|
|
Jenks, S. M. (1988). Behavioral regulation of social organization and mating in a captive wolf pack. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Conn. Dept. Biobehavioral Sci, .
|
|
|
|
Black, J. M. (1988). Preflight Signalling in Swans: A Mechanism for Group Cohesion and Flock Formation. Ethology, 79(2), 143–157.
Abstract: Abstract The preflight behaviour of whooper swans Cygnus cygnus and Bewick's swans Cygnus columbianus bewickii was examined to determine the adaptive significance of the ritual. Analysis of the preflight sequence revealed that the rate of signalling became significantly faster as the time of takeoff approached. This provides the first quantitative evidence that a threshold of excitability is responsible for triggering synchronised flight in social units. Two ultimate and two proximate factors that affect this threshold were uncovered. They are: 1) Maintaining proximity to partners—flight was delayed by birds with non-attentive mates and signalling lasted on average four times longer than those whose mates showed more interest. 2) Maintaining flock cohesiveness—birds which performed signals for longer periods while swimming among uninterested birds were successful in attracting followers 61% of the time. 3) The bird's feeding performance related to dominance status—less successful feeders (potentially hungry birds), flew after little time and few signals. 4) The type of feeding opportunity at the eventual destination—birds which flew to provided feeds (nutritious barley) spent less time performing preflight signals than when they flew to forage on grass fields.
|
|
|
|
Hamilton, C. R., & Vermeire, B. A. (1988). Complementary hemispheric specialization in monkeys. Science, 242(4886), 1691–1694.
Abstract: Twenty-five split-brain monkeys were taught to discriminate two types of visual stimuli that engage lateralized cerebral processing in human subjects. Differential lateralization for the two kinds of discriminations was found; the left hemisphere was better at distinguishing between tilted lines and the right hemisphere was better at discriminating faces. These results indicate that lateralization of cognitive processing appeared in primates independently of language or handedness. In addition, cerebral lateralization in monkeys may provide an appropriate model for studying the biological basis of hemispheric specialization.
|
|
|
|
Boyd L. (1988). The behaviour of Przewalski’s horses. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
|
|
|
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (1988). Do monkeys understand their realtions? In R. Byrne, & A. Whiten (Eds.), Machiavellian Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Milton, K. (1988). Foraging behaviour and the evolution of primate intelligence. In R. Byrne, & A. Whiten (Eds.), Machiavellian Intelligence (pp. 285–409). Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.
|
|
|
|
Dukas, R. (Ed.). (1988). Cognitive Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M., & Luttrell, L. M. (1988). Mechanisms of social reciprocity in three primate species: Symmetrical relationship characteristics or cognition? Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(2–4), 101–118.
Abstract: Agonistic intervention behavior was observed in captive groups of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and stumptail monkeys (M. arctoides). Reciprocity correlations of interventions were determined while removing from the data the effects of several symmetrical relationship characteristics, that is, matrillineal kinship, proximity relations, and same-sex combination. It was considered likely that if significant reciprocity persisted after controlling for these characteristics, the reciprocity was based on cognitive mechanisms. Statistical significance was tested by means of recently developed matrix permutation procedures. All three species exhibited significant reciprocity with regard to beneficial interventions, even after controlling for symmetrical traits. Harmful interventions were, however, reciprocal among chimpanzees only. This species showed a “revenge system”, that is, if A often intervened against B, B did the same to A. In contrast, both macaque species showed significantly inversed reciprocity in their harmful interventions: if A often intervened against B, B rarely intervened against A. Further analysis indicates that the strict hierarchy of macaques prevents them from achieving complete reciprocity. Compared to chimpanzees, macaques rarely intervene against higher ranking group members. The observed contrast can be partially explained on the basis of differences in available space, as indicated by a comparison of indoor and outdoor living conditions for the chimpanzee colony. Yet, even when such spatial factors are taken into account, substantial behavior differences between chimpanzees and macaques remain.
|
|
|
|
Whiten, A., & Byrne, R. W. (1988). Tactical deception in primates. Behav. Brain Sci., 11(02), 233–244.
Abstract: ABSTRACT Tactical deception occurs when an individual is able to use an “honest” act from his normal repertoire in a different context to mislead familiar individuals. Although primates have a reputation for social skill, most primate groups are so intimate that any deception is likely to be subtle and infrequent. Published records are sparse and often anecdotal. We have solicited new records from many primatologists and searched for repeating patterns. This has revealed several different forms of deceptive tactic, which we classify in terms of the function they perform. For each class, we sketch the features of another individual's state of mind that an individual acting with deceptive intent must be able to represent, thus acting as a “natural psychologist.” Our analysis will sharpen attention to apparent taxonomic differences. Before these findings can be generalized, however, behavioral scientists must agree on some fundamental methodological and theoretical questions in the study of the evolution of social cognition.
|
|
|
|
Kruska, D. (1988). Mammalian domestication and its effect on brain structure and behavior. In H. J. Jerison, & I. Jerison (Eds.), Intelligence and Evolutionary Biology. New York: Springer-Verlag.
|
|
