From: IN%"iwona_kosmider@poczta.onet.pl" "Iwona Kosmider" 31-JUL-2002 12:24:10.60 To: IN%"sarrett@comcast.net" "Wendy Sarrett", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Animal Behavior Distance Learning.. Hi Wendy, I can try to answer on your question which are connected with The Etologisk Institute. During the next few months I am going there to do my Master Project. Until now I can give you their web side address where you can find some information as well as e-mail address to theme. http://www.abrantes.com/etologiskinstitut/ With greetings, Iwona Użytkownik Wendy Sarrett napisał: >I'm researching programs in animal behavior that provide for distance >learning. I'd like to get involved in the field but a full time >graduate program is not logistically possible for me at this time (I >need to pay the bills!) The two I've found are the American Institute of >Animal Sciences which focuses on training their students to become pet >behavorial counselors. (Which is what I'm thinking about as a potential >part time or third career.) It is very new and I'm in communication >with one of their students who is about to take the two week hands on >part of the course and will let me know about that once she's completed >it. The other is Etologisk Institut. It is out of Denmark and has >recently started offering their courses in English. >Does anyone know anything about either of these organization or have >recommendation on others? > >Thanks! >Wendy Sarrett >(sarrett@comcast.net) > From: IN%"DMills@dmu.ac.uk" "Daniel Mills" 1-AUG-2002 03:21:28.69 To: IN%"sarrett@comcast.net" "'Wendy Sarrett'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Animal Behavior Distance Learning.. We offer a Masters programme by learning contract. This allows a student in collaboration with a supervisor to put together a programme of study in an area of interest. These tend to be largely research based programmes and more focussed than a formal taught masters. By way of example we have students working on auditory cognition in dogs, distant social communication and age related changes in horses. for details see: http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/lsa/mscis/ for application forms please contact: Dr Anne Morris Department of Biological Sciences, Brayford Pool Lincoln LN6 7TS United Kingdom E-mail: amorris@lincoln.ac.uk Tel: (+44) 1522 886870 Fax: (+44) 1522 886026 stating your area of interest. Personally I would be very cautious about spending money on a programme which does not use at least use a national credit system for the award, i.e. offers only a private certificate from the institution rather than a internationally recognised level of qualification (masters, etc.) Good luck. Daniel Mills BVSc MRCVS Principal Lecturer in Behavioural Studies and Animal Welfare Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group University of Lincoln Riseholme Park Lincoln LN2 2LG Tel 44 (0)1522 89 5356 e-mail dmills@dmu.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Sarrett [mailto:sarrett@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 4:17 AM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Animal Behavior Distance Learning.. I'm researching programs in animal behavior that provide for distance learning. I'd like to get involved in the field but a full time graduate program is not logistically possible for me at this time (I need to pay the bills!) The two I've found are the American Institute of Animal Sciences which focuses on training their students to become pet behavorial counselors. (Which is what I'm thinking about as a potential part time or third career.) It is very new and I'm in communication with one of their students who is about to take the two week hands on part of the course and will let me know about that once she's completed it. The other is Etologisk Institut. It is out of Denmark and has recently started offering their courses in English. Does anyone know anything about either of these organization or have recommendation on others? Thanks! Wendy Sarrett ( sarrett@comcast.net ) From: IN%"haleyderek@hotmail.com" "Derek Haley" 2-AUG-2002 11:00:57.91 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Animal adoptions / cross-fostering Dear All, I am forwarding the message below on the topic of animal adoptions. After having been in contact with the producer / researcher who sent the original message I can say they are also interested in applied research on similar subjects like the timing, methods and consequences of cross-fostering; topics which I know many of you have worked on. The contact information is provided below. Derek D.B. Haley Ph.D. Candidate University of Saskatchewan, Canada __________________________________ From: Tracy Roe Subject: request for information about animal adoptions My name is Tracy Roe and I am a researcher for Natural History New Zealand, a television documentary production company based in Dunedin, New Zealand. You can find out more about our company on our website at http://www.naturalhistory.co.nz We are investigating a documentary idea about animal adoptions. Is anyone researching adoptions of infant animals/eggs by animals of other species (excluding humans)? Stories of interest could include experiments for management of threatened species, behavioral research, and management practices that are being trialled or are already in use. We are also interested in observations of inter- and intraspecific adoptions that occur in the wild. If you have a story that you think might be of interest, please send it directly to troe@naturalhistory.co.nz Yours sincerely, Tracy Roe M.Sc. Assistant Producer / Researcher Natural History New Zealand Ltd 8 Dowling Street PO Box 474, Dunedin - NEW ZEALAND tel direct: +64 3 479 9885 fax: +64 3 479 9917 email: troe@naturalhistory.co.nz _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From: IN%"chris@thebalanceddog.com" "Chris Redenbach" 2-AUG-2002 11:06:07.50 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: urban coyotes Some suburban areas around Atlanta, GA, and even residential urban areas, are experiencing an increasing number of coyote predatory attacks upon pets. One coyote came out of the brush near a church parking lot and snatched a Chihuahua on a leash being held by his owner who was talking to the pastor. One community has hired a trapper who plans to use double laminated leg hold traps and snares and then sell the coyotes who are not crippled to an organization who uses them as bait to train hunting hounds, says a local newspaper report. People are in fear for their pets and children. All of this sounds a bit over the top to me and I wonder if any of you have some information about experts to contact or studies done that could be presented at a local meeting week after next to decide the fate of the coyotes. Thanks in advance, Chris Redenbach Oh, and I'm having some email server problems so I would appreciate answers being sent both to me and the list so that something gets through. From: IN%"slvnhld@ix.netcom.com" "OBi" 2-AUG-2002 15:13:45.11 To: IN%"chris@thebalanceddog.com" "Chris Redenbach", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: urban coyotes Hi Chris, Sorry I don't have a reference for any study for you but some personal experience may be of help. I have some acreage (160) out in the country and a pack of coyotes that den on the property. While they have been known to investigate the neighbor's barn area at times, and are occasionally quite bold about it, we mostly all co-exist in peace (plenty of rodents to keep coyotes busy). 5 miles away, however, in semi-suburbia (2-5 acre homesites) the coyotes were a major problem. They were taking on pets and so desensitized to the presence of man that they would no longer run off and were regularly seen during the day as well. One small neighborhood got together and agreed that they would no longer leave dog/cat food outside. They also fully secured and locked their garbage containers... the result is that there are few coyotes to be found in their area anymore. In the next neighborhood over, however, the problem still exists and is getting worse. You might want to suggest at your meeting that eliminating the "easy" food source would be a very effective way to address the problem as well. My experience is that those unused to the country move to the 'burbs and don't even think that they may be attracting the "wild life" in ways they may not intend. best of luck, OBi > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Redenbach [mailto:chris@thebalanceddog.com] > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 11:06 AM > To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: urban coyotes > > > Some suburban areas around Atlanta, GA, and even residential urban areas, > are experiencing an increasing number of coyote predatory attacks upon > pets. One coyote came out of the brush near a church parking lot and > snatched a Chihuahua on a leash being held by his owner who was > talking to > the pastor. > > One community has hired a trapper who plans to use double laminated leg > hold traps and snares and then sell the coyotes who are not > crippled to an > organization who uses them as bait to train hunting hounds, says a local > newspaper report. > > People are in fear for their pets and children. > > All of this sounds a bit over the top to me and I wonder if any > of you have > some information about experts to contact or studies done that could be > presented at a local meeting week after next to decide the fate > of the coyotes. > > Thanks in advance, > Chris Redenbach > > Oh, and I'm having some email server problems so I would > appreciate answers > being sent both to me and the list so that something gets through. > > From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 3-AUG-2002 00:28:33.16 To: IN%"chris@thebalanceddog.com" "Chris Redenbach" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: urban coyotes At 01:05 PM 8/2/02 -0400, you wrote: Hi Chris, That a trapper would be selling trapped coyotes to be used as bait to train hunting hounds sounds terribly cruel to me. It seems to me that every time an animal is determined to be "vermin" all kinds of horrible methods are devised for killing them. A "vermin" animal is just as capable of feeling pain or suffering terrible fear as any other animal, but if it is determined to be vermin, treating it with great cruelty is some how justified. If someone were to suggest using excess Chihuahuas for bait to train hunting hounds, a public cry would go up, but since it is a coyote, this is okay......? Now on to the question of attacks on pets, well that is to be expected. Coyotes are opportunistic hunters. I suspect that their traditional food source has been disrupted and they are using their behavioral flexibility to pursue another food source. They started coming into my town several years ago and hunting domestic cats after the field vole population had crashed. People here were also in a panic because they had not experienced the coyotes coming into town before and thought that a person was running around killing and mutilating cats. Once it was determined to be coyotes, some of the public panic subsided. In addition, at about the same time that we started figuring out what was happening, the farmers harvested fields and the coyotes went back to eating the rodents. Realize also that there is a fluctuating predator-prey relationship. After a prey species undergoes a periodic population crash, then the predator species population will then crash shortly. However, during that time that the prey population has crashed and the predator population is teetering on the brink, those hungry animals will be casting around for whatever they can eat. The