| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–14] |
|
Allman, J. M. (2000). Evolving brains. New York: Scientific American Library.
Abstract: How did the human brain with all its manifold capacities evolve from basic functions in simple organisms that lived nearly a billion years ago? John Allman addresses this question in Evolving Brains, a provocative study of brain evolution that introduces readers to some of the most exciting developments in science in recent years.
|
|
Garber, P., & Boinski, S. (2000). Group Movement in Social Primates and Other Animals: Patterns, Processes, and Cognitive Implications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
|
|
Whiten, A. (2000). Social complexity and social intelligence. In Novartis Foundation Symposium (Vol. 233, pp. 185–96; discussion pp. 196–201).
Abstract: When we talk of the 'nature of intelligence', or any other attribute, we may be referring to its essential structure, or to its place in nature, particularly the function it has evolved to serve. Here I examine both, from the perspective of the evolution of intelligence in primates. Over the last 20 years, the Social (or 'Machiavellian') Intelligence Hypothesis has gained empirical support. Its core claim is that the intelligence of primates is primarily an adaptation to the special complexities of primate social life. In addition to this hypothesis about the function of intellect, a secondary claim is that the very structure of intelligence has been moulded to be 'social' in character, an idea that presents a challenge to orthodox views of intelligence as a general-purpose capacity. I shall outline the principal components of social intelligence and the environment of social complexity it engages with. This raises the question of whether domain specificity is an appropriate characterization of social intelligence and its subcomponents, like theory of mind. As a counter-argument to such specificity I consider the hypothesis that great apes exhibit a cluster of advanced cognitive abilities that rest on a shared capacity for second-order mental representation.
|
|
Houpt, K. A., Eggleston, A., Kunkle, K., & Houpt, T. R. (2000). Effect of water restriction on equine behaviour and physiology. Equine Vet J, 32(4), 341–344.
Abstract: Six pregnant mares were used to determine what level of water restriction causes physiological and/or behavioural changes indicative of stress. Nonlegume hay was fed ad libitum. During the first week of restriction, 5 l water/100 kg bwt was available, during the second week 4 l/100 kg bwt and, during the third week, 3 l/100 kg bwt. Ad libitum water intake was 6.9 l/100 kg bwt; at 3 l/100 kg bwt water intake was 42% of this. Daily hay intake fell significantly with increasing water restriction from 12.9 +/- 0.75 kg to 8.3 +/- 0.54 kg; bodyweight fell significantly for a total loss of 48.5 +/- 8.3 kg in 3 weeks. Daily blood samples were analysed; osmolality rose significantly with increasing water restriction from 282 +/- 0.7 mosmols/kg to 293.3 +/- 0.8 mosmols/kg bwt, but plasma protein and PCV did not change significantly. Cortisol concentrations fell from 8.1 ng/ml to 6.4 ng/ml over the 3 week period. Aldosterone fell from 211.3 +/- 74.2 pg/ml to 92.5 +/- 27.5 pg/ml at the end of the first week. The behaviour of 4 of the 6 mares was recorded 24 h/day for the duration of the study. The only significant difference was in time spent eating, which decreased with increasing water restriction from 46 +/- 3% to 30 +/- 3%. It is concluded that water restriction to 4 l/100 kg bwt dehydrates pregnant mares and may diminish their welfare, but is not life- or pregnancy-threatening.
|
|
de Waal, F. B., Aureli, F., & Judge, P. G. (2000). Coping with crowding. Sci Am, 282(5), 76–81.
|
|
Mendres, K. A., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Capuchins do cooperate: the advantage of an intuitive task. Anim. Behav., 60(4), 523–529.
Abstract: We used a cooperative pulling task to examine proximate aspects of cooperation in captive brown capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. Specifically, our goal was to determine whether capuchins can learn the contingency between their partner's participation in a task and its successful completion. We examined whether the monkeys visually monitored their partners and adjusted pulling behaviour according to their partner's presence. Results on five same-sex pairs of adults indicate that (1) elimination of visual contact between partners significantly decreased success, (2) subjects glanced at their partners significantly more in cooperative tests than in control tests in which no partner-assistance was needed, and (3) they pulled at significantly higher rates when their partner was present rather than absent. Therefore, in contrast to a previous report by Chalmeau et al. (1997, Animal Behaviour, 54, 1215-1225), cooperating capuchins do seem able to take the role of their partner into account. However, the type of task used may be an important factor affecting the level of coordination achieved. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Attitudinal reciprocity in food sharing among brown capuchin monkeys. Anim. Behav., 60(2), 253–261.
