Abstract: Venezuelan encephalitis (VE) virus has intermittently produced epidemics and equine epizootics on the dry Pacific coastal plain of Peru since at least the 1930's. However, evidence that the virus exists in the Amazon region of Peru to the east of the Andes mountains was not obtained until antibodies were found in human sera collected in 1965, and 10 strains of the virus were isolated in a forest near the city of Iquitos, Peru during February and March 1971. Eight strains came from mosquitoes and two from dead sentinel hamsters. Three hamsters exposed in forests near Iquitos developed VE virus antibodies suggesting that hamster-benign strains also exist there. Antibody tests of equine sera revealed no evidence that VE virus was actively cycling during the late 1950's or 1960's in southern coastal Peru, where equine epizootics had occurred in the 1930's and 1940's. In northern coastal Peru bordering Ecuador, antibodies were present in equine sera, presumably residual from the 1969 outbreak caused by subtype I virus, since neutralizing antibody titers were higher to subtype I virus than to subtypes III or IV. No VE virus was detected in this northern region during the dry season of 1970 by use of sentinel hamsters. The possibility is considered that VE epidemics and equine epizootics on the Pacific coast of Peru are caused by movements of virus in infected vertebrates traversing Andean passes or in infected vertebrates or mosquitoes carried in airplanes from the Amazon region.

Abstract: Reeves' concept of the summer transmission cycle of western equine encephalomyelitis virus in 1945 was that the virus was amplified in a silent transmission cycle involving mosquitoes, domestic chickens, and possibly wild birds, from which it could be transmitted tangentially to and cause disease in human and equine populations. Extensive field and laboratory studies done since 1945 in the Central Valley of California have more clearly defined the specific invertebrate and vertebrate hosts involved in the basic virus transmission cycle, but the overall concept remains unchanged. The basic transmission cycle involves Culex tarsalis as the primary vector mosquito species and house finches and house sparrows as the primary amplifying hosts. Secondary amplifying hosts, upon which Cx. tarsalis frequently feeds, include other passerine species, chickens, and possibly pheasants in areas where they are abundant. Another transmission cycle that most likely is initiated from the Cx. tarsalis-wild bird cycle involves Aedes melanimon and the blacktail jackrabbit. Like humans and horses, California ground squirrels, western tree squirrels, and a few other wild mammal species become infected tangentially with the virus but do not contribute significantly to virus amplification.

Abstract: Social dominance is usually viewed from the perspective of intragroup competition over access to limited resources. The present paper, while not denying the importance of such competition, discusses the dominance concept among monkeys and apes in the context of affiliative bonding, social tolerance, and the reconciliation of aggressive conflicts. Two basic proximate mechanisms are supposed to provide a link between dominance and interindividual affiliation, namely, formalization of the dominance relationship (i.e., unequivocal communication of status), and conditional reassurance (i.e., the linkage of friendly coexistence to formalization of the relationship). Ritualized submission is imposed upon losers of dominance struggles by winners; losers are offered a “choice” between continued hostility or a tolerant relationship with a clearly signalled difference in status. If these two social mechanisms are lacking, aggression is bound to have dispersive effects. In their presence, aggression becomes a well-integrated, even constructive component of social life. In some higher primates this process of integration has reached the stage where status differences are strongly attenuated. In these species, sharing and trading can take the place of overt competition. The views underlying this “reconciled hierarchy” model are only partly new, as is evident from a review of the ethological literature. Many points are illustrated with data on a large semi-captive colony of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), particularly data related to striving for status, reconciliation behavior, and general association patterns. These observations demonstrate that relationships among adult male chimpanzees cannot be described in terms of a dichotomy between affiliative and antagonistic tendencies. Male bonding in this species has not been achieved by an elimination of aggression, but by a set of powerful buffering mechanisms that mitigate its effects. Although female chimpanzees do exhibit a potential for bonding under noncompetitive conditions, they appear to lack the buffering mechanisms of the males.