|
Edman, J. D. (1971). Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes. I. Aedes, Anopheles, Coquillettidia, Mansonia and Psorophora. J Med Entomol, 8(6), 687–695.
|
|
Tempelis, C. H., & Nelson, R. L. (1971). Blood-feeding patterns of midges of the Culicoides variipennis complex in Kern County, California. J Med Entomol, 8(5), 532–534.
|
|
Stout, I. J., Clifford, C. M., Keirans, J. E., & Portman, R. W. (1971). Dermacentor variabilis (Say) (Acarina: Ixodidae) established in southeastern Washington and northern Idaho. J Med Entomol, 8(2), 143–147.
|
|
Washino, R. K., & Tempelis, C. H. (1967). Host-feeding patterns of Anopheles freeborni in the Sacramento Valley, California. J Med Entomol, 4(3), 311–314.
|
|
Ayres, C. M., Davey, L. M., & German, W. J. (1963). Cerebral Hydatidosis. Clinical Case Report With A Review Of Pathogenesis. J Neurosurg, 20, 371–377.
|
|
Hendricks, J. C., & Morrison, A. R. (1981). Normal and abnormal sleep in mammals. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 178(2), 121–126.
|
|
Selby, L. A., Marienfeld, C. J., & Pierce, J. O. (1970). The effects of trace elements on human and animal health. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 157(11), 1800–1808.
|
|
Pitchford, R. J., Visser, P. S., du Toit, J. F., de Pienaar, U. V., & Young, E. (1973). Observations on the ecology of Schistosoma mattheei Veglia & Le Roux, 1929, in portion of the Kruger National Park and surrounding area using a new quantitative technique for egg output. J S Afr Vet Assoc, 44(4), 405–420.
|
Tomkins, L. M., Williams, K. A., Thomson, P. C., & McGreevy, P. D. (2010). Sensory Jump Test as a measure of sensory (visual) lateralization in dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 5(5), 256–267.
Abstract: Sensory lateralization in dogs (n = 74) was investigated in this study using our innovation, the Sensory Jump Test. This required the modification of head halters to create three different ocular treatments (binocular, right, and left monocular vision) for eye preference assessment in a jumping task. Ten jumps were recorded as a jump set for each treatment. Measurements recorded included (i) launch and landing paws, (ii) type of jump, (iii) approach distance, (iv) clearance height of the forepaw, hindpaw, and the lowest part of the body to clear the jump, and (v) whether the jump was successful. Factors significantly associated with these jump outcomes included ocular treatment, jump set number, and replication number. Most notably, in the first jump set, findings indicated a left hemispheric dominance for the initial navigation of the Sensory Jump Test, as left monocular vision (LMV) compromised of jumping more than right monocular (RMV) and binocular vision, with a significantly reduced approach distance and forepaw clearance observed in dogs with LMV. However, by the third jump set, dogs undergoing LMV launched from a greater approach distance and with a higher clearance height, corresponding to an increase in success rate of the jump, in comparison with RMV and binocular vision dogs. A marginally non-significant RMV bias was observed for eye preference based on the laterality indices for approach distance (P = 0.060) and lowest body part clearance height (P = 0.067). A comparison between eye preference and launching or landing paws showed no association between these measures of sensory and motor laterality. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report on sensory lateralization in the dog, and furthermore, to compare both motor and sensory laterality in dogs.
|
Tomkins, L. M., McGreevy, P. D., & Branson, N. J. (2010). Lack of standardization in reporting motor laterality in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, 5(5), 235–239.
Abstract: Over the past 2 decades, numerous studies have been undertaken to assess motor laterality in the domestic dog. In anticipation of growth in this area of enquiry, we decided to review the literature on canine motor biases to identify any shortcomings, reflect on the lessons to be learned from and offer ways forward for future research into canine laterality. The aim of this review is to (i) summarize motor laterality findings in the dog, (ii) highlight areas lacking in standardization, and (iii) propose necessary criteria for future tests and global reporting protocols. Our review of the literature highlighted the lack of standardization between studies in task selection, sample size, number of behavior scores recorded, and the methods by which motor laterality were classified and reported. This review illustrates the benefits of standardizing methods of motor laterality assessment so that comparisons can be made between the populations sampled. By adopting such an approach, researchers should mutually benefit as motor laterality data could then be compared and subjected to meta-analysis.
|
