Abstract: Summary A wonderfully lucid framework for the ways to understand animal behaviour is that represented by the four [`]whys' proposed by Tinbergen (1963). For much of the past three decades, however, these four avenues have been pursued more or less in parallel. Functional questions, for example, have been addressed by behavioural ecologists, mechanistic questions by psychologists and ethologists, ontogenetic questions by developmental biologists and neuroscientists and phylogenetic questions by evolutionary biologists. More recently, the value of integration between these differing views has become apparent. In this brief review, we concentrate especially on current attempts to integrate mechanistic and functional approaches. Most of our understanding of learning and memory in animals comes from the psychological literature, which tends to use only rats or pigeons, and more occasionally primates, as subjects. The underlying psychological assumption is of general processes that are similar across species and contexts rather than a range of specific abilities. However, this does not seem to be entirely true as several learned behaviours have been described that are specific to particular species or contexts. The first conspicuous exception to the generalist assumption was the demonstration of long delay taste aversion learning in rats (Garcia et al., 1955), in which it was shown that a stimulus need not be temporally contiguous with a response for the animal to make an association between food and illness. Subsequently, a number of other examples, such as imprinting and song learning in birds (e.g., Bolhuis and Honey, 1998; Catchpole and Slater, 1995; Horn, 1998), have been thoroughly researched. Even in these cases, however, it has been typical for only a few species to be studied (domestic chicks provide the [`]model' imprinting species and canaries and zebra finches the song learning [`]models'). As a result, a great deal is understood about the neural underpinnings and development of the behaviour, but substantially less is understood about interspecific variation and whether variation in behaviour is correlated with variation in neural processing (see review by Tramontin and Brenowitz, 2000 but see ten Cate and Vos, 1999).

Abstract: The aim of this study was to investigate social relationships between Przewalski horses at a high density in a bachelor group housed in a 3.5-ha enclosure. The group consisted of 16 males aged 5 to 16. Behavioural data were collected during 18 days, total 216 h. Fifteen minute focal animal sampling was used; each horse was observed three times a day for a total of 45 min. The occurrence of 25 behaviours was recorded, and group spacing behaviour was studied using nearest neighbour recordings. The group divided into four subgroups; this supports earlier findings of bachelor groups (n>=10) dividing into two or more subgroups if they included several males aged >5 years. The total frequency of social interactions was 14.6±1.1 h-1. Although the density of the group in this study was higher than in other zoos, the males interacted agonistically only 3.6 h-1. The most frequently observed social behaviour categories were friendly interactions. This study shows possibilities to use some investigative behaviours (marking, flehmen, olfactory investigation, etc.) as indicators of social status of animals in a group.