Abstract: At the beginning of the twentieth century, behaviourists like John B. Watson (1878-1958) changed the focus of attention from the inside of the brain (mentalism and introspection then being the main trend in psychology at the time) to the outside (Watson, 1913). They believed that we could learn nearly everything about animals and humans by studying their performance in learning experiments, and this was both measurable and verifiable. Today in the first decade of the twenty-first century, there has been a return to the inside. The neurosciences seek physiological explanations and connections between external behaviour and the neural mechanisms within the nervous system. With the revolution in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology researchers are now able to visually represent neural activity. Other researchers have developed mathematical models and programs to visualise the patterns created in the periphery prior to central integration The author in this paper would like to distinguish these descriptive forms of representation from actual representations, i.e., those of which the animal is actually aware or conscious. Why does an animal sometimes make perceptual mistakes? (Case Study I “The Turtle and the Plastic Bag”). Is there more to dispositions? (Case Study II: “Taking Representation for a Walk. Argos and the Fake Daniel Dennett”). How is prey represented to an animal? (Case Study III “Representation of Prey in the Jellyfish/Herring Predator-Prey Dyad”). Does a simple animal feel pain or suffer? (Case Study IV: A Can of Worms. The Earthworm as Bait) It will be argued on the basis of contemporary biosemiotic research that animals (including both vertebrates and invertebrates) represent environmental information internally, and these representations can be subdivided into i.) primary or peripheral representation and ii.) central representation which are quantitative and qualitative respectively. Sensory information is conveyed via signals, these are received as stimuli then transduced into internal signals (see Theoretical Framework). At this stage the animal is not aware of the quality of the information as it has not yet been integrated or processed in a ganglionic complex. One can describe the properties of this pre-integrated information as quantitative and syntactical i.e., spatial and temporal ordering of incoming signals and their relations. The sign which is the smallest unit of qualitative representation arises only after integration of information from two or more discrete sensory modalities. These findings have repercussions for current models of animal learning and behaviour, especially in lower invertebrates (the principal subject of this paper); they also challenge the development of robots based on so-called simple systems

Abstract: Abstract  Both in captivity and the wild, primates are found to travel mostly to the nearest available resource, but they may skip over the closest resource and travel to more distant resources, which are often found to be more productive. This study examines the tradeoff between distance and reward in the foraging choices of one group of wild capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella nigritus) using feeding platforms in large-scale foraging experiments conducted over four years. Three feeding sites were arrayed in an oblique triangle, such that once the monkey group had chosen one site to feed, they had a choice between two remaining sites, a close one with less food and the other up to 2.3 times as far away but with more food. Sites were provisioned once per day. The capuchins generally chose the closer feeding site, even when the more distant site offered up to 12 times as much food. The distances to, rewards of, or various profitability measures applied to each alternative site individually did not explain the groups choices in ways consistent with foraging theory or principles of operant psychology. The groups site choices were predicted only by comparing efficiency measures of entire foraging pathways: (1) direct travel to the more rewarding distant site, versus (2) the longer “detour” through the closer site on the way to the more distant one. The group chose the detour more often when the reward was larger and the added detour distance shorter. They appeared to be more sensitive to the absolute increase in detour distance than to the relative increase compared to the straight route. The qualitative and quantitative results agree with a simple rule: do not use the detour unless the energy gain from extra food outweighs the energy cost of extra travel. These results suggest that members of this group integrate information on spatial location, reward, and perhaps potential food competition in their choice of multi-site foraging routes, with important implications for social foraging.

Abstract: Behavioral ecologists have long been interested in understanding the adaptive value of antipredator behavior (Sih 1987Go; Lima and Dill 1990Go; Lima 1998Go). A recent review by Lind and Cresswell (2005)Go, however, noted some important difficulties with quantifying the fitness consequences of antipredator behaviors. In essence, Lind and Cresswell suggest that most studies do not provide strong evidence on the adaptive value of antipredator behavior because they do not consider 1) trade-offs between antipredator and reproductive performance, 2) the abilities of organisms to avoid fitness losses associated with constraints on focal traits by employing behavioral alternatives (behavioral compensation), and 3) the effects of behavioral defenses at different stages of the predation sequence. The authors rightfully assert that an understanding of these issues can only be accomplished by measuring multiple traits and fitness components (i.e., survival and reproduction). Nevertheless, the question of how to integrate such data into

Abstract: Abstract Calls to understand the links between ecology and evolution have been common for decades. Population dynamics, i.e. the demographic changes in populations, arise from life history decisions of individuals and thus are a product of selection, and selection, on the contrary, can be modified by such dynamical properties of the population as density and stability. It follows that generating predictions and testing them correctly requires considering this ecogenetic feedback loop whenever traits have demographic consequences, mediated via density dependence (or frequency dependence). This is not an easy challenge, and arguably theory has advanced at a greater pace than empirical research. However, theory would benefit from more interaction between related fields, as is evident in the many near-synonymous names that the ecogenetic loop has attracted. We also list encouraging examples where empiricists have shown feasible ways of addressing the question, ranging from advanced data analysis to experiments and comparative analyses of phylogenetic data.