|
|
Frank, H. (1980). Evolution of canine information processing under conditions of natural and artificial selection. Z Tierpsychol, 5.
|
|
|
|
Beck, B. B. (1980). Animal tool behaviour: The use and manufacture of tools by animals. New York: Garland.
|
|
|
|
Houpt, K. A. (1981). Equine behavior problems in relation to humane management. Int. J. Stud. Anim. Prob., 2(6), 329–337.
|
|
|
|
Frank, H., & Frank, M. G. (1982). On the effects of domestication on canine social development and behavior. Appl Anim Ethol, 8.
|
|
|
|
Harrington, F. H., & Mech, L. D. (1982). An analysis of howling response parameters useful for wolf pack censusing. J Wildl Manag, 46.
|
|
|
|
Boitani, L. (1982). Patterns of homesites attendance in two Minnesota wolf packs. In F. H. Harrington, & P. C. Paquet (Eds.), Wolves of the World: Perspectives of Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. New York: Noyes, Park Ridge.
|
|
|
|
Carson, K., & Wood-Gush, D. G. M. (1983). Equine behaviour: I. A review of the literature on social and dam--Foal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology, 10(3), 165–178.
Abstract: In most cases, the social organisation of each of the seven species of Equidae existing today outside captivity is either territorial or non-territorial. The striking differences found between these two types of organisation in the social grouping and bonds, mating behaviour, leadership and dominance hierarchies of the animals are examined. It is thought that the non-territorial species show a less primitive type of organisation than the territorial animals. Infant Equidae are precocious animals and are able to follow their dams soon after birth. They stay close by their dams and travel with the herd from an early age and are therefore classified as “followers”, in contrast to the species which have a period of hiding after birth. Dams recognise their foals immediately after birth, whereas it takes 2 or 3 days for a foal to form an attachment to its dam. Being in close proximity to their dams, foals are able to nurse frequently and, unless artificially weaned, a foal will nurse until its dam foals again. Foals start to graze during their first week and as they grow older they spend more time grazing and less time nursing and resting. It is normal for foals to be corprophagic until one month old, and this provides them with bacteria essential for the digestion of fibre. Play behaviour is solitary in very young foals, but after 4 weeks of age, foals play together, with male foals playing more than females and showing more aggressive, fighting movements in play.
|
|
|
|
DUNCAN P et al,. (1984). On lactation and associated behaviour in natural herd of horses. Hans Klingels Equine Reference List, 32, 255–263.
Abstract: Developmental changes in time spent suckling and related mother-foal behaviour are described in an unmanaged herd of Camargue horses. Male foals spent about 40% more time suckling than females during the first 8 weeks. Body weight did not differ between the sexes but time-budgets did: males grazed less and were more active. If pregnant, the typical multiparous mare nursed her foals for 35–40 weeks, males and females alike, and weaned them 15 weeks before the next foaling. Primiparae lactated longer and weaned closer to the next foaling by 5 weeks. The mares played an active role in regulating the time spent suckling in early, and particularly in late lactation.
|
|
|
|
Price, E. O. (1984). Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Q Rev Biol, 59.
|
|
|
|
Sato, S. (1984). Social licking pattern and its relationships to social dominance and live weight gain in weaned calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 12(1), 25–32.
Abstract: Social licking patterns of heifer and steer herds were observed and recorded during periods of resting and intermittent feeding. The results revealed the following features: (1) heifers and steers had 15.0 and 15.2 social licking interactions per hour which lasted for 37.8 and 41.0 s on average, respectively. The average time an animal spent licking was about 25 s per hour; (2) all the animals in the herds were licked by others, but only 72.3% of the animals licked other animals; (3) the animals close in the social hierarchy tended to lick each other for a longer time than did remote animals; (4) the time receiving l licking and weight gain tended to be positively correlated. The observations suggest that (1) the motivation of giving licking may be individual-specific and may be influenced by genetic factors, while that of receiving licking appears to be general, and that (2) social licking may mean not only cleaning the skin and hair of a passive partner, but also leading it to psychological stability.
|
|
