, N. S. (2004). COGNITION: An Open Sandwich or an Open Question? Science, 305(5682), 344–.
|
|
|
Clayton NS, & Dickinson A. (2006). Rational rats. Science, 9, 472.
|
|
|
Cheney, D., Seyfarth, R., & Smuts, B. (1986). Social relationships and social cognition in nonhuman primates. Science, 234(4782), 1361–1366.
Abstract: Complex social relationships among nonhuman primates appear to contribute to individual reproductive success. Experiments with and behavioral observations of natural populations suggest that sophisticated cognitive mechanisms may underlie primate social relationships. Similar capacities are usually less apparent in the nonsocial realm, supporting the view that at least some aspects of primate intelligence evolved to solve the challenges of interacting with conspecifics.
|
|
|
Burden, F., & Thiemann, A. (2015). Donkeys Are Different. Proceedings of the 2015 Equine Science Society Symposium, 35(5), 376–382.
Abstract: As a unique species of equine, the donkey has certain specific variations from the horse. This review highlights the origins of the donkey and how this impacts on its behavior, physiology, and propensity to disease. The donkey is less of a flight animal and has been used by humans for pack and draught work, in areas where their ability to survive poorer diets, and transboundary disease while masking overt signs of pain and distress has made them indispensable to human livelihoods. When living as a companion animal, however, the donkey easily accumulates adipose tissue, and this may create a metabolically compromised individual prone to diseases of excess such as laminitis and hyperlipemia. They show anatomic variations from the horse especially in the hoof, upper airway, and their conformation. Variations in physiology lead to differences in the metabolism and distribution of many drugs. With over 44 million donkeys worldwide, it is important that veterinarians have the ability to understand and treat this equid effectively.
|
|
|
Brannon, E. M., & Terrace, H. S. (1998). Ordering of the numerosities 1 to 9 by monkeys. Science, 282(5389), 746–749.
Abstract: A fundamental question in cognitive science is whether animals can represent numerosity (a property of a stimulus that is defined by the number of discriminable elements it contains) and use numerical representations computationally. Here, it was shown that rhesus monkeys represent the numerosity of visual stimuli and detect their ordinal disparity. Two monkeys were first trained to respond to exemplars of the numerosities 1 to 4 in an ascending numerical order (1 --> 2 --> 3 --> 4). As a control for non-numerical cues, exemplars were varied with respect to size, shape, and color. The monkeys were later tested, without reward, on their ability to order stimulus pairs composed of the novel numerosities 5 to 9. Both monkeys responded in an ascending order to the novel numerosities. These results show that rhesus monkeys represent the numerosities 1 to 9 on an ordinal scale.
|
|
|
Bloom, P. (2004). Behavior. Can a dog learn a word? Science, 304(5677), 1605–1606.
|
|
|
Blaisdell, A. P., Sawa, K., Leising, K. J., & Waldmann, M. R. (2006). Causal reasoning in rats. Science, 311(5763), 1020–1022.
Abstract: Empirical research with nonhuman primates appears to support the view that causal reasoning is a key cognitive faculty that divides humans from animals. The claim is that animals approximate causal learning using associative processes. The present results cast doubt on that conclusion. Rats made causal inferences in a basic task that taps into core features of causal reasoning without requiring complex physical knowledge. They derived predictions of the outcomes of interventions after passive observational learning of different kinds of causal models. These competencies cannot be explained by current associative theories but are consistent with causal Bayes net theories.
|
|
|
BERNITSCHKE K et al,. (1965). Chromosome complement: differences between Equus caballus and Equus przewalskii, Poliakoff. Science, 148, 382.
|
|