|
|
Connor, R. C., Mann, J., Tyack, P. L., & Whitehead, H. (1998). Social evolution in toothed whales. Trends. Ecol. Evol, 13(6), 228–232.
Abstract: Two contrasting results emerge from comparisons of the social systems of several odontocetes with terrestrial mammals. Researchers have identified remarkable convergence in prominent features of the social systems of odontocetes such as the sperm whale and bottlenose dolphin with a few well-known terrestrial mammals such as the elephant and chimpanzee. In contrast, studies on killer whales and Baird's beaked whale reveal novel social solutions to aquatic living. The combination of convergent and novel features in odontocete social systems promise a more general understanding of the ecological determinants of social systems in both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, as well as the relationship between relative brain size and social evolution.
|
|
|
|
Keil, N. M., Sambraus, H.H. (1998). “Intervenors” in agonistic interactions amongst domesticated goats. Z. Säugetierk., 63(5), 266–272.
Abstract: Social behaviour was observed in individually marked goats in two herds. The goats from one herd (n = 98) were horned, those of the other herd (n = 83) were polled. By recording agonistic interactions within the herds, a dominance index was determined for each animal. In both herds, intervention took place. Intervention is defined as one animal pushing in between two fighters, and thus ending the fight. More cases of intervention took place per individual animal amongst the horned goats than amongst the polled ones. Goats which intervened in fights on several occasions usually had a high dominance index. Members of the herd which were observed intervening only once had an average dominance index in both herds of almost 0.5. In some cases, goats very low in the rank order intervened a fight. Only rarely did the intervenors have a lower dominance index than the two fighters. In 103 cases, the direct dominance relationship between a fighting animal and the intervenor was known. In 95 cases (92.2%), the intervenor was dominant to the herd member in this fight and in just eight cases (7.8%), it was subordinate. It could not be determined what advantage the intervenor gained from its activity. It is possible that, at least in certain cases, a particularly relationship existed between the intervenor and one of the fighters.
|
|
