Abstract: In colts and fillies observed from birth to 24 weeks old, coprophagy occurred from Weeks 1 to 19. Its frequency was greatest during the first two months. Coprophagy was rarely observed in mares and stallions. Foals usually ate the faeces of their mother but were observed to eat their own and those of a stallion and another unrelated mare. Urination by the foal occurred before, during or after 26 per cent of the coprophagy incidents. It is hypothesised that foals may consume faeces in response to a maternal pheromone which signals the presence of deoxycholic acid or other acids which the foal may be deficient in and which it may require for gut immuno-competence myelination of the nervous system. Such a pheromone may also serve to accelerate growth and sexual maturation. Coprophagy may also provide nutrients and introduce normal bacterial flora to the gut.

Abstract: An answer to the question of animal awareness depends on evidence, not intuition, anecdote, or debate. This paper examines some of the problems inherent in an analysis of animal awareness, and whether animals might be aware of being aware is offered as a more meaningful distinction. A framework is presented which can be used to make a determination about the extent to which other species have experiences similar to ours based on their ability to make inferences and attributions about mental states in others. The evidence from both humans and animals is consistent with the idea that the capacity to use experience to infer the experience of others is a byproduct of self-awareness.

Abstract: Social dominance is usually viewed from the perspective of intragroup competition over access to limited resources. The present paper, while not denying the importance of such competition, discusses the dominance concept among monkeys and apes in the context of affiliative bonding, social tolerance, and the reconciliation of aggressive conflicts. Two basic proximate mechanisms are supposed to provide a link between dominance and interindividual affiliation, namely, formalization of the dominance relationship (i.e., unequivocal communication of status), and conditional reassurance (i.e., the linkage of friendly coexistence to formalization of the relationship). Ritualized submission is imposed upon losers of dominance struggles by winners; losers are offered a “choice” between continued hostility or a tolerant relationship with a clearly signalled difference in status. If these two social mechanisms are lacking, aggression is bound to have dispersive effects. In their presence, aggression becomes a well-integrated, even constructive component of social life. In some higher primates this process of integration has reached the stage where status differences are strongly attenuated. In these species, sharing and trading can take the place of overt competition. The views underlying this “reconciled hierarchy” model are only partly new, as is evident from a review of the ethological literature. Many points are illustrated with data on a large semi-captive colony of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), particularly data related to striving for status, reconciliation behavior, and general association patterns. These observations demonstrate that relationships among adult male chimpanzees cannot be described in terms of a dichotomy between affiliative and antagonistic tendencies. Male bonding in this species has not been achieved by an elimination of aggression, but by a set of powerful buffering mechanisms that mitigate its effects. Although female chimpanzees do exhibit a potential for bonding under noncompetitive conditions, they appear to lack the buffering mechanisms of the males.

Abstract: Reeves' concept of the summer transmission cycle of western equine encephalomyelitis virus in 1945 was that the virus was amplified in a silent transmission cycle involving mosquitoes, domestic chickens, and possibly wild birds, from which it could be transmitted tangentially to and cause disease in human and equine populations. Extensive field and laboratory studies done since 1945 in the Central Valley of California have more clearly defined the specific invertebrate and vertebrate hosts involved in the basic virus transmission cycle, but the overall concept remains unchanged. The basic transmission cycle involves Culex tarsalis as the primary vector mosquito species and house finches and house sparrows as the primary amplifying hosts. Secondary amplifying hosts, upon which Cx. tarsalis frequently feeds, include other passerine species, chickens, and possibly pheasants in areas where they are abundant. Another transmission cycle that most likely is initiated from the Cx. tarsalis-wild bird cycle involves Aedes melanimon and the blacktail jackrabbit. Like humans and horses, California ground squirrels, western tree squirrels, and a few other wild mammal species become infected tangentially with the virus but do not contribute significantly to virus amplification.

Abstract: Most social scientists would agree that the capacity for human culture was probably fashioned by natural selection, but they disagree about the implications of this supposition. Some believe that natural selection imposes important constraints on the ways in which culture can vary, while others believe that any such constraints must be negligible. This article employs a “thought experiment” to demonstrate that neither of these positions can be justified by appeal to general properties of culture or of evolution. Natural selection can produce mechanisms of cultural transmission that are neither adaptive nor consistent with the predictions of acultural evolutionary models (those ignoring cultural evolution). On the other hand, natural selection can also produce mechanisms of cultural transmission that are highly consistent with acultural models. Thus, neither side of the sociobiology debate is justified in dismissing the arguments of the other. Natural selection may impose significant constraints on some human behaviors, but negligible constraints on others. Models of simultaneous genetic/cultural evolution will be useful in identifying domains in which acultural evolutionary models are, and are not, likely to be useful.