Abstract: Both white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, and mule deer, O. hemionus, females defend fawns against coyotes, Canis latrans, but only mule deer defend nonoffspring conspecific and heterospecific fawns. During a predator attack, females may have to decide whether to defend a fawn while having imperfect information on its identity obtained from hearing a few distress calls. Although imperfect recognition can influence altruistic behaviour, few empirical studies have considered this point when testing functional explanations for altruism. We designed a series of playback experiments with fawn distress calls to test alternative hypotheses (by-product of parental care, kin selection, reciprocal altruism) for the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring, specifically allowing for the possibility that females mistake these fawns for their own. White-tailed deer females approached the speaker only when distress calls of white-tailed deer fawns were played and when their own fawn was hidden, suggesting that fawn defence was strictly a matter of parental care in this species. In contrast, mule deer females responded similarly and strongly, regardless of the caller's identity, the female's reproductive state (mother or nonmother) or the presence of their own offspring. The failure of mule deer females to adjust their responses to these conditions suggests that they do not defend nonoffspring because they mistake them for their own fawns. The lack of behavioural discrimination also suggests that kin selection, reciprocal altruism and defence of the offspring's area are unlikely to explain the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring. We identify causal and functional questions that still need to be addressed to understand why mule deer defend fawns so indiscriminately.

Abstract: Wild baboons Papio cynocephalus ursinus, give tonal, harmonically rich vocalizations, termed grunts, in at least two distinct, behavioural contexts: when about to embark on a move across an open area ('move' grunts); and when approaching mothers and attempting to inspect or handle their young infants ('infant' grunts). Grunts in these two contexts elicit different responses from receivers and appear to be acoustically distinct (Owren et al. 1997 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America101 2951-2963). Differences in responses to grunts in the two contexts may, then, be due to acoustic differences, reflecting at least a rudimentary capacity for referential signalling. Alternatively, responses may differ simply due to differences in the contexts in which the grunts are being produced. We conducted playback experiments to test between these hypotheses. Experiments were designed to control systematically the effects of both context and acoustic features so as to evaluate the role of each in determining responses to grunts. In playback trials, subjects differentiated between putative move and infant grunts. Their responses based only on the acoustic features of grunts were functionally distinct and mirrored their behaviour to naturally occurring move and infant grunts. However, subjects' responses were in some cases also affected by the context in which grunts were presented, and by an interaction between the context and the acoustic features of the grunts. Furthermore, responses to grunts were affected by the relative rank difference between the caller and the subject. These results indicate that baboon grunts can function in rudimentary referential fashion, but that the context in which grunts are produced and the social identity of callers can also affect recipients' responses. Copyright 1999 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.