Abstract: In recent years, the noninvasive monitoring of steroid hormone metabolites in feces of mammals and droppings of birds has become an increasingly popular technique. It offers several advantages and has been applied to a variety of species under various settings. However, using this technique to reliably assess an animal's adrenocortical activity is not that simple and straightforward to apply. Because clear differences regarding the metabolism and excretion of glucocorticoid metabolites (GCMs) exist, a careful validation for each species and sex investigated is obligatory. In this review, general analytical issues regarding sample storage, extraction procedures, and immunoassays are briefly discussed, but the main focus lies on experiments and recommendations addressing the validation of fecal GCM measurements in mammals and birds. The crucial importance of scrutinizing the physiological and biological validity of fecal GCM analyses in a given species is stressed. In particular, the relevance of the technique to detect biologically meaningful alterations in adrenocortical activity must be shown. Furthermore, significant effects of the animals' sex, the time of day, season, and different life history stages are discussed, bringing about the necessity to seriously consider possible sex differences as well as diurnal and seasonal variations. Thus, comprehensive information on the animals' biology and stress physiology should be carefully taken into account. Together with an extensive physiological and biological validation, this will ensure that the measurement of fecal GCMs can be used as a powerful tool to assess adrenocortical activity in diverse investigations on laboratory, companion, farm, zoo, and wild animals.

Abstract: The four questions that Niko Tinbergen identified for behavioural biology ? evolution, function, development and causation ? are all important and should be studied in their own right. Recently, there has been a debate as to whether these four questions should be investigated separately or whether they should be integrated. Integration of the four questions has been attempted in novel research disciplines such as cognitive ecology, evolutionary psychology and neuroecology. Euan Macphail and I have criticised these integrative approaches, suggesting that they are fundamentally flawed as they confound function and mechanism. Investigating the function or evolutionary history of a behaviour or cognitive system is important and entirely legitimate. However, such investigations cannot provide us with answers to questions about the mechanisms underlying behaviour or cognition. At most, functional or evolutionary considerations can provide clues that may be useful for a causal analysis of the underlying mechanisms. However, these clues can be misleading and are often wrong, as is illustrated with examples from song learning and food storing in birds. After summarising the main issues in the neuroecology debate, I discuss some misunderstandings that were apparent in the responses to our critique, as well as some recent relevant data. Recent results do not support the neuroecological approach. Finally, I suggest that the way forward is a cautious and critical use of functional and evolutionary clues in the study of the mechanisms of behaviour.

Abstract: (Accepted: 23 June 2005)
Summary
Much research in animal communication is aimed at understanding the functional design
features of animal vocal signals. Our detailed analyses of the vocalizations and behavioural
responses elicited in white-faced capuchins by predators and other disturbances point to two
call variants that differ modestly in their acoustic structure and that are accompanied by
functionally distinct behavioural responses. The first variant is given exclusively to avian
predators and is almost invariably accompanied by the monkeys immediate descent from
the treetops where it is most vulnerable; therefore, we label this call variant the aerial
predator alarm?. The second variant, that differs only slightly but noticeably from the first,
is given to a wide range of snakes and mammals, including a range of species that represent
no predatory threat to the monkeys. This second call is also associated with more variable
responses from calling monkeys, from delayed retreat from the source of disturbance, to
active approach, inspection, and sometimes mobbing of the animal involved. We therefore
label this variant more generally as an “alerting call”. Although some other primate species
show a more diverse system of anti-predator calls, and the capuchins themselves may yet
be found to produce a greater variety of calls, a system of two call variants with varying
degrees of predator specificity and behavioural response is not uncommon among primates
and appears functionally appropriate for capuchins. The basic structure of the alerting call
allows conspecific listeners to localize the caller and the source of disturbance readily, thereby
allowing listeners to approach and assist in mobbing in cases where the disturbance warrants
it, or to avoid the area in cases where the disturbance is identified as a predatory threat.
Conversely, the aerial predator alarm is inherently less localizable and therefore conveys the

Abstract: Biological market models explain variability in reciprocity and interchange between groups. In groups with a shallow dominance gradient, grooming will be mostly exchanged for itself (i.e. exchange will occur). In groups with steep dominance hierarchies, interchange is expected: individuals will groom higher ranking individuals to get access to limited resources or commodities such as support in conflicts, and grooming will be traded for these commodities. We examine patterns of reciprocity in grooming and support, and of interchange of grooming for support or for tolerance in six captive groups of bonobos. We test whether differences between groups in patterns of reciprocity and interchange can be attributed to differences in a measure of steepness of dominance hierarchies, which is based on dyadic agonistic interactions. We found that grooming was reciprocal in some, but not all groups. Support was highly reciprocal, but this was a side effect of dominance in most groups. Interchange between grooming and support was observed in some groups. Corroborating earlier findings, this was a side effect of individuals preferring high ranking individuals as grooming and support partners, possibly because these high-ranking individuals provide more efficient support in conflicts. There was no evidence for interchange of grooming for tolerance. Variability in grooming reciprocity was explained by differences in steepness of dominance hierarchies, as predicted by the biological market models. In groups with a shallow dominance hierarchy, grooming was more reciprocal. This was not true for reciprocity in support. There was some evidence that individuals groomed dominants more frequently in groups with a steep dominance hierarchy. The variation in interchange relations between grooming and support did not depend on the steepness of dominance hierarchies. We suggest that grooming in itself is a valuable commodity in bonobos, especially under captive conditions, which can be exchanged reciprocally. Bonobos may interchange grooming for another value equivalent, with food sharing as a very likely candidate. This interchange effects seem more dependent on potential to monopolise food than on steepness of dominance hierarchies per se.