description of a coyote snatching a Chihuahua in front of humans sounds like either a desperate and hungry animal who has been driven beyond normal caution or an exaggerated urban folk tale. If it is the former, then this suggests that the normal prey population has crashed and the coyote population is on its way down. If people simply protect their pets, don't leave pet food outside and clean up garbage that the coyotes might be subsisting on, the coyote population will naturally crash on its own. I don't have the studies at my fingertips, but it is my understanding that random killing of coyotes actually drives up their population numbers. A long term, stable population will control a territory and will have reduced number of pups in the litters. It is when a population is in flux that as a survival mechanism, the fertility is increased. What is more, if you have someone setting out traps, I can pretty much guarantee you that they will be catching and maiming ten domestic animals for every coyote that they catch. Coyotes are pretty good at evading traps; not so our domestic animals. Snares generally kill whatever gets into them and so any cat or dog who happens to find one could be killed by it. Any place a coyote can get, so too could a child; how are they keeping children away from the traps. Not only are traps and snares inhumane, but they are also indiscriminate. There is a good likelihood that putting traps and snares in an urban setting will kill more pets than the coyotes possibly could. I've seen what traps can do to a creature--the idea of using them in an urban setting makes my blood curdle. (This is just my opinion but comes from having watched the results of a skilled government trapper years ago). Here is my suggestion for preventing urban coyotes from predating on domestic pets: First leave them alone so that they establish and control permanent territories. Older, stable family units will do a lot less hunting than a group of constantly overturning young families and adolescents. Second, clean up the town. Don't leave pet food outside or garbage around to encourage the coyotes to come in for food. Third, I would consider using taste aversion training against domestic dog and cat, utilizing the guidelines set out by Carl Gustavson. You can find a very good review article by Carl Gustavson, giving background, rational for the technique and quite a few good citations in "Readings in Companion Animal Behavior edited by Victoria Voith and Peter Borchelt (1996) Veterinary Learning Systems. pp 89-99. Coyote attacks on humans are very rare. A wildlife biologist I know gave me this reference which apparently outlines the cases and circumstances that are known. Carbyn L.N., 1989 Coyote attacks on Children in Western North America, Wildlife Society Bulletin Vol 17 pp444-446. I haven't read this reference, however, I suspect that, if you calculate the number of coyotes which actually live in the US and compare this with the number of attacks on humans, it is probably a great deal fewer than dog bites to children per dog in the US. And I doubt seriously that anyone would suggest that they treat dogs the same way that they are suggesting to treat the coyotes because of their danger to children......(nor would I, of course, this is just to point out how overblown the perception of danger is--I heard the coyotes singing last night while my children and I were outside looking after animals and the thought that the coyotes might be a danger to my children never even crossed my mind. My ducks and cats, now that's another story). I hope this is some help. I will be leaving tomorrow to go on a camping trip and won't have access to e-mail for a week, so I won't be able to respond right away if you have any questions. Janice Janice Willard DVM, MS Moscow, ID Some suburban areas around Atlanta, GA, and even residential urban areas,are experiencing an increasing number of coyote predatory attacks upon >pets. One coyote came out of the brush near a church parking lot and >snatched a Chihuahua on a leash being held by his owner who was talking to >the pastor. > >One community has hired a trapper who plans to use double laminated leg >hold traps and snares and then sell the coyotes who are not crippled to an >organization who uses them as bait to train hunting hounds, says a local >newspaper report. > >People are in fear for their pets and children. > >All of this sounds a bit over the top to me and I wonder if any of you have >some information about experts to contact or studies done that could be >presented at a local meeting week after next to decide the fate of the coyotes. > >Thanks in advance, >Chris Redenbach > >Oh, and I'm having some email server problems so I would appreciate answers >being sent both to me and the list so that something gets through. > > > From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 3-AUG-2002 11:59:47.77 To: IN%"chris@thebalanceddog.com" "Chris Redenbach", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: urban coyotes Chris Redenbach wrote: > Some suburban areas around Atlanta, GA, and even residential urban areas, > are experiencing an increasing number of coyote predatory attacks upon > pets. One coyote came out of the brush near a church parking lot and > snatched a Chihuahua on a leash being held by his owner who was talking to > the pastor. > > One community has hired a trapper who plans to use double laminated leg > hold traps and snares and then sell the coyotes who are not crippled to an > organization who uses them as bait to train hunting hounds, says a local > newspaper report. > > People are in fear for their pets and children. > > All of this sounds a bit over the top to me and I wonder if any of you have > some information about experts to contact or studies done that could be > presented at a local meeting week after next to decide the fate of the coyotes. I must say it sounds a bit over the top to me too. The first question might perhaps be, are these coyotes or "coydogs"? I'm not too familiar with the literature on this subject but do know that Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife (or whatever they are called) commissioned a study on the biology of coydogs a while back, which produced some interesting information. I learned of it through a book by Paul Rezendes (a wildlife consultant for the agency) but I'm sure you could get information by contacting them directly. They might also have some suggestions for dealing with your problem. I know a number of people who hunt coyotes with sighthounds. I've attended such hunts myself. I do not, however, know any organization which uses captured coyotes "as bait to train hunting hounds." It isn't usually necessary (any more than it is necessary to use "bagged" quarry to train falcons to hunt specific game species). If particulars of that organization are forthcoming, I'd like to know about it. Another thought is that coyotes are notoriously difficult to trap. Unless the trapper in question has plenty of experience and success in trapping coyotes, he may be in for a disappointing time. Out here in the western states Federal contract trappers use traps, snares and M-44s (cyanide guns) to "control" coyotes. That is a taxpayer funded service provided to ranchers who ask for it. The evidence that coyotes kill adult cattle is, to say the least, questionable, but that doesn't stop people from reporting it. Consult the USDA statistics on "depredation" (for which ranchers are compensated) - they contain some amazing things. You can learn there that cattle are killed by starlings, by Egrets, and by beavers ... One practical consequence is to place vast areas of public land "off limits" for hunting with sighthounds or indeed any other dogs, even in areas where there is no other livestock but cattle for dozens of miles in any direction. Hunters are not willing to expose their dogs to the risk of getting sprayed with cyanide, or even having a leg broken in a trap. Urban and suburban coyotes (and especially coydogs) do kill small dogs, and housecats. My own most unscientific feeling about that is that if you want to live close to nature, as many people do, you must do so on nature's terms. Coyotes are part of nature. Chihuahas are not. People are generally happy to live in a "natural" environment (even when it's not really all that natural ). As soon as they are inconvenienced by any of the animals forming part of the "natural" system, however, they generally call for the extermination of the "nuisance" animals ... The present day proliferation of coyotes may itself represent a perturbation of the natural balance. It is quite likely a direct consequence of the extermination of wolves nearly a century ago. John -- John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 5-AUG-2002 10:12:08.38 To: IN%"ISAEnet-l@usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: [Fwd: FW: Advance notice: Scientist positions (2) in Stress/Welfare in NewZealand] Hi Joe Pls post on the Ethology Net Ta L. AgResearch in New Zealand will shortly be advertising for a Senior Scientist and a Post doc to undertake welfare/behaviour/stress studies of economically important animals in New Zealand. More information wll be made available at the ISAE meeting in Netherlands next week. I shall be available for discussion as well Lindsay Matthews, PhD Team Leader Behaviour and Welfare AgResearch, Ruakura PB 3123 Hamilton New Zealand Tele: +64 7 838 5569 FAX +64 7 838 5038 ======================================================================= Attention: The information contained in this message and/or attachments from AgResearch Limited is intended only for the persons or entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited by AgResearch Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. ======================================================================= From: IN%"K.E.Littin@massey.ac.nz" 5-AUG-2002 10:21:03.01 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: [Fwd: FW: Advance notice: Scientist positions (2) in Stress/Welfare Hi I'm not in the office right now. If you need to get in touch with me urgently, please phone 025 521 818. Thanks, Kate Littin. From: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "Moira Harris" 8-AUG-2002 05:43:15.81 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"isae-l@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Student stars of the NA-ISAE Dear all, The North American ISAE held a very successful meeting on July 20-21 in Quebec City, in conjunction with the ASAS/ADSA/CSAS meetings. One of the highlights was a competition for the best spoken presentation by a student. All of the entrants were of a very high standard, but in the opinion of the judges two of the presentations were particularly outstanding. First prize was awarded to Mark Woodcock from Purdue University, and second prize to Carien Vandenberg from the University of Guelph. Congratulations Mark and Carien! - Moira Harris For the NA-ISAE organizing committee __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From: IN%"hzulch@mweb.co.za" "zulch" 8-AUG-2002 12:58:22.