|
|
Klingel H,. (1974). Gruppenbildung bei Huftieren. In Kindler (Ed.), (pp. 506–518).
|
|
|
|
Klingel H,. (1974). Zebras. Wildlife Clubs of Kenya.8–13.
|
|
|
|
Rau Re,. (1974). Revised list of the preserved material of the extinct cape colony quagga, Equus quagga quagga. Ann S Afr Mus, 65, 41–87.
|
|
|
|
Robinson Dw, S. L. (1974). The current status of knowledge on the nutrition of equines. J Anim Sci, 39, 1045–1066.
|
|
|
|
Smuts Gl,. (1974). Age determination in Burchell's Zebra in the Krüger National Park. J S Afr Wildl Mgmt Ass, 4, 103–115.
|
|
|
|
Willoughby Dp,. (1974). The empire of Equus.
|
|
|
|
Woodward Sl, O. R. (1974). Habitat use and fecal analysis of feral burros (Equus asinus) Chemehuevi Mountains, California. J Range Mgmt, 29, 482–485.
|
|
|
|
Blakeslee, J. K. (1974). Mother-young relationships and related behavior among free-ranging Appaloosa horses. Master's thesis, , Idaho State University, Pocatello.
|
|
|
|
Syme, G. J., Pollard, J. S., Syme, L. A., & Reid, R. M. (1974). An analysis of the limited access measure of social dominance in rats.22(2), 486–500.
Abstract: The limited access situation in which only one of two or more subjects can gain access to a reward during a restricted time-period is an accepted measure of dominance in the rat. This study attempts to validate the technique by establishing the relationship between individual and competitive performance in order to determine whether `priority of access' has been measured. The generality of the competitive orders is examined by altering the competitive response while retaining the same reward. In view of the data collected for both time and weight-gain measures in food and water competition it is doubtful whether the limited access competitive technique can be considered a valid measure of dominance for the laboratory rat.
|
|
|
|
Syme, G. J. (1974). Competitive orders as measures of social dominance.22(Part 4), 931–940.
Abstract: The use of competitive orders as measures of social dominance is examined, the conclusion being that such use is based on the assumption of the unidimensionality of social dominance. Evidence is presented to show that this is not always the case. Consequently it is suggested that each competitive order must be validated in terms of its measurement of priority of access and response requirements (internal validity) as well as its generality (external validity) before it can be regarded as a dominance measure. Problems of the validity of aggression orders as measures of social dominance are also examined along with their relationship to competitive orders.
|
|
