Abstract: We investigated whether capuchin monkeys cooperate to solve a task and to what extent they take into account the behaviour of another individual when cooperating. Two groups of capuchin monkeys (N=5 and 6) were tested in a task whose solution required simultaneous pulling of two handles which were too far from one another to be pulled by one monkey. Before carrying out the cooperation study, individual monkeys were trained to pull one handle (training phase 1) and to pull two handles simultaneously (training phase 2) for a food reward. Nine subjects were successful in training phase 1, and five in training phase 2. In the cooperation study seven subjects were successful, that is, pulled one handle while a companion pulled the other. Further analyses revealed that capuchins did not increase their pulling actions when a partner was close to or at the other handle, that is, when cooperation might occur. These data suggest that capuchin monkeys acted together at the task and got the reward without understanding the role of the partner and without taking its behaviour into consideration. Social tolerance, as well as their tendency to explore and their manual dexterity, were the major factors accounting for the capuchins' success.

Abstract: A study was conducted to determine the relationship between discrimination reversal learning and performance tasks in horses. Ten yearling and seven 2-year-old mares and geldings of Arabian (n = 4), Quarter Horse (n = 9), and Thoroughbred (n = 4) breeding were given a two-choice discrimination task in which either a black or a white bucket contained a food reward for ten trials per day during 19 test days. The spatial position of the buckets was varied on a random schedule. The rewarded bucket color was reversed each time a subject met criterion of eight correct choices per day for 2 consecutive days. Discrimination reversal testing was followed by 6 days of performance tasks: three crossing a wooden bridge and three jumping an obstacle to reach food and conspecifics, within a maximum allotted time of 15 min day-1. Total reversals attained by the horses were low (x = 1.5 +/- 0.9). All subjects did attain at least one reversal, and six had two or more reversals. No differences (P > .05) were detected between ages or sexes, nor among breeds in discrimination reversal learning or performance test measurements. However, there was a trend towards a breed difference (P <= 0.09) in the mean number of correct responses to the first reversal criterion. Correlations between reversal learning results and performance task results were extremely low, indicating that the discrimination reversal learning test was not useful for predicting success at these performance tasks. Results from the two performance tasks also showed little correlation (r = 0.04, P < 0.91), indicating that horses might not use the same approach when solving the problem of crossing these two obstacles. The overall poor performance of the horses on the discrimination reversal task suggests horses may have difficulty reversing previously learned tasks.

Abstract: Risk-sensitive foraging theory is based on the premise that unpredictable runs of good or bad luck can cause a variable food source to differ in fitness value from a fixed food source yielding the same average rate of gain but no unpredictability. Thus, risk-sensitive predictions are dependent on the food intake from variable sources being not only variable but also unpredictable or `risky' in outcome. This study tested whether unpredictability is a component of the value that foraging starlings,Sturnus vulgarisattribute to food sources that are variable in the delay to obtain food. Two groups of birds chose between a fixed and a variable delay option; the variable option was unpredictable in the risky group and predictable in the risk-free group in the overall rate of intake it yielded. In both groups the fixed option was adjusted by titration to quantify the magnitude of preference for predictable and unpredictable variance. On negative energy budgets both groups were significantly risk-prone, with the risky group being significantly more risk-prone than the risk-free group. Switching the birds to positive budgets by doubling the size of each food reward had no significant effect on preference, and similar trends to those found with negative budgets were observed. These results are not readily explained by risk-sensitive foraging theory, but may be explained by the algorithm used by the birds to attribute value to average expected rewards.

Abstract: The behavior of nine lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) living in three social groups at Zoo Atlanta was compared in an indoor holding area versus an outdoor exhibit. Focal animal data were collected for each animal during 15 min observation sessions, alternating between indoors and outdoors. A variety of solitary and social behaviors differed in the two conditions. All individual and social behaviors that showed a difference, except eating, occurred more indoors than outdoors. These included aggressive displays, reclining, self manipulation, and social examination of others. Additionally, the gorillas spent more time closer together in the indoor condition. A variety of other behaviors measured did not change between the two environments. There was a clear effect on behavior of the different housing conditions in which the gorillas were kept. It is suggested that the differences in aggressive behavior may be related to environmental complexity. It is further suggested that zoos should be aware that differences in behavior reported by caretaking staff, researchers and visitors may be a reflection of the differing environmental circumstances in which the animals are observed.