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Impact of trains etc Hi all Can anyone point me in the direction of publications on the impact of train traffic on horses? Alternatively, any publications on longterm exposure to noise/electromagnetic fields etc on domestic animals (welfare, behaviour, production, reproduction, performance ...) A new high speed train route is planned to run within 200m of a large racehorse stables and training yard - about 1500-2000 horses. There are also many livery stables and smallholdings with livestock in the surrounding area. Any information would be much appreciated!! Thanks Helen Zulch South Africa From: IN%"skelligs@neuroetologia.net" 8-AUG-2002 14:20:03.68 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Information! Hi everyone! I was wondering if someone could help me find some information about associations or campaigns against animal abuse in circuses Tnaks for your time, please if someone has any information it will be really appreciated! aoife From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 9-AUG-2002 14:58:26.66 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: enculturation Dear All I have just read Steven Wise's 'Rattling the cage: towards legal rights for animals' (yes, I know he has a new book out, but you should see my 'To read' stack). Chapter 9 on Enculturation is fascinating, showing in considerably more detail than I had previously seen what apes can do given an upbringing more-or-less like a human upbringing - and how limiting on their social and cognitive development an upbringing in sterile lab conditions is. It also, however, suggested to me that it is difficult to conclude that apes have a Theory of Mind, if a necessary condition for them to develop one is for those rearing them to believe that they have one. Perhaps scientist A could do the rearing, then bring in scientist B to do the testing or to validate interpretation of results. Anyway, one of the main questions that it prompted in my mind, to which I have given a little thought before, is: How important is enculturation in the cognition of other animals? The most obvious example is dogs. How different, in cognition or whatever, are pet dogs from wild dogs? Wise does mention this briefly (in chapter 12, p269): "Daniel Dennett, for one, would not be surprised if thousands of generations of human enculturation have not caused the canine brain to reorganize and produce a more advance state of consciousness". [I think there's one too many negative in there, but we see what he means.] Indeed, the domestication might mean that there is more of an effect in dogs than in apes. Other domestic animals might also show some effects, although my first guess is that none will show as much effect as dogs. Mike Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org From: IN%"DMills@dmu.ac.uk" "Daniel Mills" 12-AUG-2002 08:06:45.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Post Doc Vacancy in Dog Behaviour Dear all, Please pass this on to any potentially interested persons. Inital applications will be accepted by e-mail given the short deadline. Vacancy for post doctoral research scientist to study dog development in the Dept of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln. The above vacancy is a new, one year, externally funded position within the Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group of the University of Lincoln under the direction of veterinary scientist, Daniel Mills. The successful candidate will join a vibrant and growing group of scientists, who have been at the forefront of the development of pheromones and social odours for the control of behaviour problems in companion animals (pheromonatherapy). This project will examine the effects of a dog pheromone on the development and behaviour of young animals. In keeping with the group's tradition of high standards of animal welfare, all work will be non-invasive and based on field studies of behaviour in volunteered subjects. The successful applicant must be able to drive in the U.K. and have a PhD or appropriate clinical experience. Preference will be given to candidates with experience of behavioural observation and clinical trials. Excellent communication and interpersonal skills are also a necessity. Initial selection is by curriculum vitae and covering letter with the names and addresses of two referees. Please quote reference: DM02DAP, and address your application to: Daniel Mills Principal Lecturer in Behavioural Studies & Animal Welfare Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group University of Lincoln Riseholme Park Lincoln LN2 2LG e-mail dmills@dmu.ac.uk The vacancy is available from early autumn 2002 Closing date for receipt of applications: August 20th 2002 Further details about the group are available from our website: http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/lsa/research/as_staff.htm. Daniel Mills BVSc MRCVS Principal Lecturer in Behavioural Studies and Animal Welfare Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group University of Lincoln Riseholme Park Lincoln LN2 2LG Tel 44 (0)1522 89 5356 e-mail dmills@dmu.ac.uk From: IN%"olokbo@yahoo.com" "lieve Bijnens" 13-AUG-2002 07:09:11.32 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Information Wild Boars Dear all, My name is Hoedemakers kathy, I am a last year student on the Veterinary University of Ghent (Belgium). My thesissubjekt is about "The epidemiology of swine fever: possibilities of transmission from wild boar to pigs." Directly and indirect. My question: Is it possible to get in touch with researchers working on wild boars right now ? Where can I find some more information concerning: 1.Ethogram of wild boar .(social and maternal behavior...) 2.Vektors of transmission. Kind regards, Kathy e-mail: kikayentl2000@hotmail.com From: IN%"JJCooper@dmu.ac.uk" "Jonathan Cooper" 13-AUG-2002 08:24:04.43 To: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "'Michael Appleby'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: enculturation Aplogies if this comes across as a plug for Applied Animal Behaviour Science, ISAE or just me, but the potential effects of domestication and enculturation on the cognition in dogs (abd particularly social cognition) is the subject of the review article that should (subject to refereeing) appear in the special edition of Applied animal behaviour Science based on the ISAE Conferance in Davis last year. The basic argument we put forward is that dogs may make better models of social cognition than apes becasue of the tasks we have selected them to do (e.g. co-operative hunting), because of the degree to which they have to live in and learn to exploit our world, and for the practical reason that they are easier to obtain and maintain and easier and safer to work with than great apes. This argument is supported by quite a wealth of research in Hungary, France, US and UK showing things like a knowledge of the nature of objects when not in view, the use of intraspecific (other dog) and interspecific (human) cues to locate target objects and ven some evidence of perspective taking, all of which could be useful in an animal that engages in co-operative hunting, but could simply be explained as learning to the signals of ourselves or other dogs as predictors of out-of-sight environmental factors. I'd like to make the review as up-to-date and comprehensive as possible and to address any problems with the argument so i would be interested in any experimental studies that relate to these ideas and any problems with the argument. Best wishes Jonathan Cooper Dr. Jonathan Cooper Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, c/o Lincolnshire School of Agriculture, Riseholme Park, Riseholme, Lincoln. LN2 2LG. UK. Email: jjcooper@dmu.ac.uk Tel: 01522 895276 http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/lsa/staff/j-cooper.htm -----Original Message----- From: Michael Appleby [mailto:mappleby@hsus.org] Sent: 09 August 2002 21:58 To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: enculturation Dear All I have just read Steven Wise's 'Rattling the cage: towards legal rights for animals' (yes, I know he has a new book out, but you should see my 'To read' stack). Chapter 9 on Enculturation is fascinating, showing in considerably more detail than I had previously seen what apes can do given an upbringing more-or-less like a human upbringing - and how limiting on their social and cognitive development an upbringing in sterile lab conditions is. It also, however, suggested to me that it is difficult to conclude that apes have a Theory of Mind, if a necessary condition for them to develop one is for those rearing them to believe that they have one. Perhaps scientist A could do the rearing, then bring in scientist B to do the testing or to validate interpretation of results. Anyway, one of the main questions that it prompted in my mind, to which I have given a little thought before, is: How important is enculturation in the cognition of other animals? The most obvious example is dogs. How different, in cognition or whatever, are pet dogs from wild dogs? Wise does mention this briefly (in chapter 12, p269): "Daniel Dennett, for one, would not be surprised if thousands of generations of human enculturation have not caused the canine brain to reorganize and produce a more advance state of consciousness". [I think there's one too many negative in there, but we see what he means.] Indeed, the domestication might mean that there is more of an effect in dogs than in apes. Other domestic animals might also show some effects, although my first guess is that none will show as much effect as dogs. Mike Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 13-AUG-2002 09:00:10.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: enculturation From: Price, Edward O. [mailto:EOPrice@UCDavis.Edu] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:34 PM To: 'Michael Appleby' Subject: RE: enculturation Mike: A couple of thoughts on your comments below. In general, domestic animals are less sensitive to changes in their environment than their wild counterparts. Doesn't that argue that domestic animals would be less likely than their wild cousins to develop (or evolve) an "advanced state of consciousness"? Secondly, man serves as a buffer for the mistakes made by captive animals. Could this also result in them having a less advanced state of consciousness? I believe that domestication and living with people would not have the effect you are suggesting but perhaps the opposite effect. I discuss similar topics in my book "Animal Domestication and Behavior" coming out this fall (November). Cheers, Ed -----Original Message----- From: Michael Appleby [mailto:mappleby@hsus.org] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:58 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: enculturation Dear All I have just read Steven Wise's 'Rattling the cage: towards legal rights for animals' (yes, I know he has a new book out, but you should see my 'To read' stack). Chapter 9 on Enculturation is fascinating, showing in considerably more detail than I had previously seen what apes can do given an upbringing more-or-less like a human upbringing - and how limiting on their social and cognitive development an upbringing in sterile lab conditions is. It also, however, suggested to me that it is difficult to conclude that apes have a Theory of Mind, if a necessary condition for them to develop one is for those rearing them to believe that they have one. Perhaps scientist A could do the rearing, then bring in scientist B to do the testing or to validate interpretation of results. Anyway, one of the main questions that it prompted in my mind, to which I have given a little thought before, is: How important is enculturation in the cognition of other animals? The most obvious example is dogs. How different, in cognition or whatever, are pet dogs from wild dogs? Wise does mention this briefly (in chapter 12, p269): "Daniel Dennett, for one, would not be surprised if thousands of generations of human enculturation have not caused the canine brain to reorganize and produce a more advance state of consciousness". [I think there's one too many negative in there, but we see what he means.] Indeed, the domestication might mean that there is more of an effect in dogs than in apes. Other domestic animals might also show some effects, although my first guess is that none will show as much effect as dogs. Mike Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 13-AUG-2002 09:24:48.