|
|
Berliner Vr,. (1959). The estrous cycle of the mare. In: Cole,H.H., Cupps,P.T. Reproductions in domestic animals, 1, 267–289.
|
|
|
|
Houpt, K. A., Law, K., & Martinisi, V. (1978). Dominance hierarchies in domestic horses. Appl. Animal. Ethol., 4(3), 273–283.
Abstract: Dominance hierarchies were studied in 11 herds of domestic horses and ponies (Equus caballus). A paired feeding test was utilized to establish the dominance--subordination relationship between each pair of animals in a herd. Aggressive actions, threats, bites, kicks and chases were also recorded. In small herds linear hierarchies were formed, but in large herds triangular relationships were observed. Aggression was correlated with dominance rank. Body weight, but not age, appear to affect rank in the equine hierarchy. Juvenile horses were more likely to share feed with each other than were adult horses and were usually subordinate to adult horses. The daughters of a dominant mare were dominant within their own herds.
|
|
|
|
Osthaus, B., Proops, L., Hocking, I., & Burden, F. (2013). Spatial cognition and perseveration by horses, donkeys and mules in a simple A-not-B detour task. Animal Cognition, 16(2), 301–305.
Abstract: We investigated perseveration and detour behaviour in 36 equids (Equus caballus, E. asinus, E. caballus × E. asinus) and compared these data to those of a previous study on domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). The animals were required to make a detour through a gap at one end of a straight barrier in order to reach a visible target. After one, two, three or four repeats (A trials), the gap was moved to the opposite end of the barrier (B trials). We recorded initial deviations from the correct solution path and the latency to crossing the barrier. In the A trials, mules crossed the barrier significantly faster than their parental species, the horses and donkeys. In the B trials, following the change of gap location, all species showed a reduction in performance. Both dogs and horses exhibited significant spatial perseveration, going initially to the previous gap location. Donkeys and mules, however, performed at chance level. Our results suggest that hybrid vigour in mules extends to spatial abilities.
|
|
|
|
WARING GH et al,. The behaviour of horses. (pp. 330–369).
|
|
|
|
Tembrock G,. (1968). Land mammals. (pp. 338–404).
|
|
|
|
Komárková, M., & Bartošová, J. (2013). Lateralized suckling in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Animal Cognition, 16(3), 343–349.
Abstract: Brain lateralization enables preferential processing of certain stimuli and more effective utilization of these stimuli in either the left or the right cerebral hemisphere. Horses show both motor and sensory lateralization patterns. Our aim was to determine whether a lateralized response could be detected in foals during the naturally side-biased behaviour, suckling. The foals’ preferred suckling side could be the effect of either visual or motor lateralization. In the case of a visual lateralized response, foals are expected to suck more often from the mother’s right side, so potential danger can be detected by the better adapted right hemisphere (i.e. left eye). Motor lateralization can be identified when a foal will suck predominantly from one side, either left or right. We found no population trend in the preferred suckling side, but we detected significant differences amongst individual foals. One-third (35.4 %) of 79 foals showed a strong, either right or left side preference which increased with age. The mothers did not influence the foals’ suckling side preferences either by side-biased rejection or termination of suckling. According to our findings, a general pattern of sucking with the left eye open for better danger detection and recognition is unlikely in foals up to 7 months old. Foals of this age are probably young or fully focused on suckling and rely on their mothers’ vigilance. Individual side preferences amongst foals are suggested to be based on motor lateralization.
|
|
|
|
Scheider, L., Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Do domestic dogs interpret pointing as a command? Animal Cognition, 16(3), 361–372.
Abstract: Domestic dogs comprehend human gestural communication flexibly, particularly the pointing gesture. Here, we examine whether dogs interpret pointing informatively, that is, as simply providing information, or rather as a command, for example, ordering them to move to a particular location. In the first study a human pointed toward an empty cup. In one manipulation, the dog either knew or did not know that the designated cup was empty (and that the other cup actually contained the food). In another manipulation, the human (as authority) either did or did not remain in the room after pointing. Dogs ignored the human’s gesture if they had better information, irrespective of the authority’s presence. In the second study, we varied the level of authority of the person pointing. Sometimes this person was an adult, and sometimes a young child. Dogs followed children’s pointing just as frequently as they followed adults’ pointing (and ignored the dishonest pointing of both), suggesting that the level of authority did not affect their behavior. Taken together these studies suggest that dogs do not see pointing as an imperative command ordering them to a particular location. It is still not totally clear, however, if they interpret it as informative or in some other way.
|
|
|
|
Epstein H,. (1971). Wild Ass. In Epstein: The origin of the domestic animals of Africa. II, , 378–381.
|
|
|
|
Kaminski, J., Pitsch, A., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Dogs steal in the dark. Animal Cognition, 16(3), 385–394.
Abstract: All current evidence of visual perspective taking in dogs can possibly be explained by dogs reacting to certain stimuli rather than understanding what others see. In the current study, we set up a situation in which contextual information and social cues are in conflict. A human always forbade the dog from taking a piece of food. The part of the room being illuminated was then varied, for example, either the area where the human was seated or the area where the food was located was lit. Results show that dogs steal significantly more food when it is dark compared to when it is light. While stealing forbidden food the dog’s behaviour also depends on the type of illumination in the room. Illumination around the food, but not the human, affected the dogs’ behaviour. This indicates that dogs do not take the sight of the human as a signal to avoid the food. It also cannot be explained by a low-level associative rule of avoiding illuminated food which dogs actually approach faster when they are in private. The current finding therefore raises the possibility that dogs take into account the human’s visual access to the food while making their decision to steal it.
|
|
|
|
Epstein H,. (1971). Descent and origin of the ass. (pp. 394–398).
|
|
