Abstract: The corpus callosum anatomically and functionally connects the two cerebral hemispheres. Despite its important role in interhemispheric communication however, severing the corpus callosum produces few--if any--noticeable cognitive or behavioral abnormalities. Incredibly, split-brain patients do not report any drastic changes in their conscious experience even though nearly all interhemispheric communication ceases after surgery. Extensive research has shown that both hemispheres remain conscious following disconnection and the conscious experience of each hemisphere is private and independent of the other. Additionally, the conscious experiences of the hemispheres appear to be qualitatively different, such that the consciousness of the left hemisphere is more enriched than the right. In this chapter, we offer explanations as to why split-brain patients feel unified despite possessing dual conscious experiences and discuss how the divided consciousness of split-brain patients can inform current theories of consciousness.

Abstract: Zusammenfassung Die vorliegende Abhandlung entspringt dem Aufgabenkreis einer jungen Arbeitsgemeinschaft zwischen Geisteswissenschaft und vergleichender Psychologie, die das wichtigste Programm des neugegründeten Philosophischen Institutes der Albertus-Universität in Königsberg darstellt. Sie ist aus der einen Abteilung dieser Anstalt, dem Institut für vergleichende Psychologie hervorgegangen. Obwohl sie eine ganze Reihe unveröffentlichter neuer Beobachtungen und Versuche enthält, stehen diese nicht genug im Mittelpunkte der Untersuchung, um eine Zusammenfassung von Ergebnissen in jener Form möglich zu machen, wie sie sonst in der induktiven Naturforschung üblich ist. Immerhin aber herrscht die induktive Denkweise in der vorliegenden Arbeit so stark vor, daß eine kurze Zusammenfassung angebracht erscbeint, wenn sie auch notgedrungen die Form einer kurzen Inhaltsangabe annehmea muß.

Abstract: The objective of this study was to investigate the ability of horses (Equus caballus) to detour around symmetric and asymmetric obstacles. Ten female Italian saddle horses were each used in three detour tasks. In the first task, the ability to detour around a symmetrical obstacle was evaluated; in the second and third tasks subjects were required to perform a detour around an asymmetrical obstacle with two different degrees of asymmetry. The direction chosen to move around the obstacle and time required to make the detour were recorded. The results suggest that horses have the spatial abilities required to perform detour tasks with both symmetric and asymmetric obstacles. The strategy used to perform the task varied between subjects. For five horses, lateralized behaviour was observed when detouring the obstacle; this was consistently in one direction (three on the left and two on the right). For these horses, no evidence of spatial learning or reasoning was found. The other five horses did not solve this task in a lateralized manner, and a trend towards decreasing lateralization was observed as asymmetry, and hence task difficulty, increased. These non-lateralized horses may have higher spatial reasoning abilities.

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: 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.