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: enculturation Dear Ed et al > I believe that domestication and living with people would not have the effect you are suggesting but perhaps the opposite effect. Well, surely that will depend on the exact conditions of their rearing. As you have said more clearly than anyone, domestication consists of the effects of both genetic change and of how individuals are raised. Animals raised individually by humans - as pets or whatever - develop considerable individuality. And we all know examples of the clever cow that can open the gate-bolt with its tongue. Let's not forget that Clever Hans was indeed clever: the story is told to demonstrate what he could not do, but what he could do was nevertheless very subtle. So my question comes down to this: are domesticated animals more likely to develop complex cognitive abilities, when reared in conditions that encourage them to do so, than taxonomically similar non-domestic species? I am not suggesting that the average cow, reared in average commercial conditions, has 'an advanced state of consciousness'. But I wonder if a cow reared as a pet might be more likely to develop the ability to unlock its gate than, say, an antelope. If so, could that be explained by the fact that it is (genetically) less nervous of humans, watches what humans do more closely, or what? And even in commercial conditions, it is clear that interaction with humans is a hugely important aspect of the environment of most domestic animals. And those humans are not just behaving like other pigs or cows or whatever, so what influence do the humans have on the behaviour and the cognition of those pigs and cows? Can some aspects be better understood by ideas about enculturation? Mike Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org -----Original Message----- From: Price, Edward O. [mailto:EOPrice@UCDavis.Edu] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:34 PM To: 'Michael Appleby' Subject: RE: enculturation Mike: A couple of thoughts on your comments below. In general, domestic animals are less sensitive to changes in their environment than their wild counterparts. Doesn't that argue that domestic animals would be less likely than their wild cousins to develop (or evolve) an "advanced state of consciousness"? Secondly, man serves as a buffer for the mistakes made by captive animals. Could this also result in them having a less advanced state of consciousness? I believe that domestication and living with people would not have the effect you are suggesting but perhaps the opposite effect. I discuss similar topics in my book "Animal Domestication and Behavior" coming out this fall (November). Cheers, Ed -----Original Message----- From: Michael Appleby [mailto:mappleby@hsus.org] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:58 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: enculturation Dear All I have just read Steven Wise's 'Rattling the cage: towards legal rights for animals' (yes, I know he has a new book out, but you should see my 'To read' stack). Chapter 9 on Enculturation is fascinating, showing in considerably more detail than I had previously seen what apes can do given an upbringing more-or-less like a human upbringing - and how limiting on their social and cognitive development an upbringing in sterile lab conditions is. It also, however, suggested to me that it is difficult to conclude that apes have a Theory of Mind, if a necessary condition for them to develop one is for those rearing them to believe that they have one. Perhaps scientist A could do the rearing, then bring in scientist B to do the testing or to validate interpretation of results. Anyway, one of the main questions that it prompted in my mind, to which I have given a little thought before, is: How important is enculturation in the cognition of other animals? The most obvious example is dogs. How different, in cognition or whatever, are pet dogs from wild dogs? Wise does mention this briefly (in chapter 12, p269): "Daniel Dennett, for one, would not be surprised if thousands of generations of human enculturation have not caused the canine brain to reorganize and produce a more advance state of consciousness". [I think there's one too many negative in there, but we see what he means.] Indeed, the domestication might mean that there is more of an effect in dogs than in apes. Other domestic animals might also show some effects, although my first guess is that none will show as much effect as dogs. Mike Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org From: IN%"EOPrice@UCDavis.Edu" "Price, Edward O." 13-AUG-2002 11:03:55.59 To: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "'Michael Appleby'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: enculturation Dear Mike et al. We know that the emotions of wild animals in captivity often get in the way of them demonstrating their true cognitive abilities. Studies comparing the ability of wild and domestic animals to learn simple conditioning tasks often show that domestic animals are superior. Close look at these studies frequently indicate that the wild animals are not performing as well largely because of the effects of being handled, their emotional response to novelty (e.g. test environment, test equipment, presence of humans, strange conspecifics, etc.). One could argue that the enhanced sensitivity of wild animals (relative to their domestic cousins) to stimuli in their environment should give them an edge over domestic counterparts in most cognitive performance tasks, providing we can get their emotions out of the way. This ability would facilitate survival in the wild where a slight edge in cognitive abilities might make the difference between survival and death or ability to reproduce or not reproduce (i.e. "fitness"). Being around humans certainly changes the kind of things that captive animals experience and learn relative to their wild counterparts but I don't think our superior cognitive abilities "rub off" on our special animal friends. To the contrary, the cognitive decisions we make for our captive animals on their behalf, whether to their advantage or not, should relieve captive animals of the need to develop the enhanced cognitive state you are suggesting. In fact, in the case of the dog it may allow them to remain in a less advanced state of cognitive development which some persons may view as a kind of neoteny (i.e. retention of juvenile characteristics). I discuss in my forthcoming book the evidence that wolves are better than dogs in problem solving but dogs have an edge on wolves in simple conditioning tasks. The latter advantage of dogs may be due to the emphasis we put on simple training and obedience tasks for our dogs. It also could be that the emotions (i.e. sensitivities) of wolves get in the way of them demonstrating their true ability to learn simple conditioning tasks because of the novel ways (to the wolf) we often test those abilities. In problem solving and trial and error learning, the greater sensitivity of wolves to stimuli in their surroundings readily gives them the edge over dogs. Ed -----Original Message----- From: Michael Appleby [mailto:mappleby@hsus.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 8:25 AM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: FW: enculturation Dear Ed et al > I believe that domestication and living with people would not have the effect you are suggesting but perhaps the opposite effect. Well, surely that will depend on the exact conditions of their rearing. As you have said more clearly than anyone, domestication consists of the effects of both genetic change and of how individuals are raised. Animals raised individually by humans - as pets or whatever - develop considerable individuality. And we all know examples of the clever cow that can open the gate-bolt with its tongue. Let's not forget that Clever Hans was indeed clever: the story is told to demonstrate what he could not do, but what he could do was nevertheless very subtle. So my question comes down to this: are domesticated animals more likely to develop complex cognitive abilities, when reared in conditions that encourage them to do so, than taxonomically similar non-domestic species? I am not suggesting that the average cow, reared in average commercial conditions, has 'an advanced state of consciousness'. But I wonder if a cow reared as a pet might be more likely to develop the ability to unlock its gate than, say, an antelope. If so, could that be explained by the fact that it is (genetically) less nervous of humans, watches what humans do more closely, or what? And even in commercial conditions, it is clear that interaction with humans is a hugely important aspect of the environment of most domestic animals. And those humans are not just behaving like other pigs or cows or whatever, so what influence do the humans have on the behaviour and the cognition of those pigs and cows? Can some aspects be better understood by ideas about enculturation? Mike Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org -----Original Message----- From: Price, Edward O. [mailto:EOPrice@UCDavis.Edu] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:34 PM To: 'Michael Appleby' Subject: RE: enculturation Mike: A couple of thoughts on your comments below. In general, domestic animals are less sensitive to changes in their environment than their wild counterparts. Doesn't that argue that domestic animals would be less likely than their wild cousins to develop (or evolve) an "advanced state of consciousness"? Secondly, man serves as a buffer for the mistakes made by captive animals. Could this also result in them having a less advanced state of consciousness? I believe that domestication and living with people would not have the effect you are suggesting but perhaps the opposite effect. I discuss similar topics in my book "Animal Domestication and Behavior" coming out this fall (November). Cheers, Ed -----Original Message----- From: Michael Appleby [mailto:mappleby@hsus.org] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:58 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: enculturation Dear All I have just read Steven Wise's 'Rattling the cage: towards legal rights for animals' (yes, I know he has a new book out, but you should see my 'To read' stack). Chapter 9 on Enculturation is fascinating, showing in considerably more detail than I had previously seen what apes can do given an upbringing more-or-less like a human upbringing - and how limiting on their social and cognitive development an upbringing in sterile lab conditions is. It also, however, suggested to me that it is difficult to conclude that apes have a Theory of Mind, if a necessary condition for them to develop one is for those rearing them to believe that they have one. Perhaps scientist A could do the rearing, then bring in scientist B to do the testing or to validate interpretation of results. Anyway, one of the main questions that it prompted in my mind, to which I have given a little thought before, is: How important is enculturation in the cognition of other animals? The most obvious example is dogs. How different, in cognition or whatever, are pet dogs from wild dogs? Wise does mention this briefly (in chapter 12, p269): "Daniel Dennett, for one, would not be surprised if thousands of generations of human enculturation have not caused the canine brain to reorganize and produce a more advance state of consciousness". [I think there's one too many negative in there, but we see what he means.] Indeed, the