Abstract: Both white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, and mule deer, O. hemionus, females defend fawns against coyotes, Canis latrans, but only mule deer defend nonoffspring conspecific and heterospecific fawns. During a predator attack, females may have to decide whether to defend a fawn while having imperfect information on its identity obtained from hearing a few distress calls. Although imperfect recognition can influence altruistic behaviour, few empirical studies have considered this point when testing functional explanations for altruism. We designed a series of playback experiments with fawn distress calls to test alternative hypotheses (by-product of parental care, kin selection, reciprocal altruism) for the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring, specifically allowing for the possibility that females mistake these fawns for their own. White-tailed deer females approached the speaker only when distress calls of white-tailed deer fawns were played and when their own fawn was hidden, suggesting that fawn defence was strictly a matter of parental care in this species. In contrast, mule deer females responded similarly and strongly, regardless of the caller's identity, the female's reproductive state (mother or nonmother) or the presence of their own offspring. The failure of mule deer females to adjust their responses to these conditions suggests that they do not defend nonoffspring because they mistake them for their own fawns. The lack of behavioural discrimination also suggests that kin selection, reciprocal altruism and defence of the offspring's area are unlikely to explain the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring. We identify causal and functional questions that still need to be addressed to understand why mule deer defend fawns so indiscriminately.

Abstract: The dominance score (number of wins divided by the total number of interactions) is the most widely used procedure in field studies to rank individuals. Its reliability depends on the number of interactions on which it is calculated. However, most authors use it without any estimate of the associated error. We describe the precision associated with a dominance score estimate as a function of the number of interactions on which it is based, and hence provide a tool to plan field protocols and effort. The precision error decreases according to a power function with increasing number of interactions, but with more precision for extreme scores for any given number of interactions. We discuss the fact that the minimum number of interactions should be based on the precision associated with the 50% score, the least precise of all scores. We also emphasize the trade-off between recording effort and precision of the estimator, and give an example of our choice of 26 interactions for fieldwork on ducks and geese. When comparing individual ranks based on dominance scores with ranks given by the dominance matrix, we found a good correlation, with more mismatches around the middle of the hierarchy. This was consistent with the precision calculated with our model. We conclude that dominance score is a reliable tool, but conclusions must take into account the number of interactions on which the calculations are done. We also discuss the importance of initial assumptions and sources of bias in field studies.

Abstract: The question whether a certain species is or is not able to imitate has received much recent attention. However, the ability to copy a demonstrated action might depend not only on the imitative ability of the observer but also on its attention, a factor widely neglected in discussions and experiments. Since attention differs between species as well as between individuals, it is likely to influence the amount and type of information different species and/or observers may extract from a given demonstration. We studied attention in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus. In a series of experimental sessions, individual marmosets watched different conspecific models that were searching, manipulating an object and feeding. The observers could see the demonstration through two observation holes, which allowed us to measure exactly how often and for how long they watched the model. Marmosets were more attentive towards conspecifics engaged in a problem-solving task than an exploring model. Individual variation in attention was large, ranging from less than 10% to over 49%. Attention also depended on the identity of the model with an increase in attention if it was of the opposite sex. Overall, attention of marmosets was short with a median duration of 6 s while the model manipulated an object. This study measured the real interest of the observer towards a model, which could be an important variable in social-learning experiments.