|
Köhler, W. (1921). Intelligenzprüfungen an Menschenaffen. Berlin: Springer.
|
|
Kawamura, S. (1967). Aggression as studied in troops of Japanese monkeys. UCLA Forum Med Sci, 7, 195–223.
|
|
Yamada, T., Rojanasuphot, S., Takagi, M., Wungkobkiat, S., & Hirota, T. (1971). Studies on an epidemic of Japanese encephalitis in the northern region of Thailand in 1969 and 1970. Biken J, 14(3), 267–296.
|
|
Menzel, E. W. J. (1971). Communication about the environment in a group of young chimpanzees. Folia Primatol (Basel), 15(3), 220–232.
|
|
Rumbaugh, D. M., Riesen, A. H., & Wright, S. C. (1972). Creative responsiveness to objects: a report of a pilot study with young apes. Folia Primatol (Basel), 17(5), 397–403.
|
|
Christensen, H. A., & Herrer, A. (1973). Attractiveness of sentinel animals to vectors of leishmaniasis in Panama. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 22(5), 578–584.
|
|
Davies, R. B., & Clark, G. G. (1974). Trypanosomes from elk and horse flies in New Mexico. J Wildl Dis, 10(1), 63–65.
|
Wang, L. Y. (1975). Host preference of mosquito vectors of Japanese encephalitis. Zhonghua Min Guo Wei Sheng Wu Xue Za Zhi, 8(4), 274–279.
Abstract: The host preference of 4 Culex mosquito species collected in Miaoli and Pingtung counties, Taiwan was studied by capillary precipitin method. Antisera to alum-precipitated sera of man, bovine, swine, rabbit, horse, dog, cat, mouse, chicken, duck, and pigeon were produced in rabbits and reacted with 758 mosquito blood meals among which reactions to one or more antisera. Culex annulus and Culex tritaeniorhynchus summorosus showed a great avidity for pig, and Culex fuscocephala for bovine. Culex pipiens fatigans was ornithophilic. None of 110 C. t. summorosus and 2.4% of 223 C. annulus had fed on man. Among 66 samples of C.p. fatigans tested 10.3% had fed on man, while none of 359 C. fuscocephala did. It seems that the latter does not act as a primary vector of Japanese encephalitis.
|
Noë, R., de Waal, F. B., & van Hooff, J. A. (1980). Types of dominance in a chimpanzee colony. Folia Primatol (Basel), 34(1-2), 90–110.
Abstract: This study examines to what extent the concept of dominance can be used to describe the social structure of a group of semi-free-living chimpanzees. 15 behavioural variables, based on agonistic, competitive and affinitive behaviour patterns, have been compared with respect to the interindividual directions in which they occurred. In this analysis use was made of indices that reflect the position an individual occupies in the relationship structure. These indices were calculated per individual for all variables and subjected to factor analysis and cluster analysis. As a result, 13 of the variables could be grouped in three categories which have been labelled: (1) agonistic dominance; (2) bluff dominance, and (3) competitive dominance. Whereas the top positions in the hierarchies based on the first two closely related types of dominance were occupied by the adult males, the hierarchy based on the third type was headed by several adult females.
|
Beck, B. B. (1982). Chimpocentrism: Bias in cognitive ethology. Journal of Human Evolution, 11(1), 3–17.
Abstract: Herring gulls drop hard-shelled mollusks and hermit crab-inhabited molluskan prey in order to break the shells and gain access to the edible interior. A field study of predatory shell dropping on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, U.S.A. showed that the gulls usually drop the same shell repeatedly, orient directly to dropping sites that are invisible from the point at which the mollusks are captured, drop preferentially on hard surfaces, adjust dropping heights to suit the area and elasticity of the substrate, orient directly into the wind while dropping, sever the large defensive cheliped of hermit crabs before consumption, and rinse prey that is difficult to swallow. Proficiency in prey dropping is acquired through dropping objects in play, trial-and-error learning, and perhaps, observation learning.
Observable attributes of predatory shell-dropping support inferences that the gulls are capable of extended concentration, purposefulness, mental representation of spatially and temporally displaced environmental features, cognitive mapping, cognitive modeling, selectivity, and strategy formation. Identical cognitive processes have been inferred to underlie the most sophisticated forms of chimpanzee tool-use.
Advanced cognitive capacities are not restricted to chimpanzees and other pongids, and are not associated uniquely with tool use. The chimpocentric bias should be abandoned, and reconstructions of the evolution of intelligence should be modified accordingly.
|