domestication might mean that there is more of an effect in dogs than in apes. Other domestic animals might also show some effects, although my first guess is that none will show as much effect as dogs. Mike Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org From: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" "W. Ray Stricklin" 14-AUG-2002 05:14:43.73 To: IN%"EOPrice@UCDavis.Edu" "Price, Edward O.", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied" CC: Subj: RE: enculturation "Price, Edward O." wrote: > To the contrary, the cognitive decisions we make for our captive > animals on their behalf, whether to their advantage or not, should relieve > captive animals of the need to develop the enhanced cognitive state you are > suggesting. In fact, in the case of the dog it may allow them to remain in > a less advanced state of cognitive development which some persons may view > as a kind of neoteny (i.e. retention of juvenile characteristics). However, neoteny has also been argued to the basis for the dramatically increased brain size of humans compared with the other apes. In total the human adult is much more similar to the fetal-infant stage than any other primate - including their maintaining a greatest head to body size ratio. Thus, the most common argument - at least as related to humans - is that neoteny increases intelligence through retaining large brain to body size ratio into the adult stage. It seems that based on the human animal, one could argue (related to dogs or otherwise) that neoteny can result in the retention of juvenile or infantile behaviors into the adult state while at the same time increasing overall cognitive capacity. Paradoxically, while there is considerable evidence of there being increased neotenization in traits of other domestic animals (humans are domestic animals), the majority of published literature contends that brain size has decreased in the other domestic animals relative to their wild counterparts! I believe there is something amiss as this seems to be a contradiction; why would brain size increase in humans as a result of neoteny but decrease in other neotenized domestic animals? I _speculate_ that flawed methodologies used in measuring the brain to body ratio in animals has at least partly produced the literature reporting a decrease of about 30% in brain size for a number of domestic species. If the reports are in fact correct, then I would argue this change is the most drastic one produced among the domesticated animals! I believe that there is need for this question (brain size and domestication) to be given more research attention. Possibly the investigated relationship should be on the basis of brain to muscle mass ratio as domestic animals tend to have a much greater proportion of body mass as fat (a neotenized trait). I am also somewhat skeptical of some of the archaeological-based reports on domestication that report a decrease in body size - because in the early stages of domestication I would expect that nutritional restrictions could be a major factor in growth and mature body size. The topic of neoteny and domestication is discussed in more detail in the book chapter "The Evolution and Domestication of Social Behavior" under the section entitled 'Is domestication a single-gene trait' which can be found at: http://www.cabi-publishing.org/Bookshop/Readingroom/0851993974/0851993974Ch4.pdf (By the way, Per Jensen reported results at the recent ISAE meeting that add some DNA-level support to the idea of a single gene mechanism being associated with domestication.) Related to the question originally presented in this discussion, I would say that the "jury is still out" on the question as to whether domestication - as a general rule - increases or decreases the cognitive capacity of animals. But using the broad definition of domestication, it certainly seems to have increased cognitive capacity in humans. Regardless, today it is the restrictive-sterile environments in which we house some animals that most greatly diminishes their cognitive ability. For example the calf in a veal crate is essentially genetically similar to the beef (suckler) calf living under extensive pasture conditions. Yet, at four months of age they are greatly different organisms - because of environmental differences in their treatment. Nothing new in this last statement - just a reiteration of endorsement. Regards to all, Ray Stricklin From: IN%"Nabil.Brandl@agrsci.dk" "Nabil Brandl" 14-AUG-2002 05:43:25.23 To: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" "'W. Ray Stricklin'", IN%"EOPrice@UCDavis.Edu" "Price, Edward O.", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied" CC: Subj: SV: enculturation Here is a good article concerning Science education as enculturation: some implications for practice Derek Hodson and Julie Hodson http://www.ase.org.uk/publish/jnews/ssr/hodsonsep98.html -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: W. Ray Stricklin [mailto:ws31@umail.umd.edu] Sendt: 14. august 2002 13:12 Til: Price, Edward O.; applied Emne: Re: enculturation "Price, Edward O." wrote: > To the contrary, the cognitive decisions we make for our captive > animals on their behalf, whether to their advantage or not, should relieve > captive animals of the need to develop the enhanced cognitive state you are > suggesting. In fact, in the case of the dog it may allow them to remain in > a less advanced state of cognitive development which some persons may view > as a kind of neoteny (i.e. retention of juvenile characteristics). However, neoteny has also been argued to the basis for the dramatically increased brain size of humans compared with the other apes. In total the human adult is much more similar to the fetal-infant stage than any other primate - including their maintaining a greatest head to body size ratio. Thus, the most common argument - at least as related to humans - is that neoteny increases intelligence through retaining large brain to body size ratio into the adult stage. It seems that based on the human animal, one could argue (related to dogs or otherwise) that neoteny can result in the retention of juvenile or infantile behaviors into the adult state while at the same time increasing overall cognitive capacity. Paradoxically, while there is considerable evidence of there being increased neotenization in traits of other domestic animals (humans are domestic animals), the majority of published literature contends that brain size has decreased in the other domestic animals relative to their wild counterparts! I believe there is something amiss as this seems to be a contradiction; why would brain size increase in humans as a result of neoteny but decrease in other neotenized domestic animals? I _speculate_ that flawed methodologies used in measuring the brain to body ratio in animals has at least partly produced the literature reporting a decrease of about 30% in brain size for a number of domestic species. If the reports are in fact correct, then I would argue this change is the most drastic one produced among the domesticated animals! I believe that there is need for this question (brain size and domestication) to be given more research attention. Possibly the investigated relationship should be on the basis of brain to muscle mass ratio as domestic animals tend to have a much greater proportion of body mass as fat (a neotenized trait). I am also somewhat skeptical of some of the archaeological-based reports on domestication that report a decrease in body size - because in the early stages of domestication I would expect that nutritional restrictions could be a major factor in growth and mature body size. The topic of neoteny and domestication is discussed in more detail in the book chapter "The Evolution and Domestication of Social Behavior" under the section entitled 'Is domestication a single-gene trait' which can be found at: http://www.cabi-publishing.org/Bookshop/Readingroom/0851993974/0851993974Ch4 .pdf (By the way, Per Jensen reported results at the recent ISAE meeting that add some DNA-level support to the idea of a single gene mechanism being associated with domestication.) Related to the question originally presented in this discussion, I would say that the "jury is still out" on the question as to whether domestication - as a general rule - increases or decreases the cognitive capacity of animals. But using the broad definition of domestication, it certainly seems to have increased cognitive capacity in humans. Regardless, today it is the restrictive-sterile environments in which we house some animals that most greatly diminishes their cognitive ability. For example the calf in a veal crate is essentially genetically similar to the beef (suckler) calf living under extensive pasture conditions. Yet, at four months of age they are greatly different organisms - because of environmental differences in their treatment. Nothing new in this last statement - just a reiteration of endorsement. Regards to all, Ray Stricklin From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 14-AUG-2002 08:35:22.19 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: enculturation Ray et al > the majority of published literature contends that brain size has decreased in the other domestic animals relative to their wild counterparts! I believe that most of the idea about reduced brain size in domestic animals came from a very simple mistake: people looked at brain weight in relation to body weight, forgetting that body weight at a particular age had been increased. So in a domestic and a wild animal of the same weight the brain of the former is smaller because it is younger. In other words the main effect has not been reduction of brain size but increase of body size. I thought until recently that the whole idea was a myth: that brain weight at the same age was the same. I wrote about this in my book 'What Should We Do About Animal Welfare?' But I have gathered since that there is at least some substance to the idea. Of course cognitive ability is not closely related to brain weight so I'm not sure what this tells us about enculturation, cognition and domestication! Mike Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org -----Original Message----- From: W. Ray Stricklin [mailto:ws31@umail.umd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 7:12 AM To: Price, Edward O.; applied Subject: Re: enculturation "Price, Edward O." wrote: > To the contrary, the cognitive decisions we make for our captive > animals on their behalf, whether to their advantage or not, should > relieve captive animals of the need to develop the enhanced cognitive > state you are suggesting. In fact, in the case of the dog it may > allow them to remain in a less advanced state of cognitive development > which some persons may view as a kind of neoteny (i.e. retention of > juvenile characteristics). However, neoteny has also been argued to the basis for the dramatically increased brain size of humans compared with the other apes. In total the human adult is much more similar to the fetal-infant stage than any other primate - including their maintaining a greatest head to body size ratio. Thus, the most common argument - at least as related to humans - is that neoteny increases intelligence through retaining large brain to body size ratio into the adult stage. It seems that based on the human animal, one could argue (related to dogs or otherwise) that neoteny can result in the retention of juvenile or infantile behaviors into the adult state while at the same time increasing overall cognitive capacity. Paradoxically, while there is considerable evidence of there being increased neotenization in traits of other domestic animals (humans are domestic