|
|
Galdikas BMF. (1985). Orangutan sociality at Tanjung Puting. Am. J. Primatol., 9, 101.
|
|
|
|
Perner J, & Wimmer H. (1985). “John thinks that Mary thinks that”: attribution of second-order beliefs by 5- to 10-year-old children. J. Exp. Child Psychol., 39, 437.
|
|
|
|
Poling, A., Thomas, J., Hall-Johnson, E., & Picker, M. (1985). Self-control revisited: Some factors that affect autoshaped responding. Behav. Process., 10(1-2), 77–85.
Abstract: Pigeons were exposed to autoshaping procedures under which 50% of red key illuminations were followed by 9-sec food deliveries, and 50% of blue key illuminations were followed by 3-sec food deliveries. When all key illuminations were 6 sec, pigeons preferred the red stimulus. Subsequent manipulations demonstrated that preference could be shifted to the blue stimulus by either increasing the duration of the red stimulus or imposing a delay interval between the offset of that stimulus and food delivery. A final experiment demonstrated that, in two of three subjects, preference for key illuminations associated with longer, but delayed, food deliveries generally increased as the duration of all key illuminations was lengthened. These results, obtained under conditions where keypecking had no programmed consequences, are similar to those previously observed under procedures involving a positive response-food dependency.
|
|
|
|
Perusse, D., & Lefebvre, L. (1985). Grouped sequential exploitation of food patches in a flock feeder, the feral pigeon. Behav. Process., 11(1), 39–52.
Abstract: Feral and laboratory flocks of rock doves ( ) show a pattern of grouped sequential exploitation when simultaneously presented with two dispersed, depleting patches of seed. This behavior contrasts with the ideal free distribution pattern shown when patches are small and concentrated. Grouped sequential exploitation consists of two phases: all pigeons first land together and feed at one patch, then leave one by one for the other patch. Departure times of individuals for the second patch are correlated with feeding rate at patch 1, which is in turn correlated with position in the dominance hierarchy. The decision to switch from patch 1 to patch 2 improves individual feeding rates in all cases, but is done slightly later than it should according to optimal foraging theory.
|
|
|
|
Sweeting, M. P., Houpt, C. E., & Houpt, K. A. (1985). Social Facilitation of Feeding and Time Budgets in Stabled Ponies. J. Anim Sci., 60(2), 369–374.
Abstract: Eight pairs of pony mares were observed. Members of a pair were housed in adjacent stalls and fed hay ad libitum. The behavior of both ponies was recorded simultaneously in the morning (1000 to 1200 h) and afternoon (1400 to 1600 h) for a total of 117 h. The time budget was: 70.1 {+/-} 8.6% eating; 17.8 {+/-} 7.4% standing (including stand rest, stand alert and stand nonajert); 5.2 {+/-} 7.0% pushing hay; 2.9 {+/-} 1.2% walking; 1.9 {+/-} 2.9% drinking; 1.3 {+/-} 1.1% self-grooming; .2 {+/-} .3% defecating; .06 {+/-} .1% chewing nonfood items; .06 {+/-} .03% urination; .06 {+/-} .1% licking salt; .07 {+/-} .1% pawing hay; .6 {+/-} .7% lying and .07 {+/-} .08% stretching the neck over the stall wall dividing the ponies. While eating, the ponies lifted their heads 25.4 {+/-} 11.0 times/h. In less than one-half of the occasions when urination or defecation was observed, the ponies walked away from the spot where they had been eating to eliminate. During one-half of the observations, visual contact between the ponies was prevented by a solid partition between the stalls. The ponies spent significantly more time standing nonalert when the partition prevented visual contact (12 {+/-} 7%) than when visual contact could take place (6 {+/-} 3%, P<.05). When fresh hay was supplied in the mornings, the ponies spent similar amounts of time eating whether visual contact was allowed or not, but in the afternoon significantly more time was spent feeding when visual contact was allowed (73 {+/-} 4%) than when it was not (60 {+/-} 7%). Less time was spent eating, in the absence of visual contact, despite the presence of auditory and olfactory contact. Apparently social facilitation is important in maintaining feeding behavior in ponies. N1 -
|
|
|
|
Bourlière, F. (1985). Primate communities: Their structure and role in tropical ecosystems. Int. J. Primatol., 6(1), 1–26.
Abstract: The structure of primate communities living in a number of undisturbed areas is described and compared. Species richness is highest in tropical rain forests of Africa and South America, where up to 14 different species can share the same habitat. The number of sympatric primates in woodlands and savannas is always much lower. Some striking differences in community structure may be observed between communities living in apparently similar habitats. Three major factors may be held responsible for such discrepancies: history and paleoecology, present spatial heterogeneity of the vegetation, and competition with other taxonomic groups. The role of primates in the functioning of forest ecosystems is discussed. Though their trophic impact may be important, the role they play in seed dispersal appears to be more significant; they contribute greatly to homeostasis, as well as to regeneration, of the rain forests. A number of ecological traits are particularly developed among primates and may have contributed to the rapid evolutionary success of the order. Their predominantly vegetarian diet allows them to build up higher population densities than sympatric carnivorous mammals;their arborealism permits them to make use of all edible plant material available in a tridimensional environment; the opportunistic tendencies of some cebids, cercopithecids, and pongids enable them to take advantage of a variety of habitats and situations; and finally, an extended socialization period and a long life-span, allowing them to develop social traditions, give to many of them a further possibility to adapt quickly to novel situations.
|
|
|
|
Shanklin, E. (1985). Sustenance and Symbol: Anthropological Studies of Domesticated Animals. Annual Review of Anthropology, 14, 375–403.
Abstract: INTRODUCTION Thinking about Animals For nearly as long as anything can be inferred about human cognition, paleoanthropologists and archaeologists believe humans have thought carefully about animals, about the “predominant characteristic” of each animal, and about those “contradictory elements” that make up humankind. This careful thought has had many outcomes, some scientific, others not. Among the scientific outcomes in the 19th century was evolutionary thinking about the causes and consequences of domestication, including Charles Darwin's study (32) of the mechanics of human (artificial) selection of domesticated animal and plant population characteristics. In the 20th century, theoretical refinements and the painstaking collection of empirical data have led to studies of such disparate phenomena as the physical consequences of keeping pets (12); the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a result of feeding antibiotics to livestock (117); and the evolutionary consequences of milkdrinking (99). Speculation about the origins of human-animal interaction is not the exclusive province of scientists: religions and storytellers alike customarily try to account for the beginnings of human-animal interaction. Genesis does so
|
|
|
|
Huff, A. N., Meacham, T. N., & Wahlberg, M. L. (1985). Feeds and feeding: A review. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 5(2), 96–108.
|
|
|
|
Smuts, B. B. (1985). Sex and Friendship in Baboons.
|
|
|
|
Trivers, R. L. (1985). Social Evolution.
|
|
