Abstract: The communication of aggressive motivation or fighting ability has important fitness consequences for competing animals. Selection should favour rapid and honest communication between opponents to settle dominance relationships while avoiding prolonged and intense fighting. We investigated factors that influence fighting strategies and contest outcomes in female house finches, Carpodacus mexicanus, specifically focusing on the following questions. (1) What social contexts trigger an aggressive response? (2) Does body size and condition contribute to female fighting ability? (3) Do contextual factors, such as mate presence, nest status, nest proximity, and site experience contribute to fighting motivation? (4) Does contest intensity and duration increase as the differences in fighting ability between opponents decrease? (5) What is the relative contribution of fighting ability and aggressive motivation to the outcome of a contest? We found that aggression was triggered most frequently by female intrusions in the vicinity of nest and by extrapair female intrusions on an established pair. Female fighting and contest outcomes were strongly influenced by body condition and body size, and females were more motivated to initiate fights and won more contests when their mates were present. Females at the later breeding stages and those fighting closer to their nests were dominant and won more fights compared to females at earlier breeding stages or further from their nests. Females initiated a greater proportion of contests against opponents with similar local familiarity and breeding history. Escalated and prolonged contests, while rare, occurred exclusively between females of the most similar body size and condition. When differences in body condition between opponents are not easily perceived, contestants might escalate contests for more reliable assessments of relative fighting ability. Finally, body condition was not a strong determinant of contest outcome in the contexts with easily assessed differences in the resource value (e.g. mate presence), but without these motivational differences, body condition was the ultimate determinant of contest outcomes.

Abstract: Benjamin Beck's definition of tool use has served the field of animal cognition well for over 25 years (Beck 1980, Animal Tool Behavior: the Use and Manufacture of Tools, New York, Garland STPM). This article proposes a new, more explanatory definition that accounts for tool use in terms of two complementary subcategories of behaviours: behaviours aimed at altering a target object by mechanical means and behaviours that mediate the flow of information between the tool user and the environment or other organisms in the environment. The conceptual foundation and implications of the new definition are contrasted with those of existing definitions, particularly Beck's. The new definition is informally evaluated with respect to a set of scenarios that highlights differences from Beck's definition as well as those of others in the literature.

Abstract: Both humans and group-living animals associate and behave affiliatively more with some individuals than others. Human friendship has long been acknowledged, and recently scientists studying animal behaviour have started using the term friendship for close social associates in animals. Yet, while biologists describe friends as social tools to enhance fitness, social scientists describe human friendship as unconditional. We investigate whether these different descriptions reflect true differences in human friendship and animal close social associations or are a by-product of different research approaches: namely social scientists focussing on proximate and biologists on ultimate explanations. We first stress the importance of similar measures to determine close social associations, thereafter examine their ultimate benefits and proximate motivations, and discuss the latest findings on the central-neural regulation of social bonds. We conclude that both human friendship and animal close social associations are ultimately beneficial. On the proximate level, motivations for friendship in humans and for close social associations in animals are not necessarily based on benefits and are often unconditional. Moreover, humans share with many animals a similar physiological basis of sociality. Therefore, biologists and social scientist describe the same phenomenon, and the use of the term friendship for animals seems justified.

Abstract: Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study.