|
Fagen Rm, G. T. (1977). Play behavior and exercise in young ponies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 2, 267–269.
|
|
|
Green Nf, G. H. (1977). The wild horse population.... Proc National Wild Horse Forum, 1, 59–65.
|
|
|
Grzimek M, G. B. (1960). A study of the game of the Serengeti plains. Z Säugetierk, 25.
|
|
|
Imesh Gd, S. G. (1975). Gross and microscopic observations of ovarian abnormalities from five Burchell's zebra. Onderstepoort J vet Res, 42, 109–116.
|
|
|
Mednikov Bm, G. J. Zur systematischen Stellung des Kulans.
|
|
|
Montgomery, G. G. (1957). Some aspects of the sociality of the domestic horse. Transactions Kansas Acad Sci, 60, 419–424.
|
|
|
Penzhorn Bl, G. R. (1987). Incisor wear in free – ranging Cape mountain zebras. S Afr J Wildl Res, 17, 99–102.
|
|
|
Giraldeau, L. A., & Beauchamp, G. (1999). Food exploitation: searching for the optimal joining policy. Trends In Ecology And Evolution, 14(3), 102–106.
Abstract: Commonly invoked foraging advantages of group membership include increased mean food intake rates and/or reduced variance in foraging success. These foraging advantages rely on the occurrence of 'joining': feeding from food discovered or captured by others. Joining occurs in most social species but the assumptions underlying its analysis have been clarified only recently, giving rise to two classes of model: information-sharing and producer-scrounger models. Recent experimental evidence suggests that joining in ground-feeding birds might be best analysed as a producer-scrounger game, with some intriguing consequences for the spatial distribution of foragers and patch exploitation.
|
|
|
Heyes, C., & Galef, B. G. (Eds.). (1996). Social learning in animals: the roots of culture. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
|
|
|
Syme, G. J., Pollard, J. S., Syme, L. A., & Reid, R. M. (1974). An analysis of the limited access measure of social dominance in rats.22(2), 486–500.
Abstract: The limited access situation in which only one of two or more subjects can gain access to a reward during a restricted time-period is an accepted measure of dominance in the rat. This study attempts to validate the technique by establishing the relationship between individual and competitive performance in order to determine whether `priority of access' has been measured. The generality of the competitive orders is examined by altering the competitive response while retaining the same reward. In view of the data collected for both time and weight-gain measures in food and water competition it is doubtful whether the limited access competitive technique can be considered a valid measure of dominance for the laboratory rat.
|
|