Abstract: Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study.

Abstract: Horses involved in road traffic accidents (RTAs) are commonly presented to veterinarians with varying types of injuries. The aim
of this study was describe the pattern and severity of traffic accident-related injuries in horses in a single hospital population. Medical
records of horses either hit by a motorized vehicle or involved in RTAs whilst being transported from 1993 to 2015 were retrospectively
reviewed and the following data was extracted: Signalement, hospitalisation time, month in which the accident happened, cause of the
accident, place of the accident and type of vehicle hitting the horse. Further the different body sites injured (head, neck, breast, fore limb,
abdomen, back and spine, pelvis and ileosacral region, hind limb, tail and genital region), the type of injury (wounds, musculoskeletal
lesions and internal lesions) and the presence of neurological signs were retrieved from the medical records. 34 horses hit by motorized
vehicles and 13 horses involved in RTAs whilst being transported were included in the study. Most of the accidents where horses were hit
by motorized vehicles occurred during December (14.7%) and October (14.7%), horses were most commonly hit by cars (85.3%) and the
majority of accidents occurred on main roads (26.5%). In 29.4% of the cases, horses had escaped from their paddock and then collided
with a motorized vehicle. Most of the accidents with horses involved in RTAs whilst being transported occurred during April (30.8%) and
June (23.1%). In 76.9% of the cases the accident happened on a freeway. In the horses hit by motorized vehicles the proximal hind limbs
were the body site most commonly affected (44.1%), followed by the proximal front limbs (38.2%) and the head (32.4%). When horses
were involved in RTAs whilst being transported the proximal fore limbs (61.5%), the proximal hind limbs (53.8%) and the distal hind limbs,
back and head (38.5% each) were the most common injured body sites. Wounds were the most common type of injury in both groups
(85.3% hit by motorized vehicle, 76.9% transported ones). In horses hit by a motorized vehicle 35.3% suffered from fractures, in 20.6%
a synovial structure was involved and in 5.9% a tendon lesion was present. 14.7% suffered from internal lesions and 14.7% showed neurologic
symptoms (40% peripheral, 60% central neurologic deficits). On the other hand, in horses involved in a RTA whilst being transported
30.8% suffered from fractures. There were no synovial structures injured and no tendon injuries were present. Furthermore there were
no internal lesions present and only one horse involved in a RTA showed central neurologic symptoms. Injuries of horses being hit by a
motorized vehicle were more severe than when horses were protected by a trailer and involved in a RTA whilst being transported. The study
has been able to identify the different injury types of traffic accident-related injuries in horses. Awareness of the nature of these injuries is
important, to avoid underestimation of their severity.

Abstract: Domestic horses are faced with social challenges throughout their lives due to limitations in social contact, space restrictions and frequent changes in social companionship. This is in contrast to natural conditions where horses live in relatively stable harem bands. Currently, little is known about how repeated regrouping affect horse behaviour and welfare, and it is unknown whether horses may adapt to regrouping. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of an unstable group structure, caused by weekly regroupings, on behaviour and frequency of injuries in young horses. Forty-five horses were included in the study and were randomly assigned to the treatments; Stable (S; seven groups of three horses) or Unstable (U; eight groups of three horses). The experimental period lasted 7 weeks, during which horses in Stable groups remained in the same group, whereas one horse was exchanged between Unstable groups every week. The groups were kept in 80m×80m grass-covered enclosures and were fed additional roughage on the ground daily. Social interactions were recorded in Unstable groups immediately after each regrouping (30min), and in both Stable and Unstable groups on day 1, 3 and 6 after each regrouping (2×20min/group/day). Injuries were scored by the end of the experimental period. The level of aggression shown by horses in Unstable groups immediately after regrouping was not affected by week (F5,35=0.42, P=0.83), indicating that horses neither habituated, nor sensitized, to repeated regrouping. Compared to horses in Stable groups, more agonistic behaviour was shown by horses in Unstable groups (i.e. non-contact agonistic; F1,65=5.60, P=0.02), whereas there was no treatment effect on other variables. The level of play behaviour appeared, however, to be more variable in Unstable groups. There was a significant effect of week on the level of contact agonistic interactions as well as greeting behaviour, due to a high occurrence in weeks 4-6. Non-contact agonistic interactions constituted the major part of agonistic interactions (66%). Possibly as consequence, no serious injuries were registered and there was no treatment effect (U=184; P=0.11). We conclude that the behaviour of young horses is affected by group management, and that horses appear not to adapt to weekly regroupings.

Abstract: Prima facie, the acquisition of novel behaviors in animals through observation of conspecifics seems straightforward. There are, however, various mechanisms through which the behavior of animals can be altered from observing others. These mechanisms range from simple hard-wired contagious processes to genuine learning by observation, which differ fundamentally in cognitive complexity. They range from social facilitation and local enhancement to true social learning. The different learning mechanisms are the subject of this review, largely because research on learning by observation can be confounded by difficulties in interpretation owing to the looming possibility of associative learning infecting experimental results. While it is often assumed that horses are capable of acquiring new behavior through intra-species observation, research on social learning in horses includes a variety of studies some of which may overestimate the possession of higher mental abilities. Assuming such abilities in their absence can have welfare implications, e.g. isolating stereotypical horses on the assumption that these behaviors can be learned though observation by neighboring horses. This review summarizes the definitions and criteria for the various types of social transmission and social learning and reviews the current documentation for each type in horses with the aim of clarifying whether horses possess the ability to learn through true social learning. As social ungulates, horses evolved in open landscapes, exposed to predators and grazing most of the day. Being in close proximity to conspecifics may theoretically offer an opportunity to learn socially, however anti-predator vigilance and locating forage may not require the neural complexity of social learning. Given the significant energetic expense of brain tissue, it is likely that social facilitation and local enhancement may have been sufficient in the adaptation of equids to their niche. As a consequence, social learning abilities may be maladaptive in horses. Collectively, the review proposes a novel differentiation between social transmission (social facilitation, local and stimulus enhancement) and social learning (goal emulation, imitation). Horses are undoubtedly sensitive to intra-species transfer of information but this transfer does not appear to satisfy the criteria for social learning, and thus there is no solid evidence for true social learning in horses.