Edman, J. D. (1971). Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes. I. Aedes, Anopheles, Coquillettidia, Mansonia and Psorophora. J Med Entomol, 8(6), 687–695.
|
Wilhelm, W. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1971). Vahlkampfia lobospinosa (Craig. 1912) Craig. 1913: rediscovery of a coprozoic ameba. J Parasitol, 57(6), 1378–1379.
|
Shalaby, A. M. (1969). Host-preference observations on Anopheles culicifacies (Diptera: Culicidae) in Gujarat State, India. Ann Entomol Soc Am, 62(6), 1270–1273.
|
Hazem, A. S. (1978). [Collective review: Salmonella paratyphi in animals and in the environment]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 85(7), 296–303.
|
Beaver, B. V. (1981). Problems & values associated with dominance. Vet Med Small Anim Clin, 76(8), 1129–1131.
|
Swanson, J. C. (1995). Farm animal well-being and intensive production systems. J. Anim Sci., 73(9), 2744–2751.
Abstract: Animal welfare, or well-being, is a social issue with ethical, scientific, political, and aesthetic properties. Answering questions about the welfare of animals requires scientific definition, assessment, solutions, and public acceptance. With respect to the actual well-being of the animal, most issues are centered on how the animal “feels” when managed within a specific level of confinement, during special agricultural practices (e.g., tail docking, beak trimming, etc.) and handling. Questions of this nature may require exploration of animal cognition, motivation, perception, and emotional states in addition to more commonly recognized indicators of well-being. Several general approaches have emerged for solving problems concerning animal well-being in intensive production systems: environmental, genetic, and therapeutic. Environmental approaches involve modifying existing systems to accommodate specific welfare concerns or development of alternative systems. Genetic approaches involve changing the behavioral and (or) physiological nature of the animal to reduce or eliminate behaviors that are undesirable within intensive system. Therapeutic approaches of a physical (tail docking, beak trimming) and physiological (drug and nutritional therapy) nature bring both concern and promise with regard to the reduction of confinement stress. Finally, the recent focus on commodity quality assurance programs may indirectly provide benefits for animal well-being. Although research in the area of animal well-being will provide important information for better animal management, handling, care, and the physical design of intensive production systems there is still some uncertainty regarding public acceptance. The aesthetics of modern intensive production systems may have as much to do with public acceptance as with science.
|
Papakostas, Y. G., Daras, M. D., Liappas, I. A., & Markianos, M. (2005). Horse madness (hippomania) and hippophobia. Hist Psychiatry, 16(Pt 4 (no 64)), 467–471.
Abstract: Anthropophagic horses have been described in classical mythology. From a current perspective, two such instances are worth mentioning and describing: Glaucus of Potniae, King of Efyra, and Diomedes, King of Thrace, who were both devoured by their horses. In both cases, the horses' extreme aggression and their subsequent anthropophagic behaviour were attributed to their madness (hippomania) induced by the custom of feeding them with flesh. The current problem of 'mad cow' disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) is apparently related to a similar feed pattern. Aggressive behaviour in horses can be triggered by both biological and psychological factors. In the cases cited here, it is rather unlikely that the former were the cause. On the other hand, the multiple abuses imposed on the horses, coupled with people's fantasies and largely unconscious fears (hippophobia), may possibly explain these mythological descriptions of 'horse-monsters'.
|