Abstract: The genus Thelazia (Spirurida, Thelaziidae) includes a cosmopolitan group of eyeworm spirurids responsible for ocular infections in domestic and wild animals and transmitted by different species of muscids. Bovine thelaziosis is caused by Thelazia rhodesi Desmarest 1828, Thelazia gulosa Railliet & Henry 1910, and Thelazia skrjabini Erschow 1928, which occur in many countries; T. gulosa and T. skrjabini have been reported mainly in the New World, while T. rhodesi is particularly common in the Old World. In Italy, T. rhodesi was reported in southern regions a long time ago and, recently, T. gulosa and T. skrjabini have been identified in autochthonous cattle first in Apulia and then in Sardinia. Thirteen species of Musca are listed as intermediate hosts of eyeworms, but only Musca autumnalis and Musca larvipara have been demonstrated to act as vectors of Thelazia in the ex-URSS, North America, ex-Czechoslovakia and more recently in Sweden. In Italy, after the reports of T. gulosa and T. skrjabini in southern regions, the intermediate hosts of bovine eyeworms were initially only suspected as the predominant secretophagous Muscidae collected from the periocular region of cattle with thelaziosis were the face flies, M. autumnalis and M. larvipara, followed by Musca osiris, Musca tempestiva and Musca domestica. The well-known constraints in the identification of immature eyeworms to species by fly dissection and also the time-consuming techniques used constitute important obstacles to epidemiological field studies (i.e. vector identification and/or role, prevalence and pattern of infection in flies, etc.). Molecular studies have recently permitted to further investigations into this area. A PCR-RFLP analysis of the ribosomal ITS-1 sequence was developed to differentiate the 3 species of Thelazia (i.e. T. gulosa, T. rhodesi and T. skrjabini) found in Italy, then a molecular epidemiological survey has recently been carried out in field conditions throughout five seasons of fly activity and has identified the role of M. autumnalis, M. larvipara, M. osiris and M. domestica as vectors of T. gulosa and of M. autumnalis and M. larvipara of T. rhodesi. Moreover, M. osiris was described, for the first time, to act as a vector of T. gulosa and M. larvipara of T. gulosa and T. rhodesi. The mean prevalence in the fly population examined was found to be 2.86%. The molecular techniques have opened new perspectives for further research on the ecology and epidemiology not only of Thelazia in cattle but also of other autochthonous species of Thelazia which have been also recorded in Italy, such as Thelazia callipaeda, which is responsible for human and canid ocular infection and Thelazia lacrymalis, the horse eyeworm whose epidemiological molecular studies are in progress.

Abstract: Abstract  When apes are not fully understood by humans, they persist with attempts to communicate, elaborating their behaviours to better convey their meaning. Such abilities have never been investigated in dogs. The present study aimed to clarify any effect of the visual attentional state of the owner on dogs’ (Canis familiaris) social-communicative signals for interacting with humans, and to determine whether dogs persist and elaborate their behaviour in the face of failure to communicate a request. Gaze at a hidden target or at the owner, gaze alternation between a hidden target and the owner, vocalisations and contacts in 12 guide and 12 pet dogs were analysed (i) when the dogs were asked by their owners (blind or sighted) to fetch their inaccessible toy and (ii) when the dogs were subsequently given an unfamiliar object (apparent unsuccessful communication) or their toy (apparent successful communication). No group differences were found, indicating no effect of the visual status of the owner on the dogs’ socio-communicative modes (i.e. no sensitivity to human visual attention). Results, however, suggest that the dogs exhibited persistence (but not elaboration) in their “showing” behaviours in each condition, except that in which the toy was returned. Thus, their communication was about a specific item in space (the toy). The results suggest that dogs possess partially intentional non-verbal deictic abilities: (i) to get their inaccessible toy, the dogs gazed at their owners as if to trigger their attention; gaze alternation between the owner and the target direction, and two behaviours directed at the target were performed, apparently to indicate the location of the hidden toy; (ii) after the delivery of the toy, the dogs behaved as if they returned to the play routine, gazing at their owner whilst holding their toy. In conclusion, this study shows that dogs possess partially intentional non-verbal deictic abilities: they exhibit successive visual orienting between a partner and objects, apparent attention-getting behaviours, no sensitivity to the visual status of humans for communication, and persistence in (but no elaboration of) communicative behaviours when apparent attempts to “manipulate” the human partner fail.

Abstract: In spite of the rather different procedures actually used in comparative studies to test the ability of different species to rely on the human pointing gesture, there is no debate on the high performance of dogs in such tasks. Very little is known, however, on the course through which they acquire this ability or the probable factors influencing the process. Important developmental questions have remained unsolved and also some methodological concerns should be addressed before we can convincingly argue for one interpretation or another. In this study we tested 180 dogs of different age (from 2 months to adults) to investigate their performance in the human distal momentary pointing gesture. The results, analyzed at both the group and the individual levels, showed no difference in the performance according to age, indicating that in dogs the comprehension of the human pointing may require only very limited and rapid early learning to fully develop. Interestingly, neither the keeping conditions nor the time spent in active interaction with the owner, and not even some special (agility) training for using human visual cues, had significant effect on the success and explained individual differences. The performance of the dogs was rather stable over time: during the 20 trials within a session and even when subsamples of different age were repeatedly tested. Considering that in spite of the general success at the group level, more than half of the dogs were not successful at the individual level, we revealed alternative “decision-making rules” other than following the pointing gesture of the experimenter.

Abstract: Recently, (Collier-Baker E, Davis JM, Suddendorf T (2004) J Comp Psychol 118:421-433) suggested that domestic dogs do not understand invisible displacements. In the present study, we further investigated the hypothesis that the search behavior of domestic dogs in invisible displacements is guided by various visual cues inherent to the task rather than by mental representation of an object's past trajectory. Specifically, we examined the role of the experimenter as a function of the final position of the displacement device in the search behavior of domestic dogs. Visible and invisible displacement problems were administered to dogs (N = 11) under two conditions. In the Visible-experimenter condition, the experimenter was visible whereas in the Concealed-experimenter condition, the experimenter was visibly occluded behind a large rigid barrier. Our data supported the conclusion that dogs do not understand invisible displacements but primarily search as a function of the final position of the displacement device and, to a lesser extent, the position of the experimenter.

Abstract: Two experiments explored the duration of dogs' working memory in an object permanence task: a delay was introduced between the disappearance of a moving object behind a box and the beginning of the search by the animal. In experiment 1, the dogs were tested with retention intervals of 0, 10, 30, and 60 s. Results revealed that the dogs' accuracy declined as a function of the length of the retention interval but remained above chance for each retention interval. In experiment 2, with new subjects, longer retention intervals (0, 30, 60, 120, and 240 s) were presented to the dogs. Results replicated findings from experiment 1 and revealed that the dogs' accuracy remained higher than chance level with delays up to 240 s. In both experiments, the analysis of errors also showed that the dogs searched as a function of the proximity of the target box and were not subject to intertrial proactive interference. In the discussion, we explore different alternatives to explain why dogs' search behaviour for hidden objects decreased as a function of the retention intervals.