animals), the majority of published literature contends that brain size has decreased in the other domestic animals relative to their wild counterparts! I believe there is something amiss as this seems to be a contradiction; why would brain size increase in humans as a result of neoteny but decrease in other neotenized domestic animals? I _speculate_ that flawed methodologies used in measuring the brain to body ratio in animals has at least partly produced the literature reporting a decrease of about 30% in brain size for a number of domestic species. If the reports are in fact correct, then I would argue this change is the most drastic one produced among the domesticated animals! I believe that there is need for this question (brain size and domestication) to be given more research attention. Possibly the investigated relationship should be on the basis of brain to muscle mass ratio as domestic animals tend to have a much greater proportion of body mass as fat (a neotenized trait). I am also somewhat skeptical of some of the archaeological-based reports on domestication that report a decrease in body size - because in the early stages of domestication I The topic of neoteny and domestication is discussed in more detail in the book chapter "The Evolution and Domestication of Social Behavior" under the section entitled 'Is domestication a single-gene trait' which can be found at: http://www.cabi-publishing.org/Bookshop/Readingroom/0851993974/0851993974Ch4.pdf (By the way, Per Jensen reported results at the recent ISAE meeting that add some DNA-level support to the idea of a single gene mechanism being associated with domestication.) Related to the question originally presented in this discussion, I would say that the "jury is still out" on the question as to whether domestication - as a general rule - increases or decreases the cognitive capacity of animals. But using the broad definition of domestication, it certainly seems to have increased cognitive capacity in humans. Regardless, today it is the restrictive-sterile environments in which we house some animals that most greatly diminishes their cognitive ability. For example the calf in a veal crate is essentially genetically similar to the beef (suckler) calf living under extensive pasture conditions. Yet, at four months of age they are greatly different organisms - because of environmental differences in their treatment. Nothing new in this last statement - just a reiteration of endorsement. Regards to all, Ray Stricklin From: IN%"gfb1@psu.edu" "G. F. Barbato" 14-AUG-2002 09:15:55.04 To: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" "'W. Ray Stricklin'" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied'", IN%"EOPrice@UCDavis.Edu" "'Price, Edward O.'" Subj: RE: neoteny neoteny is a funny thing -- and, not to speak poorly of a (great) fellow not around to defend himself, i think sometimes gould's paper has mucked up our view of the concept. gould focused us on the concept that neoteny is the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood "relative to ancestral organisms". i view neoteny, and indeed all heterochronic processes, in the context of the growth curve. that is, if we take a simple concept of a curve consisting of mainly an early rate acceleration (L) followed by a period of deceleration (K), the remainder of the equation being 'flute music'. neoteny is generally considered to occur when the early rate has decreased. however, rarely does this occur independent of an effect on the later deceleration of that process. mostly because the phenotypic and genetic correlations between L and K, are approx 0.9 and 0.6, respectively (in nearly all species in which the correlations have been estimated - probably due to the fitness advantage of intermediate body size). so, neoteny is rarely independent of progenesis. however, most (not all) domestic animal species have been selected at a rather unique point in time; that is, very close to the inflection point of the growth curve, which functionally selects AGAINST the genetic correlation between L and K. this tends to break genetic linkage groups (btw.. ray, i'm glad someone else remembers belyaev's work...), and to dissociate organ/tissue/(and i'm sure) behavioral components from the overall growth curve. meaning, heterochrony can be global and/or local, and to complicate life further, occur during different periods of development. so.... i'm not surprised by the apparent conflict between observed neotenic variation in one trait, and apparent or suspected behavioral changes in another (which may or may not be temporally related). for example, animals selected for slow L reach sexual maturity at the same body weight and age as those selected for fast L! perhaps counterintuitive, unless you take into account the related changes in K.... the net result on adult maturity is nonexistent. however, our slow L birds have a longer stress hyporesponsive period after hatch. also, brain to body weight ratios, are radically different at the early ages, but mostly because of body weight changes, converging at sexual maturity. brain size is remarkably resistant to selection for body weight (another old observation....). one last ramble, i am also suspect of the archaelogical data, as was gould in subsequent work. i have a bad habit of citing an old paper by sewell and guha (1931) as arhaeological evidence of early selection for growth (as chicken bones found among humans 'digs' are much larger than their wild contemporaries); but i think that ray's suggestion has much greater validity. duh. thanks for the stimulating discussion! warm regards, guy From: IN%"jeanpascal.guery@free.fr" "Jean-Pascal Guery" 14-AUG-2002 09:29:27.60 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?ML_=E9tho_appliqu=E9e?=" CC: Subj: Dear all, Always working as monkey care-giver in France, my colleagues and I are in frony of a big problem : we've got a troop of mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx)who live in freedom on an island. There are trees on this island (300 more or less) : chestnut tree, hazel tree, wild cherry tree, oak and acacia. Our problem is that those monkeys scratch and eat the bark. We don't want to electrify the trees (mandrills love to climb!)and we tried, without success, many products supposed to be repulsive. We wonder if some of you know about something smelling and tasting like sap ? Thanks in advance. Best regards from the Monkey Valley... Jean-Pascal Guery jeanpascal.guery@free.fr jeanpascalg@aol.com ************************************************************************** \"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.\" Mahatma Gandhi ************************************************************************** From: IN%"EOPrice@UCDavis.Edu" "Price, Edward O." 14-AUG-2002 13:47:34.94 To: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" "'W. Ray Stricklin'", IN%"EOPrice@UCDavis.Edu" "Price, Edward O.", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied" CC: Subj: RE: enculturation Ray et al. Regarding the subject of brain size in wild and domestic animals, Coppinger and Coppinger (2001) in their recent book entitled "The Dog" summarize work done on head size and shape and brain size in domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals. All of these species have the same head and brain dimensions when they are born and they tend to have the same growth trajectories until they are 10 or 12 weeks old. After that time, wolves grow bigger heads and brains than dogs of equal size. If a 45 kilogram dog is compared with a 45 kg wolf, the dog's head is about 20% smaller. If skull sizes are matched (big dog and normal size wolf), the dog's brain is about 10% smaller. You correctly point out that it is difficult to accurately compare brain sizes when body sizes and developmental rates are different. In my forthcoming book I review the literature of Kruska and others who have shown that there are some consistent patterns to the changes in size of certain parts of the brain (relative to other parts) during domestication. For example, of the five fundamental parts of the mammalian brain, the telencephalon consistently shows the greatest decrease in size in all species examined to date, except for the mink. Ed -----Original Message----- From: W. Ray Stricklin [mailto:ws31@umail.umd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 4:12 AM To: Price, Edward O.; applied Subject: Re: enculturation "Price, Edward O." wrote: > To the contrary, the cognitive decisions we make for our captive > animals on their behalf, whether to their advantage or not, should relieve > captive animals of the need to develop the enhanced cognitive state you are > suggesting. In fact, in the case of the dog it may allow them to remain in > a less advanced state of cognitive development which some persons may view > as a kind of neoteny (i.e. retention of juvenile characteristics). However, neoteny has also been argued to the basis for the dramatically increased brain size of humans compared with the other apes. In total the human adult is much more similar to the fetal-infant stage than any other primate - including their maintaining a greatest head to body size ratio. Thus, the most common argument - at least as related to humans - is that neoteny increases intelligence through retaining large brain to body size ratio into the adult stage. It seems that based on the human animal, one could argue (related to dogs or otherwise) that neoteny can result in the retention of juvenile or infantile behaviors into the adult state while at the same time increasing overall cognitive capacity. Paradoxically, while there is considerable evidence of there being increased neotenization in traits of other domestic animals (humans are domestic animals), the majority of published literature contends that brain size has decreased in the other domestic animals relative to their wild counterparts! I believe there is something amiss as this seems to be a contradiction; why would brain size increase in humans as a result of neoteny but decrease in other neotenized domestic animals? I _speculate_ that flawed methodologies used in measuring the brain to body ratio in animals has at least partly produced the literature reporting a decrease of about 30% in brain size for a number of domestic species. If the reports are in fact correct, then I would argue this change is the most drastic one produced among the domesticated animals! I believe that there is need for this question (brain size and domestication) to be given more research attention. Possibly the investigated relationship should be on the basis of brain to muscle mass ratio as domestic animals tend to have a much greater proportion of body mass as fat (a neotenized trait). I am also somewhat skeptical of some of the archaeological-based reports on domestication that report a decrease in body size - because in the early stages of domestication I would expect that nutritional restrictions could be a major factor in growth and mature body size. The topic of neoteny and domestication is discussed in more detail in the book chapter "The Evolution and Domestication of Social Behavior" under the section entitled 'Is domestication a single-gene trait' which can be found at: http://www.cabi-publishing.org/Bookshop/Readingroom/0851993974/0851993974Ch4 .pdf (By the way, Per Jensen reported results at the recent ISAE meeting that add some DNA-level support to the idea of a single gene mechanism being associated with domestication.) Related to the question originally presented in this discussion, I would say that the "jury is still out" on the question as to whether domestication - as a general rule - increases or decreases the cognitive capacity of animals. But using the broad definition of domestication, it certainly seems to have increased cognitive capacity in humans. Regardless, today it is the restrictive-sterile environments in which we house some animals that most greatly diminishes their cognitive ability. For example the calf in a veal crate is essentially genetically similar to the beef (suckler) calf living under extensive pasture conditions. Yet, at four months of age they are greatly different organisms - because of environmental differences in their treatment. Nothing new in this last statement - just a reiteration of endorsement. Regards to all, Ray Stricklin From: IN%"EOPrice@UCDavis.Edu" "Price, Edward O." 14-AUG-2002 13:57:14.20 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca'" CC: Subj: FW: enculturation For those interested in brain size changes in domestic and captive wild animals. Ed Price -----Original Message----- From: Price, Edward O. Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:47 PM To: 'W. Ray Stricklin'; Price, Edward O.; applied Subject: RE: enculturation Ray et al. Regarding the subject of brain size in wild and domestic animals, Coppinger and Coppinger (2001) in their recent book entitled "The Dog" summarize work done on head size and shape and brain size in domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals. All of these species have the same head and brain dimensions when they are born and they tend to have the same growth trajectories until they are 10 or 12 weeks old. After that time, wolves grow bigger heads and brains than dogs of equal size. If a 45 kilogram dog is compared with a 45 kg wolf, the dog's head is about 20% smaller. If skull sizes are matched (big dog and normal size wolf), the dog's brain is about 10% smaller. You correctly point out that it is difficult to accurately compare brain sizes when body sizes and developmental rates are different. In my forthcoming book I review the literature of Kruska and others who have shown that there are some consistent patterns to the changes in size of certain parts of the brain (relative to other parts) during domestication. For example, of the five fundamental parts of the mammalian brain, the telencephalon consistently shows the greatest decrease in size in all species examined to date, except for the mink. Ed -----Original Message----- From: W. Ray Stricklin [mailto:ws31@umail.umd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 4:12 AM To: Price, Edward O.; applied Subject: Re: enculturation "Price, Edward O." wrote: > To the contrary, the cognitive decisions we make for our captive > animals on their behalf, whether to their advantage or not, should relieve > captive animals of the need to develop the enhanced cognitive state you are > suggesting. In fact, in the case of the dog it may allow them to remain in > a less advanced state of cognitive development which some persons may view > as a kind of neoteny (i.e. retention of juvenile characteristics). However, neoteny has also been argued to the basis for the dramatically increased brain size of humans compared with the other apes. In total the human adult is much more similar to the fetal-infant stage than any other primate - including their maintaining a greatest head to body size ratio. Thus, the most common argument - at least as related to humans - is that neoteny increases intelligence through retaining large brain to body size ratio into the adult stage. It seems that based on the human animal, one could argue (related to dogs or otherwise) that neoteny can result in the retention of juvenile or infantile behaviors into the adult state while at the same time increasing overall cognitive capacity. Paradoxically, while there is considerable evidence of there being increased neotenization in traits of other domestic animals (humans are domestic animals), the majority of published literature contends that brain size has decreased in the other domestic animals relative to their wild counterparts! I believe there is something amiss as this seems to be a contradiction; why would brain size increase in humans as a result of neoteny but decrease in other neotenized domestic animals? I _speculate_ that flawed methodologies used in measuring the brain to body ratio in animals has at least partly produced the literature reporting a decrease of about 30% in brain size for a number of domestic species. If the reports are in fact correct, then I would argue this change is the most drastic one produced among the domesticated animals! I believe that there is need for this question (brain size and domestication) to be given more research attention. Possibly the investigated relationship should be on the basis of brain to muscle mass ratio as domestic animals tend to have a much greater proportion of body mass as fat (a neotenized trait). I am also somewhat skeptical of some of the archaeological-based reports on domestication that report a decrease in body size - because in the early stages of domestication I would expect that nutritional restrictions could be a major factor in growth and mature body size. The topic of neoteny and domestication is discussed in more detail in the book chapter "The Evolution and Domestication of Social Behavior" under the section entitled 'Is domestication a single-gene trait' which can be found at: http://www.cabi-publishing.org/Bookshop/Readingroom/0851993974/0851993974Ch4 .pdf (By the way, Per Jensen reported results at the recent ISAE meeting that add some DNA-level support to the idea of a single gene mechanism being associated with domestication.) Related to the question originally presented in this discussion, I would say that the "jury is still out" on the question as to whether domestication - as a general rule - increases or decreases the cognitive capacity of animals. But using the broad definition of domestication, it certainly seems to have increased cognitive capacity in humans. Regardless, today it is the restrictive-sterile environments in which we house some animals that most greatly diminishes their cognitive ability. For example the calf in a veal crate is essentially genetically similar to the beef (suckler) calf living under extensive pasture conditions. Yet, at four months of age they are greatly different organisms - because of environmental differences in their treatment. Nothing new in this last statement - just a reiteration of endorsement. Regards to all, Ray Stricklin From: IN%"anna.johnson@porkboard.org" "Anna Johnson" 14-AUG-2002 14:48:46.00 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Dear all, I am trying to locate the following researchers, and I need e-mail and/ or phone numbers. 1. Borge Mortensen 2. Jean Pierre Signoret 3. Erik Thijssen 4. Martin Tielen Any help would be most appreciated, thanks Anna Anna Johnson PhD Director of Animal Welfare National Pork Board P.O. Box 9114 Des Moines, Iowa 50306 Phone: (515) 223-3533 Fax: (515) 223-2646 Mobile: (515) 991-1776 E-mail: anna.johnson@porkboard.org copyright 2001: all rights reserved From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 14-AUG-2002 16:27:24.47 To: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" "W. Ray Stricklin" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: enculturation At 01:12 PM 8/14/02 +0200, you wrote: W. Ray Stricklin wrote: >(snip) >Paradoxically, while there is considerable evidence of there being >increased neotenization in traits of other domestic animals (humans are >domestic animals), the majority of published literature contends that >brain size has decreased in the other domestic animals relative to their >wild counterparts! > I believe there is something amiss as this seems to be a contradiction; >why would brain size increase in humans as a result of neoteny but >decrease in other neotenized domestic animals? I _speculate_ that >flawed methodologies used in measuring the brain to body ratio in >animals has at least partly produced the literature reporting a decrease >of about 30% in brain size for a number of domestic species. (snip) I am really enjoying this discussion. Ray, I think it is likely that the domestic animals do have a smaller brain mass than their wild counterparts. At least, that is seen in canids. I recently attended a set of lectures by Ray Coppinger and he brought in a set of skulls for us to see. Even without any data, the size differences were pretty obvious if you just handled the skulls. You will also notice this immediately if you get close to or handle wolves. Your hands will tell you the difference. If you look at dogs whose adult body size is similar to that of a wolf, the skull and brain case is certainly less. Dr. Coppinger said that there was a difference in developmental growth patterns. At birth, the brains of a wolf and a dog with a similar adult body size will be the same and they parallel each other until they reach about 4 months of age. At this point in time, the wolf continues to grow in head and brain size until it reaches about a year of age but the dog stops. So a dog of the same adult body size of a wolf will have a brain size that roughly matches that of a 4 month wolf. (and there are some other interesting implications for dog training here in that a majority of the dog's neurological development occurs before it is 4 months of age). So I think that the size differences (at least for canids) is real, but I question what this really means with regards to cognition? Just looking at gross growth patterns really doesn't tell us very much about what the brain is actually doing. The information we really need is where in the brain is this growth occurring; is it an overall size increase or differences in specific brain regions? The size differences could be due to a greater development of the areas of the brain involved in sensory motor patterns and not have much to do with areas that cognition occurs. For example, rats utilize their olfactory sense a great deal and if one looks at their brains, a lot of neuronal tissue is devoted to the olfactory bulbs. Does this mean that a rat is more capable of complex thought than a similar sized rodent species that does not have the olfactory bulb developed to the same degree? So looking at overall size or mass may not really be telling us all we really want to know. And that makes me question what part of human brains are different than other primates? I do think that we act a good deal more neotonized (I think the correct term perhaps is paedomorphism?) than the other primates. But in addition, we have evolved other parts of our brains to a greater degree, specifically the language parts of our brains. So if you compare brain development, you might see that parts of our brains parallel that of the other primates, but some brain areas have evolved down a different path and this might account for the increased comparative size differences you mention. In other words, we have more highly developed the language parts of our brain in the same way that the rat has a highly developed olfactory bulb (which actually makes our brains really odd in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom, since the language skills develop primarily on one hemisphere, our brains are very asymmetrical, not in shape, but in brain regions, than the other animals, whose brains are more balanced). In addition, one must consider that the brain tissue is an energy expensive organ and it doesn't make sense to keep any more of it than one needs. So if you look at the brains of human infants and then look again at 5 year olds, you will see that the older children have fewer neurons than the infants. In fact there appears to be an alarming loss of brain cells as humans develop. What is actually occurring developmentally is that as the child grows