Abstract: Hemispheric specialisation for speech in humans has been well documented. The lateralisation for song production observed in songbirds is reminiscent of this hemispheric dominance. In order to investigate whether song perception is also lateralised, we made multiunit recordings of the neuronal activity in the field L of starlings during the presentation of species-specific and artificial non-specific sounds. We observed a systematic stronger activation in one hemisphere than in the other one during the playback of species-specific sounds, with inter-subject variability in the predominant hemisphere for song perception. Such an asymmetry was not observed for artificial non-specific sounds. Thus, our results suggest that, at least at the individual level, the two hemispheres of the starlings' brain perceive and process conspecific signals differently.

Abstract: Individual recognition is an essential component of interactions in many social systems, but insects are often thought incapable of the sophistication necessary to recognize individuals. If this were true, it would impose limits on the societies that insects could form. For example, queens and workers of the paper wasp Polistes fuscatus form a linear dominance hierarchy that determines how food, work and reproduction are divided within the colony. Such a stable hierarchy would be facilitated if individuals of different ranks have some degree of recognition. P. fuscatus wasps have, to our knowledge, previously undocumented variability in their yellow facial and abdominal markings that are intriguing candidates for signals of individual identity. Here, I describe these highly variable markings and experimentally test whether P. fuscatus queens and workers use these markings to identify individual nest-mates visually. I demonstrate that individuals whose yellow markings are experimentally altered with paint receive more aggression than control wasps who are painted in a way that does not alter their markings. Further, aggression declines towards wasps with experimentally altered markings as these novel markings become familiar to their nestmates. This evidence for individual recognition in P. fuscatus indicates that interactions between insects may be even more complex than previously anticipated.
Full

Abstract: We analyzed the leadership behavior of breeding and nonbreeding gray wolves (Canis lupus) in three packs during winter in 1997-1999. Scent-marking, frontal leadership (time and frequency in the lead while traveling), initiation of activity, and nonfrontal leadership were recorded during 499 h of ground-based observations in Yellowstone National Park. All observed scent-marking (N = 158) was done by breeding wolves, primarily dominant individuals. Dominant breeding pairs provided most leadership, consistent with a trend in social mammals for leadership to correlate with dominance. Dominant breeding wolves led traveling packs during 64% of recorded behavior bouts (N = 591) and 71% of observed travel time (N = 64 h). During travel, breeding males and females led packs approximately equally, which probably reflects high parental investment by both breeding male and female wolves. Newly initiated behaviors (N = 104) were prompted almost 3 times more often by dominant breeders (70%) than by nonbreeders (25%). Dominant breeding females initiated pack activities almost 4 times more often than subordinate breeding females (30 vs. 8 times). Although one subordinate breeding female led more often than individual nonbreeders in one pack in one season, more commonly this was not the case. In 12 cases breeding wolves exhibited nonfrontal leadership. Among subordinate wolves, leadership behavior was observed in subordinate breeding females and other individuals just prior to their dispersal from natal packs. Subordinate wolves were more often found leading packs that were large and contained many subordinate adults.
Nous avons analysé le comportement de commandement chez des loups gris (Canis lupus) reproducteurs et non reproducteurs appartenant à  trois meutes durant les hivers de 1997-1999. Le marquage d'odeurs, la position en tête de meute (la durée et la fréquence au cours des déplacements), l'initiation des activités et la prise de décisions ailleurs qu'en tête du groupe ont été notés pendant 499 h d'observations au sol dans le Parc national de Yellowstone. Tous les marquages (N = 158) ont été faits par des loups reproducteurs, surtout des individus dominants. Ce sont surtout les couples dominants qui assurent le commandement, en accord avec une tendance chez les mammifères sociaux chez lesquels la fonction de chef est en corrélation avec la dominance. Les loups reproducteurs dominants ont conduit les meutes en déplacement pendant 64 % (N = 591) des épisodes de comportement et pendant 71 % des épisodes de déplacement (N = 64 h). Les mâles et les femelles reproducteurs ont dirigé les meutes en déplacement à peu près également, ce qui reflète probablement l'investissement parental important aussi bien de la part des reproducteurs mâles que des femelles. Les comportements nouveaux (N = 104) ont été adoptés presque trois fois plus souvent par des reproducteurs dominants (70 %) que par des individus non reproducteurs (25 %). Des femelles reproductrices dominantes ont été instigatrices des activités de leur meute environ quatre fois plus souvent que les femelles reproductrices subordonnées (30 vs. 8 fois). Bien qu'une femelle reproductrice subordonnée ait pris la direction de sa meute plus souvent que les individus non reproducteurs au cours d'une saison, cela n'est pas habituel. Dans 12 cas, des loups reproducteurs ont pris la direction de leur meute sans être en tête. Chez les individus subordonnés, le comportement de commandement a été observé chez des femelles reproductrices et chez d'autres individus juste avant qu'ils ne quittent leur meute d'origine au moment de la dispersion. Les loups subordonnés mènent surtout de grands troupeaux qui comptent beaucoup d'individus subordonnés.[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Abstract: Summary A wonderfully lucid framework for the ways to understand animal behaviour is that represented by the four [`]whys' proposed by Tinbergen (1963). For much of the past three decades, however, these four avenues have been pursued more or less in parallel. Functional questions, for example, have been addressed by behavioural ecologists, mechanistic questions by psychologists and ethologists, ontogenetic questions by developmental biologists and neuroscientists and phylogenetic questions by evolutionary biologists. More recently, the value of integration between these differing views has become apparent. In this brief review, we concentrate especially on current attempts to integrate mechanistic and functional approaches. Most of our understanding of learning and memory in animals comes from the psychological literature, which tends to use only rats or pigeons, and more occasionally primates, as subjects. The underlying psychological assumption is of general processes that are similar across species and contexts rather than a range of specific abilities. However, this does not seem to be entirely true as several learned behaviours have been described that are specific to particular species or contexts. The first conspicuous exception to the generalist assumption was the demonstration of long delay taste aversion learning in rats (Garcia et al., 1955), in which it was shown that a stimulus need not be temporally contiguous with a response for the animal to make an association between food and illness. Subsequently, a number of other examples, such as imprinting and song learning in birds (e.g., Bolhuis and Honey, 1998; Catchpole and Slater, 1995; Horn, 1998), have been thoroughly researched. Even in these cases, however, it has been typical for only a few species to be studied (domestic chicks provide the [`]model' imprinting species and canaries and zebra finches the song learning [`]models'). As a result, a great deal is understood about the neural underpinnings and development of the behaviour, but substantially less is understood about interspecific variation and whether variation in behaviour is correlated with variation in neural processing (see review by Tramontin and Brenowitz, 2000 but see ten Cate and Vos, 1999).