Abstract: Two chimpanzees and a rhesus macaque rapidly learned the ordinal relations between 5 colors of containers (plastic eggs) when all containers of a given color contained a specific number of identical food items. All 3 animals also performed at high levels when comparing sets of containers with sets of visible food items. This indicates that the animals learned the approximate quantity of food items in containers of a given color. However, all animals failed in a summation task, in which a single container was compared with a set of 2 containers of a lesser individual quantity but a greater combined quantity. This difficulty was not overcome by sequential presentation of containers into opaque receptacles, but performance improved if the quantitative difference between sizes was very large.

Abstract: Pheromonal communication is the most convenient way to transfer information regarding gender and social status in animals of the same species with the holistic goal of sustaining reproduction. This type of information exchange is based on pheromones, molecules often chemically unrelated, that are contained in body fluids like urine, sweat, specialized exocrine glands, and mucous secretions of genitals. So profound is the relevance of pheromones over the evolutionary process that a specific peripheral organ devoted to their recognition, namely the vomeronasal organ of Jacobson, and a related central pathway arose in most vertebrate species. Although the vomeronasal system is well developed in reptiles and amphibians, most mammals strongly rely on pheromonal communication. Humans use pheromones too; evidence on the existence of a specialized organ for their detection, however, is very elusive indeed. In the present review, we will focus our attention on the behavioral, physiological, and molecular aspects of pheromone detection in mammals. We will discuss the responses to pheromonal stimulation in different animal species, emphasizing the complicacy of this type of communication. In the light of the most recent results, we will also discuss the complex organization of the transduction molecules that underlie pheromone detection and signal transmission from vomeronasal neurons to the higher centers of the brain. Communication is a primary feature of living organisms, allowing the coordination of different behavioral paradigms among individuals. Communication has evolved through a variety of different strategies, and each species refined its own preferred communication medium. From a phylogenetic point of view, the most widespread and ancient way of communication is through chemical signals named pheromones: it occurs in all taxa, from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. The release of specific pheromones into the environment is a sensitive and definite way to send messages to other members of the same species. Therefore, the action of an organism can alter the behavior of another organism, thereby increasing the fitness of either or both. Albeit slow in transmission and not easily modulated, pheromones can travel around objects in the dark and over long distances. In addition, they are emitted when necessary and their biosynthesis is usually economic. In essence, they represent the most efficient tool to refine the pattern of social behaviors and reproductive strategies. © Springer-Verlag 2005.

Abstract: The purpose of the present study was to gain more insight into the contribution of the forelimbs and hindlimbs of the horse to energy changes during the push-off for a jump. For this purpose, we collected kinematic data at 240 Hz from 23 5-year-old Warmbloods (average mass: 595 kg) performing free jumps over a 1.15 m high fence. From these data, we calculated the changes in mechanical energy and the changes in limb length and joint angles. The force carried by the forelimbs and the amount of energy stored was estimated from the distance between elbow and hoof, assuming that this part of the leg behaved as a linear spring. During the forelimb push, the total energy first decreased by 3.2 J kg(-1) and then increased again by 4.2 J kg(-1) to the end of the forelimb push. At the end of the forelimb push, the kinetic energy due to horizontal velocity of the centre of mass was 1.6 J kg(-1) less than at the start, while the effective energy (energy contributing to jump height) was 2.3 J kg(-1) greater. It was investigated to what extent these changes could involve passive spring-like behaviour of the forelimbs. The amount of energy stored and re-utilized in the distal tendons during the forelimb push was estimated to be on average 0.4 J kg(-1) in the trailing forelimb and 0.23 J kg(-1) in the leading forelimb. This means that a considerable amount of energy was first dissipated and subsequently regenerated by muscles, with triceps brachii probably being the most important contributor. During the hindlimb push, the muscles of the leg were primarily producing energy. The total increase in energy was 2.5 J kg(-1) and the peak power output amounted to 71 W kg(-1).

Abstract: The four questions that Niko Tinbergen identified for behavioural biology ? evolution, function, development and causation ? are all important and should be studied in their own right. Recently, there has been a debate as to whether these four questions should be investigated separately or whether they should be integrated. Integration of the four questions has been attempted in novel research disciplines such as cognitive ecology, evolutionary psychology and neuroecology. Euan Macphail and I have criticised these integrative approaches, suggesting that they are fundamentally flawed as they confound function and mechanism. Investigating the function or evolutionary history of a behaviour or cognitive system is important and entirely legitimate. However, such investigations cannot provide us with answers to questions about the mechanisms underlying behaviour or cognition. At most, functional or evolutionary considerations can provide clues that may be useful for a causal analysis of the underlying mechanisms. However, these clues can be misleading and are often wrong, as is illustrated with examples from song learning and food storing in birds. After summarising the main issues in the neuroecology debate, I discuss some misunderstandings that were apparent in the responses to our critique, as well as some recent relevant data. Recent results do not support the neuroecological approach. Finally, I suggest that the way forward is a cautious and critical use of functional and evolutionary clues in the study of the mechanisms of behaviour.