|
|
Buttiker, W. (1973). [Preliminary report on eye-frequenting butterflies in the Ivory Coast]. Rev Suisse Zool, 80(1), 1–43.
|
|
|
|
Parr, L. A., & de Waal, F. B. (1999). Visual kin recognition in chimpanzees (Vol. 399).
|
|
|
|
Moon, C., Baldridge, M. T., Wallace, M. A., Burnham, C. - A. D., Virgin, H. W., & Stappenbeck, T. S. (2015). Vertically transmitted faecal IgA levels determine extra-chromosomal phenotypic variation. Nature, 521(7550), 90–93.
Abstract: The proliferation of genetically modified mouse models has exposed phenotypic variation between investigators and institutions that has been challenging to control1-5. In many cases, the microbiota is the presumed culprit of the variation. Current solutions to account for phenotypic variability include littermate and maternal controls or defined microbial consortia in gnotobiotic mice6,7. In conventionally raised mice, the microbiome is transmitted from the dam2,8,9. Here we show that microbially–driven dichotomous fecal IgA levels in WT mice within the same facility mimic the effects of chromosomal mutations. We observed in multiple facilities that vertically-transmissible bacteria in IgA-Low mice dominantly lowered fecal IgA levels in IgA-High mice after cohousing or fecal transplantation. In response to injury, IgA-Low mice showed increased damage that was transferable by fecal transplantation and driven by fecal IgA differences. We found that bacteria from IgA-Low mice degraded the secretory component (SC) of SIgA as well as IgA itself. These data indicate that phenotypic comparisons between mice must take into account the non-chromosomal hereditary variation between different breeders. We propose fecal IgA as one marker of microbial variability and conclude that cohousing and/or fecal transplantation enables analysis of progeny from different dams.
|
|
|
|
Beer, C. G. (1998). Varying Views of Animal and Human Cognition. In Russell P. Balda, Irene M. Pepperberg, & Alan C. Kamil (Eds.), Animal Cognition in Nature (pp. 435–456). London: Academic Press.
Abstract: Summary In this chapter I want to stand back from the splendid empirical work on animal cognitive capacities that is the focus of this book, and look at the broader context of cognitive concerns within which the work can be viewed. Indeed even the term `cognitive ethology' currently connotes and denotes more than is represented here, as other collections of articles, such as and , exemplify. I include the current descendants of behavioristic learning theory, evolutionary epistemology, evolutionary psychology and the recent comparative turn that has been taken in cognitive science. These several approaches, despite their considerable overlap, often appear independent and even ignorant of one another. Like the proverbial blind men feeling the hide of an elephant, they touch hands from time to time, yet collectively have only a piecemeal and distributed understanding of the shape of the whole. Although each approach may indeed need the space to work out its own conceptual and methodological preoccupations without confounding interference from other views, a utopian spirit envisages an ultimate coming together, a more comprehensive realization of the synthetic approach to animal cognition that is this book's theme.
|
|
|
|
Matsuzawa, T. (1985). Use of numbers by a chimpanzee. Nature, 315(6014), 57–59.
Abstract: Recent studies have examined linguistic abilities in apes. However, although human mathematical abilities seem to be derived from the same foundation as those in language, we have little evidence for mathematical abilities in apes (but for exceptions see refs 7-10). In the present study, a 5-yr-old female chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), 'Ai', was trained to use Arabic numerals to name the number of items in a display. Ai mastered numerical naming from one to six and was able to name the number, colour and object of 300 types of samples. Although no particular sequence of describing samples was required, the chimpanzee favoured two sequences (colour/object/number and object/colour/number). The present study demonstrates that the chimpanzee was able to describe the three attributes of the sample items and spontaneously organized the 'word order'.
|
|
|
|
Gilbert, B. K., & Hailman, J. P. (1966). Uncertainty of leadership-rank in fallow deer. Nature, 209(5027), 1041–1042.
|
|
|
|
Goodall J. (1964). Tool-using and aimed throwing in a community of free-living chimpanzees. Nature, 201, 1264.
|
|
|
|
Sugiyama Y. (1994). Tool use by wild chimpanzees. Nature, 376, 327.
|
|
|
|
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1992). Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations. Nature, 355, 250–253.
|
|
|
|
Whiten, A. (2005). The second inheritance system of chimpanzees and humans. Nature, 437(7055), 52–55.
Abstract: Half a century of dedicated field research has brought us from ignorance of our closest relatives to the discovery that chimpanzee communities resemble human cultures in possessing suites of local traditions that uniquely identify them. The collaborative effort required to establish this picture parallels the one set up to sequence the chimpanzee genome, and has revealed a complex social inheritance system that complements the genetic picture we are now developing.
|
|
