|
|
de Waal, F. B. (1999). The end of nature versus nurture. Sci Am, 281(6), 94–99.
|
|
|
|
Sterck, E., Watts, D., & van Schaik, C. (1997). The evolution of female social relationships in nonhuman primates. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 41(5), 291–309.
Abstract: Considerable interspeci®c variation in female social relationships occurs in gregarious primates, particularly with regard to agonism and cooperation between females and to the quality of female relationships with males. This variation exists alongside variation in female philopatry and dispersal. Socioecological theories have tried to explain variation in female-female social relationships from an evolutionary perspective focused on ecological factors, notably predation and food distribution. According to the current ``ecological model'', predation risk forces females of most diurnal primate species to live in groups; the strength of the contest component of competition for resources within and between groups then largely determines social relationships between females. Social elationships among gregarious females are here characterized as DispersalEgalitarian, Resident-Nepotistic, Resident-Nepotistic-Tolerant, or Resident-Egalitarian. This ecological model has successfully explained i€erences in the occurrence of formal submission signals, decided dominance relation ships, coalitions and female philopatry. Group size and female rank generally a€ect female reproduction success as the model predicts, and studies of closely related species in di€erent ecological circumstances underscore the importance of the model. Some cases, however, can only be explained when we extend the model to incorporate the e€ects of infanticide risk and habitat saturation. We review evidence in support of the ecological model and test the power of alternative models that invoke between-group competition, forced female philopatry, demographic female recruitment, male interventions into female aggression, and male harassment.
Not one of these models can replace the ecological model, which already encompasses the between-group competition. Currently the best model, which explains
several phenomena that the ecological model does not, is a ``socioecological model'' based on the combined importance of ecological factors, habitat saturation and infanticide avoidance. We note some points of similarity and divergence with other mammalian taxa; these remain to be explored in detail.
|
|
|
|
Macphail, E. M., & Boldhuis, J. J. (2001). The evolution of intelligence: adaptive specializations versusgeneral process. Biological Reviews, 76(3), 341–364.
Abstract: Darwin argued that between-species differences in intelligence were differences of degree, not of kind. The contemporary ecological approach to animal cognition argues that animals have evolved species-specific and problem-specific processes to solve problems associated with their particular ecological niches: thus different species use different processes, and within a species, different processes are used to tackle problems involving different inputs. This approach contrasts both with Darwin's view and with the general process view, according to which the same central processes of learning and memory are used across an extensive range of problems involving very different inputs. We review evidence relevant to the claim that the learning and memory performance of non-human animals varies according to the nature of the stimuli involved. We first discuss the resource distribution hypothesis, olfactory learning-set formation, and the 'biological constraints' literature, but find no convincing support from these topics for the ecological account of cognition. We then discuss the claim that the performance of birds in spatial tasks of learning and memory is superior in species that depend heavily upon stored food compared to species that either show less dependence upon stored food or do not store food. If it could be shown that storing species enjoy a superiority specifically in spatial (and not non-spatial) tasks, this would argue that spatial tasks are indeed solved using different processes from those used in non-spatial tasks. Our review of this literature does not find a consistent superiority of storing over non-storing birds in spatial tasks, and, in particular, no evidence of enhanced superiority of storing species when the task demands are increased, by, for example, increasing the number of items to be recalled or the duration of the retention period. We discuss also the observation that the hippocampus of storing birds is larger than that of non-storing birds, and find evidence contrary to the view that hippocampal enlargement is associated with enhanced spatial memory; we are, however, unable to suggest a convincing alternative explanation for hippocampal enlargement. The failure to find solid support for the ecological view supports the view that there are no qualitative differences in cognition between animal species in the processes of learning and memory. We also argue that our review supports our contention that speculation about the phylogenetic development and function of behavioural processes does not provide a solid basis for gaining insight into the nature of those processes. We end by confessing to a belief in one major qualitative difference in cognition in animals: we believe that humans alone are capable of acquiring language, and that it is this capacity that divides our intelligence so sharply from non-human intelligence.
|
|
|
|
Chmel, L., Hasilikova, A., Hrasko, J., & Vlacilikova, A. (1972). The influence of some ecological factors on keratinophilic fungi in the soil. Sabouraudia, 10(1), 26–34.
|
|
|
|
Malek, E. A. (1971). The life cycle of Gastrodiscus aegyptiacus (Cobbold, 1876) Looss, 1896 (Trematoda: Paramphistomatidae: Gastrodiscinae). J Parasitol, 57(5), 975–979.
|
|
|
|
Davies, R. B., & Clark, G. G. (1974). Trypanosomes from elk and horse flies in New Mexico. J Wildl Dis, 10(1), 63–65.
|
|
|
|
Beveridge, W. I. (1993). Unravelling the ecology of influenza A virus. Hist Philos Life Sci, 15(1), 23–32.
Abstract: For 20 years after the influenza A virus was discovered in the early 1930s, it was believed to be almost exclusively a human virus. But in the 1950s closely related viruses were discovered in diseases of horses, pigs and birds. Subsequently influenza A viruses were found to occur frequently in many species of birds, particularly ducks, usually without causing disease. Researchers showed that human and animal strains can hybridise thus producing new strains. Such hybrids may be the cause of pandemics in man. Most pandemics have started in China or eastern Russia where many people are in intimate association with animals. This situation provides a breeding ground for new strains of influenza A virus.
|
|
|
|
Wilhelm, W. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1971). Vahlkampfia lobospinosa (Craig. 1912) Craig. 1913: rediscovery of a coprozoic ameba. J Parasitol, 57(6), 1378–1379.
|
|
|
|
Pichardo, M. (2000). Valsequillo biostratigraphy. III: Equid ecospecies in Paleoindian sites. Anthropol Anz, 58(3), 275–298.
Abstract: Greater precision in North American Pleistocene equid taxonomy makes it now possible to exploit the ubiquitous horse remains in Paleoindian sites as ecological index-fossils. The horses of Central Mexico and the Southern Plains can be sorted by tooth size alone, except for two rare large horses of the Southern Plains. The species endemic to these grasslands and south to Central Mexico are Equus pacificus (large), E. conversidens (small), E. francisci (smallest). The Southern Plains were also occupied by a specialized grazer E. excelsus (Burnet and Sandia caves) and E. occidentalis (Dry and Sandia caves). West of the Rocky Mountains E. occidentalis was dominant. East of the Mississippi River two woodland species are found: E. fraternus and E. littoralis.
|
|
|
|
Ogbourne, C. P. (1971). Variations in the fecundity of strongylid worms of the horse. Parasitology, 63(2), 289–298.
|
|
