Abstract: Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study.

Abstract: This study investigates behavioural lateralization in sheep and lambs of different ages. A flock was tested in a task in which the animals were facing an obstacle and should avoid it on either the right or left side to rejoin flock-mates (adult sheep) or their mothers (lambs). A bias for avoiding the obstacle on the right side was observed, with lambs apparently being more lateralized than sheep. This right bias was tentatively associated with the left-hemifield laterality in familiar faces recognition which has been documented in this species. Differences between adult sheep and lambs were likely to be due to differences in social reinstatement motivation elicited by different stimuli (flock-mates or mothers) at different ages. Preferential use of the forelegs to step on a wood-board and direction of jaw movement during rumination was also tested in adult animals. No population bias nor individual-level lateralization was observed for use of the forelegs. At the same time, however, there was a large number of animals showing individual-level lateralization for the direction of jaw movement during rumination even though there was no population bias. These findings highlight that within the same species individual- and population-level lateralization can be observed in different tasks. Moreover, the results fit the general hypothesis that population-level asymmetries are more likely to occur in tasks that require social coordination among behaviourally asymmetric individuals.

Abstract: Development of a widely accepted vocabulary referring to various types of social learning has made important contributions to decades of progress in analyzing the role of socially acquired information in the development of behavioral repertoires. It is argued here that emergence of a consensus vocabulary, while facilitating both communication and research, has also unnecessarily restricted research on social learning. The article has two parts. In the first, I propose that Thorndike, 1898, Thorndike, 1911 definition of imitation as “learning to do an act from seeing it done” has unduly restricted studies of the behavioral processes involved in the propagation of behavior. In part 2, I consider the possibility that success in labeling social learning processes believed to be less cognitively demanding than imitation (e.g. local and stimulus enhancement, social facilitation, etc.) has been mistaken for understanding of those processes, although essentially nothing is known of their stimulus control, development, phylogeny or substrate either behavioral or physiological.

Abstract: Despite the abundant empirical evidence on lateralized social behaviours, a clear understanding of the relative roles of two brain hemispheres in social processing is still lacking. This study investigated visual lateralization in social interactions of free-ranging European bison (Bison bonasus). The bison were more likely to display aggressive responses (such as fight and side hit), when they viewed the conspecific with the right visual field, implicating the left brain hemisphere. In contrast, the responses associated with positive social interactions (female-to-calf bonding, calf-to-female approach, suckling) or aggression inhibition (fight termination) occurred more likely when the left visual field was in use, indicating the right hemisphere advantage. The results do not support either assumptions of right-hemisphere dominance for control of various social functions or hypotheses about simple positive (approach) versus negative (withdrawal) distinction between the hemispheric roles. The discrepancy between the studies suggests that in animals, the relative roles of the hemispheres in social processing may be determined by a fine balance of emotions and motivations associated with the particular social reaction difficult to categorize for a human investigator. Our findings highlight the involvement of both brain hemispheres in the control of social behaviour.