Abstract: Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) share food even if separated by a mesh restraint. Pairs of capuchins were moved into a test chamber in which one of them received apple pieces for 20 min, and the other received carrot pieces for the next 20 min. Previous research had shown a correlation between the rate of food transfer in both directions across female-female dyads. The present study confirmed this result. Reciprocity across dyads can be explained, however, by symmetry in affiliative and tolerant tendencies between two individuals, provided these tendencies determine food sharing. The present study was designed to exclude this symmetry-based explanation by testing each pair (N=16) of adult females on six separate occasions. There existed a significant covariation across tests of sharing in both dyadic directions, a result unexplained by relationship symmetry. Moreover, control procedures (i.e. testing of a food possessor without a partner, or testing of two individuals with the same food or two different foods at the same time) indicated that behaviour during food trials is not fully explained by mutual attraction or aversion. The monkeys take the quality of their own and the partner's food into account, and possessors limit transfers of high-quality foods. Instead of a symmetry-based reciprocity explanation, a mediating role of memory is suggested, and a mirroring of social attitude between partners. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. (2000). Primates--A natural heritage of conflict resolution. Science, 289(5479), 586–590.
Abstract: The traditional notion of aggression as an antisocial instinct is being replaced by a framework that considers it a tool of competition and negotiation. When survival depends on mutual assistance, the expression of aggression is constrained by the need to maintain beneficial relationships. Moreover, evolution has produced ways of countering its disruptive consequences. For example, chimpanzees kiss and embrace after fights, and other nonhuman primates engage in similar “reconciliations.” Theoretical developments in this field carry implications for human aggression research. From families to high schools, aggressive conflict is subject to the same constraints known of cooperative animal societies. It is only when social relationships are valued that one can expect the full complement of natural checks and balances.
|
|
Baker, K. C., Seres, E., Aureli, F., & De Waal, F. B. (2000). Injury risks among chimpanzees in three housing conditions. Am. J. Primatol., 51(3), 161–175.
Abstract: Meeting the psychological needs of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) can be a challenge given their aggressiveness on the one hand and the complexity of their social lives on the other. It is unclear how to balance the need to provide opportunities for species-appropriate behavior against potential risks of injury chimpanzees may inflict on each other. This study evaluates the suggestion that simpler social environments protect chimpanzees from wounding. Over a two-year period all visible injuries to 46 adult males, 64 adult females, and 25 immature chimpanzees were recorded at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center. Approximately half of the subjects were mother-reared, and the rest were nursery-reared. Housing included compounds containing about 20 chimpanzees, interconnected indoor-outdoor runs for groups of up to 12 individuals, and smaller indoor-outdoor runs for pairs and trios. Annual wounding rates were calculated for serious wounds (extensive injuries and all those requiring veterinary intervention) as well as for minor wounds. Compound-housed chimpanzees incurred the highest level of minor wounding, but serious wounding levels were not affected by housing condition. Even with a period of dominance instability and elevated levels of wounding in one compound, compound chimpanzees were not injured more than those in smaller social groups over the long term. Nursery-reared females in moderate-sized groups were wounded more than mother-reared females. Also, nursery-reared males and females were wounded less often when paired with mother-reared companions. Overall, this study indicates that maintaining chimpanzees in pairs and trios would not be an effective means for reducing injuries. The management of wounding in chimpanzee colonies is influenced more by the sex and rearing composition of a colony.
|
|
Parish, A. R., & De Waal, F. B. (2000). The other “closest living relative”. How bonobos (Pan paniscus) challenge traditional assumptions about females, dominance, intra- and intersexual interactions, and hominid evolution. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 907, 97–113.
Abstract: Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) societies are typically characterized as physically aggressive, male-bonded and male-dominated. Their close relatives, the bonobos (Pan paniscus), differ in startling and significant ways. For instance, female bonobos bond with one another, form coalitions, and dominate males. A pattern of reluctance to consider, let alone acknowledge, female dominance in bonobos exists, however. Because both species are equally “man's” closest relative, the bonobo social system complicates models of human evolution that have historically been based upon referents that are male and chimpanzee-like. The bonobo evidence suggests that models of human evolution must be reformulated such that they also accommodate: real and meaningful female bonds; the possibility of systematic female dominance over males; female mating strategies which encompass extra-group paternities; hunting and meat distribution by females; the importance of the sharing of plant foods; affinitive inter-community interactions; males that do not stalk and attack and are not territorial; and flexible social relationships in which philopatry does not necessarily predict bonding pattern.
|