Abstract: Three rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were trained to respond to exemplars of 1, 2, 3, and 4 in an ascending, descending, or a nonmonotonic numerical order (1-->2-->3-->4, 4-->3-->2--1, 3-->1-->4-->2). The monkeys were then tested on their ability to order pairs of the novel numerosities 5-9. In Experiment 1, all 3 monkeys ordered novel exemplars of the numerosities 1-4 in ascending or descending order. The attempt to train a nonmonotonic order (3-->1-->4-->2) failed. In Experiment 2A, the 2 monkeys who learned the ascending numerical rule ordered pairs of the novel numerosities 5-9 on unreinforced trials. The monkey who learned the descending numerical rule failed to extrapolate the descending rule to new numerosities. In Experiment 2B all 3 monkeys ordered novel exemplars of pairs of the numerosities 5-9. Accuracy and latency of responding revealed distance and magnitude effects analogous to previous findings with human participants (R. S. Moyer & T. K. Landaeur, 1967). Collectively these studies show that monkeys represent the numerosities 1-9 on at least an ordinal scale.

Abstract: In 1993, Les Real invented the label 'cognitive ecology'. This label was intended for work that brought cognitive science and behavioural ecology together. Real's article stressed the importance of such an approach to the understanding of behaviour. At the end of a decade in which more interdisciplinary work on behaviour has been seen than for many years, it is time to assess whether cognitive ecology is a label describing an active field.

Abstract: Coalition formation has been documented in a diverse array of taxa, yet there has been little formal analysis of polyadic interactions such as coalitions. Here, we develop an optimality model which examines the role of winner and loser effects in shaping coalition formation. We demonstrate that the predicted patterns of alliances are strongly dependent on the way in which winner and loser effects change with contestant strength. When winner and loser effects decrease with the resource-holding power (RHP) of the combatants, coalitions will be favoured between the strongest members of a group, but not between the weakest. If, in contrast, winner and loser effects increase with RHP, exactly the opposite predictions emerge. All other things being equal, intervention is more likely to prove worthwhile when the beneficiary of the aid is weaker (and its opponent is stronger), because the beneficiary is then less likely to win without help. Consequently, intervention is more probable when the impact of victory on the subsequent performance of a combatant increases with that individual's strength because this selects for intervention in favour of weaker combatants. The published literature on hierarchy formation does not reveal how winner and loser effects actually change with contestant strength and we therefore hope that our model will spur others to collect such data; in this light we suggest an experiment which will help to elucidate the nature of winner and loser effects and their impact on coalition formation in animals.

Abstract: Socio-ecological explanations for intra- and interspecific variation in the social and spatial organization of animals predominate in the scientific literature. The socio-ecological model, developed first for the Bovidae and Cervidae, is commonly applied more widely to other groups including the Equidae. Intraspecific comparisons are particularly valuable because they allow the role of environment and demography on social and spatial organization to be understood while controlling for phylogeny or morphology which confound interspecific comparisons. Feral horse (Equus caballus Linnaeus 1758) populations with different demography inhabit a range of environments throughout the world. I use 56 reports to obtain 23 measures or characteristics of the behaviour and the social and spatial organization of 19 feral horse populations in which the environment, demography, management, research effort and sample size are also described. Comparison shows that different populations had remarkably similar social and spatial organization and that group sizes and composition, and home range sizes varied as much within as between populations. I assess the few exceptions to uniformity and conclude that they are due to the attributes of the studies themselves, particularly to poor definition of terms and inadequate empiricism, rather than to the environment or demography per se. Interspecific comparisons show that equid species adhere to their different social and spatial organizations despite similarities in their environments and even when species are sympatric. Furthermore, equid male territoriality has been ill-defined in previous studies, observations presented as evidence of territoriality are also found in non-territorial equids, and populations of supposedly territorial species demonstrate female defence polygyny. Thus, territoriality may not be a useful categorization in the Equidae. Moreover, although equid socio-ecologists have relied on the socio-ecological model derived from the extremely diverse Bovidae and Cervidae for explanations of variation in equine society, the homomorphic, but large and polygynous, and monogeneric Equidae do not support previous socio-ecological explanations for relationships between body size, mating system and sexual dimorphism in ungulates. Consequently, in spite of the efforts of numerous authors during the past two decades, functional explanations of apparent differences in feral horse and equid social and spatial organization and behaviour based on assumptions of their current utility in the environmental or demographic context remain unconvincing. Nevertheless, differences in social cohesion between species that are insensitive to intra- and interspecific variation in habitat and predation pressure warrant explanation. Thus, I propose alternative avenues of inquiry including testing for species-specific differences in inter-individual aggression and investigating the role of phylogenetic constraints in equine society. The Equidae are evidence of the relative importance of phylogeny and biological structure, and unimportance of the present-day environment, in animal behaviour and social and spatial organization.