|
Chance, M. R. A., & Mead, A. P. (1953). Social behaviour and primate evolution. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology,. Evolution, 7, 395–439.
|
|
|
Podos, J. (1964). Early perspectives on the evolution of behavior: Charles Otis Whitman and Oskar Heinroth. Ethol Ecol Evol, 6(4), 467–480.
|
|
|
Andrew, R. J. (1974). Changes in visual responsiveness following intercollicular lesions and their effects on avoidance and attack. Brain Behav Evol, 10(4-5), 400–424.
Abstract: In the normal chick, conspicuous visual stimuli induce targetting and pecking together, with vocalization. All three are abolished by lesion of the intercollicular area (ICo) or of connections passing through its medial margin. After such lesions, chicks also cease to treat significant visual stimuli as if they were startling and exciting, and may delay response as a result. However, they are still able to recognise, orient accurately to, and respond appropriately to, a variety of complex visual stimuli (e.g. food grains, copulation object). In addition, they are little affected by strange surroundings. Lesion evidence suggests the mammalian subcollicular area to have similar functions to the ICo and to be homologous with it. A route (present in bird), which is well-known in mammals for its association with threat, defense and escape evoked by strange and frightening objects (amygdala-diencephalic periventricular system-central mesencephalic grey, A-DPS-CMG) is stimuli via the 2 ICo (subcollicular area). Two different mechanisms may be involved caudal to the ICo. One consists of tectal afferents which might modulate the evocation of targetting, pecking and other responses via the tectum. The other is the predorsal system of tectal efferents which may mediate such responses. Classical syndromes of tameness and unresponsiveness produced by various interruptions of the A-DPS-CMG route may depend on interruption of connections to these midbrain mechanisms. Attack is depressed by ICo lesions as one aspect of reduced responsiveness to conspicuous and startling visual stimuli. Avoidance, which is apparently mediated by a separate system, much as in Anura, is facilitated.
|
|
|
McGregor, P. K., & Dabelsteen, T. (1976). Communication Networks. In D. E. Kroodsma, & E. H. Miller (Eds.), Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds (pp. 409–425). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Bökönyi, S. (1984). Horse. In Manson (Ed.), Evolution of domesticated animals (Vol. 18, pp. 162–173). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
|
|
|
Epstein H,. (1984). Ass, mule and onager. In In Manson: Evolution of domesticatd animals. (pp. 174–184).
|
|
|
Packer, C., & Pusey, A. E. (1985). Asymmetric contests in social mammals: respect, manipulation and age-specific aspects. In P. J. Greenwood, M. Slatkin, & (Ed.), Evolution: Essays in Honour of John Maynard Smith (pp. 173–86). Camebridge: Camebridge University Press.
|
|
|
Rubenstein, D. I.,. (1986). Ecology and sociality in horses and zebras. In D. I. Rubenstein, & R. W. Wrangham (Eds.), Ecological Aspects of Social Evolution (pp. 282–302). Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.
|
|
|
Berger, J., & Cunningham, C. (1987). Influence of Familiarity on Frequency of Inbreeding in Wild Horses. Evolution, 41, 229–231.
|
|