Abstract: An experimental analysis of the movements of predator-approaching fish is presented. The experiments evaluated two competing hypotheses. (1) Predator-approaching fish play the game-theoretical strategy Tit for Tat. Alternatively, (2) the movements of predator-approaching fish superficially resemble Tit for Tat, because fish independently orient to a predator and simultaneously attempt to stay close together. Experimental subjects were mosquito fish,Gambusia affinisapproaching a green sunfish,Lepomis cyanellusTwo experiments were performed. Experiment 1 replicated results of Milinski (1987) and Dugatkin (1991), showing thatGambusiacome closer to a visible predator when a mirror is oriented parallel to their direction of travel. Experiment 2 attempted to separate the effects of common orientation and social cohesion in accounting for the frequency of Tit-for-Tat-like motions in pairs of predator-approachingGambusia. Results of experiment 2 suggest that a simple additive combination of the effects of (1) social cohesion in the absence of a visible predator and (2) orientation to a visible predator in the absence of a visible companion can account for the observed frequency of Tit-for-Tat-like motions for pairs of predator-approachingGambusia. It is concluded that predator approach in shoaling fishes is probably a simple by-product mutualism, rather than cooperation maintained by reciprocity in a Prisoner's Dilemma.

Abstract: No abstract

Abstract: Social, genetic and reproductive consequences of natal dispersal were investigated in female horses,Equus caballus, living in a herd with a natural social structure. Dispersal did not as a rule reduce the level of competition the young mares faced: they did not selectively join groups with fewer resident females than the groups they left, and they did not attain higher ranks; there was also no tendency for females to disperse to groups with the fewest resident females, and they suffered more aggression from the mares in their new groups than in their natal groups. These results therefore do not support the hypothesis that a function of natal dispersal is to reduce intra-sexual competition. The young mares nevertheless dispersed non-randomly, generally joining harems with one stallion and at least two subadult females; and they preferred to move to groups with familiar females but no familiar males. As a result, most were closely related to some females of their new groups, but distantly related or unrelated to the male(s). Since after dispersal the young mares bred only with a male of their new groups, inbreeding coefficients of most (85%) of their offspring were lower than from matings between half siblings. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that a function of natal dispersal is to avoid close inbreeding. Dispersal did not appear to involve reproductive costs: the young mares suffered no delay in age at first reproduction, and the survival rates of their first foals tended to be higher if the females had emigrated, although not significantly so.

Abstract: For the purpose of distinguishing between mutualism and reciprocity in nature, recent work on the evolution of cooperation has both oversimplifed and undersimplified the distinction between these two categories of cooperation. This article addresses the resulting issues of model testability, clarifies the role of time and argues that the category of `pseudo-reciprocity' is an unnecessary complication.

Abstract: Some researchers have reported the paradoxical finding of enhanced social learning when naive observers learn from unskilled rather than skilled demonstrators, particularly in discrimination tasks. In two experiments with starlings,Sturnus vulgaris, I considered whether this enhanced learning is because the observer (1) sees incorrect responses only, (2) sees both correct and incorrect responses or (3) sees an increase in the proportion of correct responses over trials. In experiment 1, individual starlings observed a demonstrator bird perform multiple simultaneous discrimination tasks. In one group, the demonstrator always picked the correct stimulus; in another group, the demonstrator always picked the incorrect stimulus; in a third group, the demonstrator consistently picked the correct stimulus 50% of the time. Those subjects that observed only incorrect choices performed significantly better than the other two groups, but none of the birds achieved the 90% correct performance criterion. Experiment 2 involved a single discrimination task; thus, a fourth group was added to control for individual learning. Again, subjects that observed only incorrect responses learned the discrimination significantly more quickly than the other three groups. Subjects that observed the demonstrator make both correct and incorrect responses were equally likely to select the same (correct) or opposite (incorrect) stimulus when the demonstrator picked the correct stimulus. When the demonstrator picked the incorrect stimulus, however, these subjects were significantly more likely to pick the opposite (correct) stimulus. These findings suggest that when learning a discrimination problem, observing a foraging companion's lack of success is more informative than observing its success.