Jolly, A. (1998). Pair-bonding, female aggression and the evolution of lemur societies. Folia Primatol (Basel), 69 Suppl 1, 1–13.
Abstract: Lemur societies have been described as convergent with those of anthropoids, including Papio-like female-bonded multi-male groups. Recent research, however, shows at least 5 pair-bonded species among the Lemuridae and Indriidae. Three more, Eulemur mongoz, Eulemur fulvus and Varecia variegata, have societies combining aspects of pairing with aspects of troop life. The best-known female-bonded societies, those of Lemur catta, Propithecus diadema edwardsi and Propithecus verreauxi, may be assemblages of mother-daughter dyads, capable of high aggression towards other females, but derived from more solitary female ancestors, perhaps also living as pairs. The internal structure of such lemur groups differs from the more extensive kin groups of catarrhines. This in turn may relate to the lemurs' level of social intelligence and to lemur female dominance over males.
|
Wasserman, E. A. (1997). The science of animal cognition: past, present, and future. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 23(2), 123–135.
Abstract: The field of animal cognition is strongly rooted in the philosophy of mind and in the theory of evolution. Despite these strong roots, work during the most famous and active period in the history of our science-the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s-may have diverted us from the very questions that were of greatest initial interest to the comparative analysis of learning and behavior. Subsequently, the field has been in steady decline despite its increasing breadth and sophistication. Renewal of the field of animal cognition may require a return to the original questions of animal communication and intelligence using the most advanced tools of modern psychological science. Reclaiming center stage in contemporary psychology will be difficult; planning that effort with a host of strategies should enhance the chances of success.
|
Boice, R. (1981). Behavioral comparability of wild and domesticated rats. Behav Genet, 11(5), 545–553.
Abstract: The oft-repeated concern for the lack of behavioral comparability of domestic rats with wild forms of Rattus norvegicus is unfounded. Laboratory rats appear to show the potential for all wild-type behaviors, including the most dramatic social postures. Moreover, domestics are capable of assuming a feral existence without difficulty, one where they readily behave in a fashion indistinguishable from wild rats. The one behavioral difference that is clearly established concerns performance in laboratory learning paradigms. The superiority of domestics in these laboratory tasks speaks more to quieting the concerns of degeneracy theorists than to problems of using domestic Norway rats as subjects representative of their species.
|
Cowley, J. J., & Griesel, R. D. (1966). The effect on growth and behaviour of rehabilitating first and second generation low protein rats. Anim. Behav., 14(4), 506–517.
|
McClearn, G. E. (1971). Behavioral genetics. Behav Sci, 16(1), 64–81.
|
Cattell, R. B., & Korth, B. (1973). The isolation of temperament dimensions in dogs. Behav Biol, 9(1), 15–30.
|
Levy, J. (1977). The mammalian brain and the adaptive advantage of cerebral asymmetry. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 299, 264–272.
|
Heinrich, B., & Bugnyar, T. (2007). Just how smart are ravens? Sci Am, 296(4), 64–71.
|
Straub, A. (2007). An intelligent crow beats a lab. Science, 316(5825), 688.
|
Morell, V. (2007). Nicola Clayton profile. Nicky and the jays (Vol. 315).
|