Abstract: Thirty-six owners of seasonally headshaking horses took part in a trial to compare the effectiveness of three types of nose net, a traditional cylindrical net (full net) and two forms of larger mesh nets which cover only the nostrils and dorsorostral muzzle (half nets). Baseline data relating to the overall severity of the problem and 18 specific behaviours describing the nature of the problem were recorded on a check sheet by the owners. A within-subjects repeated measures design experiment, with each net used for a week before reassessment, was then used to assess the effect of the nets on the headshaking problem. Approximately 75 per cent of owners reported some overall improvement with each net; around 60 per cent recorded a 50 per cent or greater improvement and 30 per cent a 70 per cent or greater improvement. The nets significantly reduced the overall headshaking score and the following specific behaviours: up-and-down headshaking, nose flipping, acting as if a bee had flown up the nose, shaking at exercise, shaking when excited, shaking in bright sunlight or in windy conditions (P < 0.0001), striking at the face, shaking at night, rubbing the nose when moving, rubbing the nose on objects, sneezing, shaking in the rain and shaking indoors (P < 0.05). There was no evidence of a significant effect on side-to-side headshaking, shaking at rest or rubbing the nose when stationary, but the effect on snorting was uncertain. There were few significant differences between the nets, but the half nets were reported to be significantly better at controlling 'bee up the nose' behaviour. Horses more than 10 years old were reportedly less likely to show a 50 per cent or greater improvement in 'nose flipping' and 'headshaking at exercise.

Abstract: Socio-ecological explanations for intra- and interspecific variation in the social and spatial organization of animals predominate in the scientific literature. The socio-ecological model, developed first for the Bovidae and Cervidae, is commonly applied more widely to other groups including the Equidae. Intraspecific comparisons are particularly valuable because they allow the role of environment and demography on social and spatial organization to be understood while controlling for phylogeny or morphology which confound interspecific comparisons. Feral horse (Equus caballus Linnaeus 1758) populations with different demography inhabit a range of environments throughout the world. I use 56 reports to obtain 23 measures or characteristics of the behaviour and the social and spatial organization of 19 feral horse populations in which the environment, demography, management, research effort and sample size are also described. Comparison shows that different populations had remarkably similar social and spatial organization and that group sizes and composition, and home range sizes varied as much within as between populations. I assess the few exceptions to uniformity and conclude that they are due to the attributes of the studies themselves, particularly to poor definition of terms and inadequate empiricism, rather than to the environment or demography per se. Interspecific comparisons show that equid species adhere to their different social and spatial organizations despite similarities in their environments and even when species are sympatric. Furthermore, equid male territoriality has been ill-defined in previous studies, observations presented as evidence of territoriality are also found in non-territorial equids, and populations of supposedly territorial species demonstrate female defence polygyny. Thus, territoriality may not be a useful categorization in the Equidae. Moreover, although equid socio-ecologists have relied on the socio-ecological model derived from the extremely diverse Bovidae and Cervidae for explanations of variation in equine society, the homomorphic, but large and polygynous, and monogeneric Equidae do not support previous socio-ecological explanations for relationships between body size, mating system and sexual dimorphism in ungulates. Consequently, in spite of the efforts of numerous authors during the past two decades, functional explanations of apparent differences in feral horse and equid social and spatial organization and behaviour based on assumptions of their current utility in the environmental or demographic context remain unconvincing. Nevertheless, differences in social cohesion between species that are insensitive to intra- and interspecific variation in habitat and predation pressure warrant explanation. Thus, I propose alternative avenues of inquiry including testing for species-specific differences in inter-individual aggression and investigating the role of phylogenetic constraints in equine society. The Equidae are evidence of the relative importance of phylogeny and biological structure, and unimportance of the present-day environment, in animal behaviour and social and spatial organization.

Abstract: Three types of Colobus guereza groups may be distinguished on the bases of size and composition, namely small one-male groups, large, one-male groups and multi-male groups. The social structure of each type of group is described in terms of the distribution of non-agonistic interactions, the frequency and distribution of agonistic behaviour and the organization of the roles of vigilance, territorial defence and leadership. A number of differences are found between the group types which appear to be related to the differences in group size and composition. It is suggested that these group types represent stages in the life-cycle of colobus groups, and that such an interpretation may help to resolve some of the conflicting reports in the literature.