|
|
Seeley, T. D. (2002). When Is Self-Organization Used in Biological Systems? Biol Bull, 202(3), 314–318.
Abstract: Self-organization, or decentralized control, is widespread in biological systems, including cells, organisms, and groups. It is not, however, the universal means of organization. I argue that a biological system will be self-organized when it possesses a large number of subunits, and these subunits lack either the communicational abilities or the computational abilities, or both, that are needed to implement centralized control. Such control requires a well informed and highly intelligent supervisor. I stress that the subunits in a self-organized system do not necessarily have low cognitive abilities. A lack of preadaptations for evolving a system-wide communication network can prevent the evolution of centralized control. Hence, sometimes even systems whose subunits possess high cognitive abilities will be self-organized. N1 -
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (2002). Cooperation in animals: An evolutionary overview. Biology and Philosophy, 17(4), 459–476.
Abstract: Evolutionary biologists have grappled with the question of the emergenceand maintenance of cooperation since Darwin first listed animal cooperation asapotential problem for his theory of natural selection. Here I review four pathsthat have been delineated in the study of intra-specific cooperation amonganimals. These paths – kinship, reciprocity, byproduct mutualism andgroupselection – serve as a starting point for behavioral ecologistsinterestedstudying the initiation and maintenance of cooperation. After reviewing theempirical and theoretical underpinnings of these paths to cooperation, I touchupon some recent work that has attempted to examine (or reexamine) the role ofphylogeny, punishment and morality in the light of cooperative behavior.
|
|
|
|
Pepperberg, I. M. (2002). In search of king Solomon's ring: cognitive and communicative studies of Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Brain Behav Evol, 59(1-2), 54–67.
Abstract: During the past 24 years, I have used a modeling technique (M/R procedure) to train Grey parrots to use an allospecific code (English speech) referentially; I then use the code to test their cognitive abilities. The oldest bird, Alex, labels more than 50 different objects, 7 colors, 5 shapes, quantities to 6, 3 categories (color, shape, material) and uses 'no', 'come here', wanna go X' and 'want Y' (X and Y are appropriate location or item labels). He combines labels to identify, request, comment upon or refuse more than 100 items and to alter his environment. He processes queries to judge category, relative size, quantity, presence or absence of similarity/difference in attributes, and show label comprehension. He semantically separates labeling from requesting. He thus exhibits capacities once presumed limited to humans or nonhuman primates. Studies on this and other Greys show that parrots given training that lacks some aspect of input present in M/R protocols (reference, functionality, social interaction) fail to acquire referential English speech. Examining how input affects the extent to which parrots acquire an allospecific code may elucidate mechanisms of other forms of exceptional learning: learning unlikely in the normal course of development but that can occur under certain conditions.
|
|
|
|
Marino, L. (2002). Convergence of complex cognitive abilities in cetaceans and primates. Brain Behav Evol, 59(1-2), 21–32.
Abstract: What examples of convergence in higher-level complex cognitive characteristics exist in the animal kingdom? In this paper I will provide evidence that convergent intelligence has occurred in two distantly related mammalian taxa. One of these is the order Cetacea (dolphins, whales and porpoises) and the other is our own order Primates, and in particular the suborder anthropoid primates (monkeys, apes, and humans). Despite a deep evolutionary divergence, adaptation to physically dissimilar environments, and very different neuroanatomical organization, some primates and cetaceans show striking convergence in social behavior, artificial 'language' comprehension, and self-recognition ability. Taken together, these findings have important implications for understanding the generality and specificity of those processes that underlie cognition in different species and the nature of the evolution of intelligence.
|
|
|
|
Orbell, J., Morikawa, T., & Allen, N. (2002). The Evolution of Political Intelligence: Simulation Results. Br. J. Polit. Sci., 32, 613–639.
Abstract: Several bodies of theory develop the idea that the intelligence of highly social animals – most interestingly, humans is significantly organized around the adaptive problems posed by their sociality. By this “political intelligence” hypothesis, sociality selects for, among other attributes, capacities for “manipulating” information others can gather about one's own future behaviour, and for “mindreading” such manipulations by others. Yet we have little theory about how diverse parameters of the games that social animals play select for political intelligence. We begin to address that with an evolutionary simulation in which agents choose between playing Prisoner's Dilemma and Hawk-Dove games on the basis of the information they can retrieve about each other given four broad information processing capacities. We show that political intelligence – operationally, the aggregate of those four capacities evolves to its highest levels when co-operative games are generally more attractive than conflictual ones, but when conflictual games are at least sometimes also attractive.
|
|
|
|
Peterson R.O., Jacobs A.K., Drummer T.D., Mech L.D., & Smith D.W. (2002). Leadership behavior in relation to dominance and reproductive status in gray wolves, Canis lupus. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80, 1405–1412.
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]
|
|
|
|
Kemp S.M. (2002). Operationalizing situated cognition and learning. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 361–383.
|
|
|
|
Barton, R. (2002). The evolutionary ecolgy of the primate brain. In P. C. Lee (Ed.), Comparative Primate Socioecology (pp. 167–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
|
|
George, I., Cousillas, H., Richard, J. - P., & Hausberger, M. (2002). Song perception in the European starling: hemispheric specialisation and individual variations. Compt. Rend. Biol., 325(3), 197–204.
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.
|
|
|
|
Murphy, M. A., Waits, L. P., Kendall, K. C., Wasser, S. K., Higbee, J. A., & Bogden, R. (2002). An evaluation of long-term preservation methods for brown bear (Ursus arctos) faecal DNA samples. Conservat. Genet., 3(4), 435–440.
Abstract: Relatively few large-scale faecal DNA studieshave been initiated due to difficulties inamplifying low quality and quantity DNAtemplate. To improve brown bear faecal DNA PCRamplification success rates and to determinepost collection sample longevity, fivepreservation methods were evaluated: 90%ethanol, DETs buffer, silica-dried, oven-driedstored at room temperature, and oven-driedstored at -20 °C. Preservationeffectiveness was evaluated for 50 faecalsamples by PCR amplification of a mitochondrialDNA (mtDNA) locus (~146 bp) and a nuclear DNA(nDNA) locus (~200 bp) at time points of oneweek, one month, three months and six months. Preservation method and storage timesignificantly impacted mtDNA and nDNAamplification success rates. For mtDNA, allpreservation methods had >= 75% success atone week, but storage time had a significantimpact on the effectiveness of the silicapreservation method. Ethanol preserved sampleshad the highest success rates for both mtDNA(86.5%) and nDNA (84%). Nuclear DNAamplification success rates ranged from 26-88%, and storage time had a significant impacton all methods but ethanol. Preservationmethod and storage time should be importantconsiderations for researchers planningprojects utilizing faecal DNA. We recommendpreservation of faecal samples in 90% ethanolwhen feasible, although when collecting inremote field conditions or for both DNA andhormone assays a dry collection method may beadvantageous.
|
|
