Abstract: Patterns of aggressive and affiliative behavior, such as counter aggression and reconciliation, are said to covary in the genus Macaca; this is referred to as the systematic variation hypothesis. These behavior patterns constitute a species dominance style. Van Schaik's [1989] socioecological model explains dominance style in macaques in terms of within- and between-group contest competition. Dominance style is also said to correlate with phylogeny in macaques. The present study was undertaken to examine phylogenetic and socioecological explanations of dominance style, as well as the systematic variation hypothesis. We collected data on counter aggression and reconciliation from a habituated group of Assamese macaques (Macaca assamensis) at the Tukeswari Temple in Assam, India. The proportion of agonistic episodes that involved counter aggression was relatively low. Counter aggression, however, occurred more often among males than among females, and it was most common when females initiated aggression against males. The conciliatory tendency for this group of Assamese macaques was 11.2%. The frequency of reconciliation was low for fights among males and for fights among females, but reconciliation was particularly rare for opposite-sexed opponents. Female social relationships were consistent with the systematic variation hypothesis, and suggest a despotic dominance style. A despotic dominance style in Assamese macaques weakens the correlation between dominance style and phylogeny in macaques, but it is not inconsistent with the socioecological model. Male-female relationships were not well explained by the despotic-egalitarian framework, and males may well have more tolerant social relationships than do females. Sex differences need to be considered when categorizing species according to dominance style.

Abstract: The phylogenetic relationship between Equus przewalskii and E. caballus is often a matter of debate. Although these taxa have different chromosome numbers, they do not form monophyletic clades in a phylogenetic tree based on mtDNA sequences. Here we report sequence variation from five newly identified Y chromosome regions of the horse. Two fixed nucleotide differences on the Y chromosome clearly display Przewalski's horse and domestic horse as sister taxa. At both positions the Przewalski's horse haplotype shows the ancestral state, in common with the members of the zebra/ass lineage. We discuss the factors that may have led to the differences in mtDNA and Y-chromosomal observations.

Abstract: The question “Why does an animal behave as it does?” can be answered in terms of ontogeny, function, phylogeny and causation. The achievements of applied ethology relative to those four approaches are reviewed, gaps in our knowledge are identified and predictions for fruitful avenues of future research are made. Ontogenic studies have been useful in the past and it is suggested that studies of the effects of early experience on the sexual behaviour of animals used in artificial breeding schemes might pay dividends. It is proposed that functional studies should be approached cautiously. More information is required on the process of domestication in order to increase the chances of success in the trend to farm exotic species. Studies on causation are likely to continue to be the mainstay of applied ethological research. It is suggested that within this category, studies on states of suffering, motivation and cognition are urgently required to answer the most pressing questions on animal welfare.

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: The evolution of cooperation has long been a topic near and dear to the hearts of behavioral and evolutionary ecologists. Cooperative behaviors run the gamut from fairly simple to very complicated and there are a myriad of ways to study cooperation. Here I shall focus on three paths that have been delineated in the study of intraspecific cooperation among unrelated individuals: reciprocity, byproduct mutualism, and group selection. In each case, I attempt to delineate the theory underlying each of these paths and then provide examples from the empirical literature. In addition, I shall briefly touch upon some recent work that has attempted to examine (or re-examine) the role of cognition and phylogeny in the study of cooperative behavior. While empirical and theoretical work has made significant strides in the name of better understanding the evolution and maintenance of cooperative behavior in animals, much work remains for the future. “From the point of view of the moralist, the animal world is on about the same level as the gladiator's show. The creatures are fairly well treated, and set to fight; whereby the strongest, the swiftest and the cunningest live to fight another day. The spectator has no need to turn his thumb down, as no quarter is given em leader the weakest and the stupidest went to the wall, while the toughest and the shrewdest, those who were best fitted to cope with their circumstances, but not the best in any other way, survived. Life was a continuous free fight, and em leader a war of each against all was the normal state of existence.” (Huxley 1888)