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).

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: No longer viewed as a characteristic unique to humans, brain lateralization is considered a key property of most, if not all, vertebrates. This field of study provides a firm basis from which to examine a number of important issues in the study of brain and behaviour. This book takes a comparative and integrative approach to lateralization in a wide range of vertebrate species, including humans. It highlights model systems that have proved invaluable in elucidating the function, causes, development, and evolution of lateralization. The book is arranged in four parts, beginning with the evolution of lateralization, moving to its development, to its cognitive dimensions, and finally to its role in memory. Experts in lateralization in lower vertebrates, birds, non-primate mammals, and primates have contributed chapters in which they discuss their own research and consider its implications to humans. The book is suitable for researchers, graduates and advanced undergraduates in psychology, neuroscience and the behavioral sciences.
- Unique in its truly comparative approach, covering fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals (including primates and humans) – World-class editors and contributors – Very broad coverage of both theoretical and technical aspects of laterality, including evolution, development, behaviour, and memory
Contents
Preface; Introduction; Part I. Evolution of Lateralization: 1. How ancient is lateralization? G. Vallortigara and A. Bisazza; 2. The earliest origins and subsequent evolution of lateralization R. J. Andrew; 3. The nature of lateralization in tetrapods R. J. Andrew and L. J. Rogers; 4. Advantages and disadvantages of lateralization L. J. Rogers; Part II. Development of Lateralization: 5. Behavioral development and lateralization R. J. Andrew; 6. Factors affecting the development of lateralization in chicks C. Deng and L. J. Rogers; 7. Ontogony of visual lateralization in pigeons O. Güntürkün; 8. Development of laterality and the role of the corpus callosum in rodents and humans P. E. Cowell and V. H. Denenberg; 9. Posture and laterality in human and nonhuman primates: asymmetries in maternal handling and the infant"s early motor asymmetries E. Damerose and J. Vauclair; Part III. Cognition and Lateralization: 10. Evidence of cerebral lateralization from senses other than vision R. J. Andrew and J. A. S. Watkins; 11. Facing an obstacle: lateralization of object and spatial cognition G. Vallortigara and L. Regolin; 12. Laterality of communicative behaviors in nonhuman primates: a critical analysis W. D. Hopkins and S. F. Carriba; 13. Specialized processing of primate facial and vocal expressions: evidence for cerebral asymmetries D. J. Weiss, A. A. Ghazanfar, C. T. Miller and M. D. Hauser; Part IV. Lateralization and Memory: 14. Memory and lateralized recall A. N. B. Johnston and S. P. R. Rose; 15. Memory formation and brain lateralization R. J. Andrew; Epilogue; Appendix; Index.
Reviews
'Andrew & Roger perform an enormous service in bringing data from animal behaviour, neuroanatomy and electrophysiology into contact with traditional zoological concerns such as genetics, embryology and population biology.' Journal of Animal Behaviour
'Whatever the outcome of the war, this book will be a key starting point for those trying to understand it (or perhaps to fight in it).' Annals of Human Biology
Contributors
Richard J. Andrew, Angelo Bisazza, Samuel F. Carriba, Patricia E. Cowell, Eric Damerose, Victor H. Denenberg, Chao Deng, Asif A. Ghazanfar, Onur Güntürkün, Mark D. Hauser, William D. Hopkins, Amy N. B. Johnston, Cory T. Miller, Lucia Regolin, Lesley L. Rogers, Steven Rose, Giorgio Vallortigara, J. Vauclair, J. A. S. Watkins, Daniel J. Weiss