|
|
Mitchell R. (1995). Self-recognition, methodology and explanation: a comment on Heyes (1994). Anim. Behav., 51, 467.
|
|
|
|
Povinelli DJ, Gallup GG, Eddy TJ, Bierschwale DT, & Engstrom MC. (1997). Chimpanzees recognize themselves in mirrors. Anim. Behav., 53, 1083.
|
|
|
|
Povinelli DJ, Nelson KE, & Boysen ST. (1992). Comprehension of role reversal in chimpanzees: evidence of empathy? Anim. Behav., 43, 633.
|
|
|
|
Hauser MD, Kralik J, & Botto-Mahan C. (1999). Problem solving and functional design features: experiments on cotton-top tamarins, Saguinus oedipus oedipus. Anim. Behav., 57, 565.
|
|
|
|
Hauser MD, Pearson H, & Seelig D. (2002). Ontogeny of tool use in cottontop tamarins, Saguinus oedipus: innate recognition of functionally relevant features. Anim. Behav., 64, 299.
|
|
|
|
Hauser MD, Santos LR, Spaepen GM, & Pearson HE. (2002). Problem solving, inhibition and domain-specific experience: experiments on cotton-top tamarins, Saguinus oedipus. Anim. Behav., 64, 387.
|
|
|
|
Appleby M. (2002). Consciousness, Cognition and Animal Welfare – J.K. Kirkwood, R.C. Hubrecht, S. Wickens, H. O'Leary, S. Oakley (Eds.), Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, 2001, 251 pp., Paperback, Supplement to Volume 10 of Animal Welfare, 15/US$ 30, ISSN 0962-7286. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 77, 239–241.
|
|
|
|
Marinier, S. L., & Alexander, A. J. (1991). Selective grazing behaviour in horses: development of methodology and preliminary use of tests to measure individual grazing ability. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 30(3-4), 203–221.
Abstract: Methods are described to assess horses' selective grazing ability that includes choosing, sorting and the adaptive value of this behaviour. Choosing ability was tested by the experimenter presenting pairs of cut plant species that were then alternated at each presentation until the test horse had taken three bites of one of the plant pair. The results were analysed in relation to five measures of choosing behaviour: (1) the strength of the choice; (2) correspondence between first bite and the final choice; (3) constancy of the choice over a number of trials; (4) the comparison of the horses' ranking of the species over a number of trials; (5) the constancy of the linear arrangement of the plants over a number of trials. Sorting ability was tested using two methods. A mixture of two plant species was presented either in a clamp or loose in a trough. Results were based on number and weight of plant residues. The adaptive value of the behaviour related to the bitterness of toxic plants. This bitterness was represented in testing by quinine sulphate and a poisonous Senecio species. An extremely bitter substance “Bitrex” was also used in this context but was totally accepted by the horses. The horses' reactions to these substances were monitored using a behavioural score chart. The results from 12 horses revealed that the horses differed individually in their grazing ability. On this basis, the horses were classified as efficient, semi-efficient, or inefficient grazers. This finding has practical implications in deciding which horses may safely graze on pastures infested with toxic plants.
|
|
|
|
Gough, M. R. (1999). A note on the use of behavioural modification to aid clipping ponies. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 63(2), 171–175.
|
|
|
|
NICOLA J. ROONEY & JOHN W. S. BRADSHAW. (2005). Social cognition in the domestic dog: behaviour of spectators towards participants in interspecific games. Anim. Behav., 72(2), 343–352.
Abstract: previous termSocial cognition,next term in particular the derivation of previous termsocialnext term information from observation of interactions between members of a previous termsocialnext term group, has been widely investigated in primates, but it has received little attention in other previous termsocialnext term mammals, although it has been anecdotally reported in the previous termdomestic dog,next term Canis familiaris. We recorded the behaviour of previous termdogsnext term (“spectators”) that had observed controlled interactions between a human and a previous termdognext term (the “demonstrator”) competing for an object, and that were subsequently allowed to interact freely with both participants. When the competitions were playful, as indicated by signals performed by the human, the spectator was more likely to approach the winner first and/or more rapidly, suggesting that winners of games are perceived as desirable previous termsocialnext term partners. When the human did not perform play signals, changing the previous termsocialnext term context from play to contest over a resource, spectators were slower to approach either of the participants, suggesting that participants in contests were less desirable as previous termsocialnext term partners than participants in games. If the previous termdognext term was prevented from seeing the game, it still reacted differently to the winner and the loser, but its behaviour was not the same as after games that it had seen. We conclude that spectator previous termdogsnext term gain information from the players' subsequent behaviour as well as from direct observation of the game.
|
|
