|
|
Sakai, M., Hishii, T., Takeda, S., & Kohshima, S. (2006). Laterality of flipper rubbing behaviour in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus): Caused by asymmetry of eye use? Behav. Brain. Res., 170(2), 204–210.
Abstract: To determine whether wild Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) at Mikura Island, Japan, show asymmetry of eye or flipper use during a social behaviour, we investigated the laterality of flipper-to-body (F-B) rubbing, in which one dolphin (“rubber”) rubs the body of another (“rubbee”) with its flipper. We analysed 382 episodes of video-recorded F-B rubbings performed by identified individuals (N = 111 rubbers). F-B rubbing was conducted significantly more frequently with the left flipper than with the right flipper. The duration of F-B rubbings was also significantly longer with the left flipper than with the right flipper. Of 20 dolphins, nine individuals showed significant left-side bias as the rubber in this behaviour, whereas no dolphins showed significant right-side bias. The results indicate a population-level left-side bias of the rubber in F-B rubbing. An analysis of the swimming configurations during this behaviour suggests that the asymmetry in F-B rubbing was caused not only by the laterality of the rubber, but by a preference for use of the left eye in both dolphins during this behaviour. Dolphins used the left eye significantly more frequently than the right eye during the inquisitive behaviour, while they showed no significant bias in flipper use during the object-carrying behaviour. These facts also suggest that the asymmetry of F-B rubbing is caused by the preference for using the left eye. Significant left-side bias was observed only in F-B rubbings initiated by the rubbee, in which the rubbee determined its position during this behaviour. This suggests that this behavioural asymmetry was enhanced by the rubbees choosing the left side of the rubber to ensure better and longer rubs.
|
|
|
|
Corballis, M. C. (2008). Of mice and men – and lopsided birds. Cortex, 44(1), 3–7.
Abstract: The article by Zucca and Sovrano (2008, this issue) represents part of a new wave of studies of lateralization in nonhuman species. This work is often in conflict with earlier studies of human cerebral asymmetry and handedness, and the associated claim that these asymmetries are uniquely human, and perhaps even a result of the “speciation event” that led to modern humans. It is now apparent that there are close parallels between human and nonhuman asymmetries, suggesting that they have ancient roots. I argue that asymmetries must be seen in the context of a bilaterally symmetrical body plan, and that there is a balance to be struck between the adaptive advantages of symmetry and asymmetry. In human evolution, systematic asymmetries were incorporated into activities that probably are unique to our species, but the precursors of these asymmetries are increasingly evident in other species, including frogs, fish, birds, and mammals – especially primates.
|
|
