|
|
Krösbacher, A. E. (2008). Das Arabische Vollblut: Eine kontrovers diskutierte Rasse: Was steckt wirklich hinter der Zucht dieser edlen Pferde? Bachelor's thesis, University for Veterinarian Medicine Vienna, Vienna.
|
|
|
|
Bödeker, E. (1908). Maultierzucht und Maultierhaltung (Vol. 3). Hannover: Max Jänecke.
|
|
|
|
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2009). The social brain hypothesis and its implications for social evolution. Annals of Human Biology, 36(5), 562–572.
Abstract: The social brain hypothesis was proposed as an explanation for the fact that primates have unusually large brains for body size compared to all other vertebrates: Primates evolved large brains to manage their unusually complex social systems. Although this proposal has been generalized to all vertebrate taxa as an explanation for brain evolution, recent analyses suggest that the social brain hypothesis takes a very different form in other mammals and birds than it does in anthropoid primates. In primates, there is a quantitative relationship between brain size and social group size (group size is a monotonic function of brain size), presumably because the cognitive demands of sociality place a constraint on the number of individuals that can be maintained in a coherent group. In other mammals and birds, the relationship is a qualitative one: Large brains are associated with categorical differences in mating system, with species that have pairbonded mating systems having the largest brains. It seems that anthropoid primates may have generalized the bonding processes that characterize monogamous pairbonds to other non-reproductive relationships (?friendships?), thereby giving rise to the quantitative relationship between group size and brain size that we find in this taxon. This raises issues about why bonded relationships are cognitively so demanding (and, indeed, raises questions about what a bonded relationship actually is), and when and why primates undertook this change in social style.
|
|
|
|
Greenberg, R. (2003). The role of neophobia and neophilia in the development of innovative behavour in birds. In S. M. Reader and K. N. Laland (Ed.), Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Reader, S. M., & MacDonald, K. (2003). Environmental variability and primate behavioural flexibiity. In S. M. Reader, & K. L. Laland (Eds.), Animal Innovation (pp. 83–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Miyata, H., Gajdon, G. K., Huber, L., & Fujita, K. (2011). How do keas (Nestor notabilis) solve artificial-fruit problems with multiple locks? Anim. Cogn., 14(1), 45–58.
Abstract: Keas, a species of parrots from New Zealand, are an interesting species for comparative studies of problem solving and cognition because they are known not only for efficient capacities for object manipulation but also for explorative and playful behaviors. To what extent are they efficient or explorative, and what cognitive abilities do they use? We examined how keas would solve several versions of artificial-fruit box problems having multiple locks. After training keas to remove a metal rod from over a Plexiglas lid that had to be opened, we exposed the birds to a variety of tasks having two or more locks. We also introduced a preview phase during which the keas had extended opportunity to look at the tasks before the experimenter allowed the birds to solve them, to examine whether the preview phase would facilitate the birds' performance on the tasks. In a large number of tests, the keas showed a strong trend to solve the tasks with no positive effect of previewing the tasks. When the tasks became complex, however, the keas corrected inappropriate responses more quickly when they had had chance to preview the problems than when they had not. The results suggest that the keas primarily used explorative strategies in solving the lock problems but might have obtained some information about the tasks before starting to solve them. This may reflect a good compromise of keas' trial-and-error tendency and their good cognitive ability that result from a selection pressure they have faced in their natural habitat.
|
|
|
|
Preiszner, B., Vincze, E., Seress, G., Papp, S., Bókony, V., Liker, A., et al. (2013). Necessity or capacity? Physiological state predicts problem-solving performance in house sparrows. Behav. Ecol., 25(1), 124–135.
Abstract: Innovative behaviors such as exploiting novel food sources can grant significant fitness benefits for animals, yet little is known about the mechanisms driving such phenomena, and the role of physiology is virtually unexplored in wild species. Two hypotheses predict opposing effects of physiological state on innovation success. On one hand, poor physiological condition may promote innovations by forcing individuals with poor competitive abilities to invent alternative solutions. On the other hand, superior physiological condition may ensure greater cognitive capacity and thereby better problem-solving and learning performance. To test these hypotheses, we studied the behavior of wild-caught house sparrows (Passer domesticus) in 4 novel tasks of food acquisition, one of which was presented to the birds in repeated trials, and we investigated the relationships of individual performance with relevant physiological traits. We found that problem-solving performance across the 4 tasks was moderately consistent within individuals. Birds with lower integrated levels of corticosterone, the main avian stress hormone, solved the most difficult task faster and were more efficient learners in the repeated task than birds with higher corticosterone levels. Birds with higher concentration of total glutathione, a key antioxidant, solved 2 relatively easy tasks faster, whereas birds with fewer coccidian parasites tended to solve the difficult task more quickly. Our results, thus, indicate that aspects of physiological state influence problem-solving performance in a context-dependent manner, and these effects on problem-solving capacity, probably including cognitive abilities, are more likely to drive individual innovation success than necessity due to poor condition.
|
|
|
|
Bateson, P. (2014). Play, playfulness, creativity and innovation. Anim. Behav. Cogn., 1(2), 99–112.
|
|
|
|
Thornton Alex, & Lukas Dieter. (2012). Individual variation in cognitive performance: developmental and evolutionary perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 367(1603), 2773–2783.
|
|
|
|
Tebbich Sabine, Griffin Andrea S., Peschl Markus F., & Sterelny Kim. (2016). From mechanisms to function: an integrated framework of animal innovation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 371(1690), 20150195.
Abstract: Animal innovations range from the discovery of novel food types to the invention of completely novel behaviours. Innovations can give access to new opportunities, and thus enable innovating agents to invade and create novel niches. This in turn can pave the way for morphological adaptation and adaptive radiation. The mechanisms that make innovations possible are probably as diverse as the innovations themselves. So too are their evolutionary consequences. Perhaps because of this diversity, we lack a unifying framework that links mechanism to function. We propose a framework for animal innovation that describes the interactions between mechanism, fitness benefit and evolutionary significance, and which suggests an expanded range of experimental approaches. In doing so, we split innovation into factors (components and phases) that can be manipulated systematically, and which can be investigated both experimentally and with correlational studies. We apply this framework to a selection of cases, showing how it helps us ask more precise questions and design more revealing experiments.
|
|
