|
Houpt, K. A., & Kusonose, R. (2000). Genetic of behaviour. In A. T. Bowling, & A. Ruvinsky (Eds.), Genetics of the Horse (pp. 281–306). Wallingford Oxfordshire: Cab Intl.
|
|
Byrne, R. W. (2000). How monkeys find their way: leadership, coordination, and cognitive maps of African baboons. In S. Boinski, & P. A. Garber (Eds.), On the Move: How and Why Animals Travel in Groups (pp. 491–518). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
|
|
Holekamp, K. E., Boydston, E.E, & Smale, L. (2000). Group Travel in Social Carnivores (S. Boinski, & P. A. Garber, Eds.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
|
Allman, J. M. (2000). Evolving brains. New York: Scientific American Library.
Abstract: How did the human brain with all its manifold capacities evolve from basic functions in simple organisms that lived nearly a billion years ago? John Allman addresses this question in Evolving Brains, a provocative study of brain evolution that introduces readers to some of the most exciting developments in science in recent years.
|
|
Garber, P., & Boinski, S. (2000). Group Movement in Social Primates and Other Animals: Patterns, Processes, and Cognitive Implications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
|
|
Silanikove, N. (2000). The physiological basis of adaptation in goats to harsh environments. Small Rum Res, 35.
|
|
Aldezabal, A., & Garin, I. (2000). Browsing preference of feral goats (Capra hircus L.) in a Mediterranean mountain scrubland. J Arid Env, 44.
|
|
McComb, K., Moss, C., Sayialel, S., & Baker, L. (2000). Unusually extensive networks of vocal recognition in African elephants. Anim Behav, 59.
|
Parr, L. A., Winslow, J. T., Hopkins, W. D., & de Waal, F. B. (2000). Recognizing facial cues: individual discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Comp Psychol, 114(1), 47–60.
Abstract: Faces are one of the most salient classes of stimuli involved in social communication. Three experiments compared face-recognition abilities in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). In the face-matching task, the chimpanzees matched identical photographs of conspecifics' faces on Trial 1, and the rhesus monkeys did the same after 4 generalization trials. In the individual-recognition task, the chimpanzees matched 2 different photographs of the same individual after 2 trials, and the rhesus monkeys generalized in fewer than 6 trials. The feature-masking task showed that the eyes were the most important cue for individual recognition. Thus, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys are able to use facial cues to discriminate unfamiliar conspecifics. Although the rhesus monkeys required many trials to learn the tasks, this is not evidence that faces are not as important social stimuli for them as for the chimpanzees.
|
Clement, T. S., Feltus, J. R., Kaiser, D. H., & Zentall, T. R. (2000). “Work ethic” in pigeons: reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward. Psychon Bull Rev, 7(1), 100–106.
Abstract: Stimuli associated with less effort or with shorter delays to reinforcement are generally preferred over those associated with greater effort or longer delays to reinforcement. However, the opposite appears to be true of stimuli that follow greater effort or longer delays. In training, a simple simultaneous discrimination followed a single peck to an initial stimulus (S+FR1 S-FR1) and a different simple simultaneous discrimination followed 20 pecks to the initial stimulus (S+FR20 S-FR20). On test trials, pigeons preferred S+FR20 over S+FR1 and S-FR20 over S-FR1. These data support the view that the state of the animal immediately prior to presentation of the discrimination affects the value of the reinforcement that follows it. This contrast effect is analogous to effects that when they occur in humans have been attributed to more complex cognitive and social factors.
|
