Abstract: Recent attempts to teach apes rudimentary grammatical skills have produced negative results. The basic obstacle appears to be at the level of the individual symbol which, for apes, functions only as a demand. Evidence is lacking that apes can use symbols as names, that is, as a means of simply transmitting information. Even though non-human animals lack linguistic competence, much evidence has recently accumulated that a variety of animals can represent particular features of their environment. What then is the non-verbal nature of animal representations? This question will be discussed with reference to the following findings of studies of serial learning by pigeons. While learning to produce a particular sequence of four elements (colours), pigeons also acquire knowledge about the relation between non-adjacent elements and about the ordinal position of a particular element. Learning to produce a particular sequence also facilitates the discrimination of that sequence from other sequences.

Abstract: Pigeons were exposed to autoshaping procedures under which 50% of red key illuminations were followed by 9-sec food deliveries, and 50% of blue key illuminations were followed by 3-sec food deliveries. When all key illuminations were 6 sec, pigeons preferred the red stimulus. Subsequent manipulations demonstrated that preference could be shifted to the blue stimulus by either increasing the duration of the red stimulus or imposing a delay interval between the offset of that stimulus and food delivery. A final experiment demonstrated that, in two of three subjects, preference for key illuminations associated with longer, but delayed, food deliveries generally increased as the duration of all key illuminations was lengthened. These results, obtained under conditions where keypecking had no programmed consequences, are similar to those previously observed under procedures involving a positive response-food dependency.

Abstract: Eight pairs of pony mares were observed. Members of a pair were housed in adjacent stalls and fed hay ad libitum. The behavior of both ponies was recorded simultaneously in the morning (1000 to 1200 h) and afternoon (1400 to 1600 h) for a total of 117 h. The time budget was: 70.1 {+/-} 8.6% eating; 17.8 {+/-} 7.4% standing (including stand rest, stand alert and stand nonajert); 5.2 {+/-} 7.0% pushing hay; 2.9 {+/-} 1.2% walking; 1.9 {+/-} 2.9% drinking; 1.3 {+/-} 1.1% self-grooming; .2 {+/-} .3% defecating; .06 {+/-} .1% chewing nonfood items; .06 {+/-} .03% urination; .06 {+/-} .1% licking salt; .07 {+/-} .1% pawing hay; .6 {+/-} .7% lying and .07 {+/-} .08% stretching the neck over the stall wall dividing the ponies. While eating, the ponies lifted their heads 25.4 {+/-} 11.0 times/h. In less than one-half of the occasions when urination or defecation was observed, the ponies walked away from the spot where they had been eating to eliminate. During one-half of the observations, visual contact between the ponies was prevented by a solid partition between the stalls. The ponies spent significantly more time standing nonalert when the partition prevented visual contact (12 {+/-} 7%) than when visual contact could take place (6 {+/-} 3%, P<.05). When fresh hay was supplied in the mornings, the ponies spent similar amounts of time eating whether visual contact was allowed or not, but in the afternoon significantly more time was spent feeding when visual contact was allowed (73 {+/-} 4%) than when it was not (60 {+/-} 7%). Less time was spent eating, in the absence of visual contact, despite the presence of auditory and olfactory contact. Apparently social facilitation is important in maintaining feeding behavior in ponies. N1 -

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Thinking about Animals For nearly as long as anything can be inferred about human cognition, paleoanthropologists and archaeologists believe humans have thought carefully about animals, about the “predominant characteristic” of each animal, and about those “contradictory elements” that make up humankind. This careful thought has had many outcomes, some scientific, others not. Among the scientific outcomes in the 19th century was evolutionary thinking about the causes and consequences of domestication, including Charles Darwin's study (32) of the mechanics of human (artificial) selection of domesticated animal and plant population characteristics. In the 20th century, theoretical refinements and the painstaking collection of empirical data have led to studies of such disparate phenomena as the physical consequences of keeping pets (12); the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a result of feeding antibiotics to livestock (117); and the evolutionary consequences of milkdrinking (99). Speculation about the origins of human-animal interaction is not the exclusive province of scientists: religions and storytellers alike customarily try to account for the beginnings of human-animal interaction. Genesis does so