and learns, there is a winnowing and loss of brain cells that they don't need and a strengthening of the pathways between those that they do need. So again, looking at size or numbers of neuronal cells is something of a moot point. The brain is much more subtile than that. It is the interconnectedness of the neurons that has the biggest impact on complex neurological activity. So could domestic animals simply have evolved to winnow out more un-needed undifferentiated brain tissue and made more interconnections between the cells that remain? Are their brains simply more efficient? Does anyone know? If so, they might more closely resemble an adult human brain architecture than their wild counterparts. I don't think you can make any conclusions about brain size until you have looked at these things. Which reminds me also that the brain develops in relationship to its environment to some degree. A more varied environment will result in a richer developmental pattern. So I suspect that our domestic animals, (certainly the farm animals) live in an environment that is not as rich and varied as that of a wild animal and this could also lead to some differences in their ability to develop to their full genetic potential (whatever that may be). In other words, before I even tried to draw any conclusions from a study comparing the brains of a wild animal and its domestic counterpart, I would need to know how both of those animals were raised as this can significantly influence brain development. Lastly I will admit to a bit of exasperation whenever I read studies which are looking for evidence of complex cognition, enculturation or an advanced state of consciousness in animals, because to me, there is a tremendous bit of egocentrism going on here. Instead of asking whether domestic animals or their wild counterparts are more likely to be encultured or "conscious", I would prefer to ask whether we would even recognize it if we saw it? I think that what many of the scientists who study cognition in animals are actually asking is "I believe that I as a human am cultured, capable of complex cognition and consciousness and I want proof that animals are capable of the same thing that I have." A very dichotomous, us versus them, sort of reasoning pattern. Then they hold up a yardstick of enculturation that is based on our human developmental patterns and sensory and perceptual skills and pronounce animals as lacking of cognitive skills, because they are not like humans. But humans live in a particular sensory and perceptual environment and have utilized our cognitive skills and specific language skills in that environment. Enculturation of a different species may take place in a totally different perceptual framework and thus be essentially invisible to us. What is the possibility that we assume it does not exist because we are too blind to see it? For example, rats live in an olfactory environment to a much greater level than do we. Who is to say that they are not exhibiting a great deal of enculturation based on olfactory cues that are impossible for us to perceive? Or even conceive? I have always wondered if an advanced alien species ever landed on earth and utilized a different sensory perception than we do, perhaps something we have never perceived or even thought of existing, would we even measure up to their yardstick of enculturation and complex cognition? A few other comments; Mike, I am thoroughly delighted to not be the only person who saw the other side of the Clever Hans story. I always thought the horse had the last laugh.... And I also think that, as we start to examine these things with a more open mind, we will see that a tremendous amount of animal learning is social learning (whether you call this culture, imitation, stimulus enhancement or whatever part of the vegetable soup of definitions we place on a process we obviously don't well understand). It could turn out that the difference between domestic and wild animals might be that they are more capable of expanding their definition of a social unit to include other species and then applying whatever social learning capabilities they have to those other species. So a pet calf raised by humans will apply its social learning capabilities to the activities of the humans in its environment and learn to open gate latches. A human reared pronghorn antelope may not be as capable of using another species like a human as a social learning model (but I don't know this because I don't think that the studies have ever been done, I'm just guessing for the sake of argument here). What we don't see is that when a calf is raised by cows, it is also engaging in just as much social learning, only we don't see it because what it has learned is not the gate latch operation, a human thing. What it has learned instead is a cow thing, for which we humans are much less aware. And I also feel that, since the issue of social learning has been seriously understudied by learning researchers, it may turn out to have a much more significant contribution to problem behaviors in pets than previously thought--but that is another issue..... Jonathan, I am anxiously awaiting your paper because it sounds like it echoes my own observations and conclusions when I was considering a graduate program several years ago. However, the department that I was considering joining was completely stuck in rodent and primate mode and not the least bit interested in exploring the vibrant research possibilities available in studying domestic dogs. Any chance I could get an advanced look at your paper? I suspect that I will find it immensely enjoyable..... So sorry for the length of this post. I guess I got carried away by the possibilities..... Janice Janice Willard, DVM. MS Moscow, ID USA From: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" "W. Ray Stricklin" 15-AUG-2002 05:57:48.53 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied" CC: Subj: RE: enculturation "Price, Edward O." wrote: > > Ray et al. > > Regarding the subject of brain size in wild and domestic animals, Coppinger > and Coppinger (2001) in their recent book entitled "The Dog" summarize work > done on head size and shape and brain size in domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes > and jackals. All of these species have the same head and brain dimensions > when they are born and they tend to have the same growth trajectories until > they are 10 or 12 weeks old. After that time, wolves grow bigger heads and > brains than dogs of equal size. If a 45 kilogram dog is compared with a 45 > kg wolf, the dog's head is about 20% smaller. If skull sizes are matched > (big dog and normal size wolf), the dog's brain is about 10% smaller. > My interests draw me to this discussion but rationally I know that I should limit my time! I will try to make some brief comments - primarily through questions - which I hope appropriate and constructive. 1) I have not read Coppinger's recent book. However, I had him visit Maryland about 8 to 10 years ago and from what I could understand of his ideas, he argued that canines (dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc.) were basically one gene pool! I could not get him to say that the wolf was the ancestor to the dog. If the wolf is not the ancestor, then why should one compare their brain sizes at maturity when attempting to draw up general rules about the influence of domestication? And maybe most important, does a difference in brain size between between the dog and wolf provide evidence of a decrease due to domestication _or_ is it evidence that the wolf is not the true (or sole) ancestor of the domestic dog? And maybe the recent Coppinger book answers these questions... 2) Both Darwin and Lorenz, of whom I have great admiration for their overall contributions, had a contemptuous view of domestication. They both saw the domestic animal as a lessor being compared to their wild counterpart - and I believe both Darwin and Lorenz were wrong in holding this value judgment regarding domestication. I further believe that their ideas - and writings - have canalized the study of biology into investigations that continue to seek evidence in support of their biases. If scientists for many years falsely reported differences in brain size for humans, why can this not also be true for animals? (Not that Gould did not make his share of mistakes, but I do agree with him - in _The Mismeasure of Man_ - for pointing out that scientists can too frequently wrongly find results to support their existing biases.) As asked earlier in this discussion, has brain size actually decreased or has only body size increased due to domestication? And again, have the reports about body to brain ratio taken into account changes in body mass that are associated with changes in body fat content? Age? Nutrition? And the many other factors that influence body size? I remain skeptical that domestication - itself, whatever that is - has reduced brain size in animals. If domestication - in the genetic sense - has reduced the brain and/or intelligence, then I ask again why has this not occurred in humans (an idea which, to my regret, Lorenz seems to have given at least some indirect support when discussing domestication in general - even in his last book _Civilized Man's Eight Deadly Sins_)? 3) And if brain size has decreased through domestication, I would argue that it is important that we know that this has in fact occurred. Additionally, I would say that it is even more important that we know _why_ this has occurred. Have we humans selected against cognitive ability because less brain capacity results in animals that are more tractable? I doubt this, in part, because the majority of domestic animals lived outside and independent of close confinement until quite recently. Cognitive ability relative to predator aversion, thermoregulation - even learning associated with factors such as food location - was and is quite important for survival of cattle, sheep, horses, etc. living under conditions experienced even today. So I see no ready explanation as to why humans would have preferred "less intelligent" animals. In fact it seems that one could build an argument (which I think is related to how Mike started this discussion) that humans may have preferred the "more intelligent" animals - when one views intelligence relative to that of humans. (But one has to acknowledge that there does exist behavior in domestic animals that seems counterintuitive to this position such as sheep showing little or no aversion to attacks by canines, broilers not engaging in thermoregulatory behavior during heat stress, etc. But I still believe that these may lie in the realm of exceptions and not the rule; that these are not examples for a general rule of consequences that always result from domestication.) 4) And finally, after not having succeeded in writing a short message, let me say that I am not contending that the brain has not changed in relation to domestication. Rather, I am saying that I believe that historically there has been a bias in biology contending that domestication has genetically changed animals to a state of less mental capacity - and that scientists have primarily approached the topic by looking for support of this position including the somewhat recent brain size reports. And again, I would contend that there is a need for more investigation of the topic of brain size to body size for all domestic animal species that is carefully designed to take into account the many factors that can influence each. (And also for studies that are related to domestic animal cognitive ability itself which is independent of brain size as has been noted.) And Mike when I read through what I have written, I find sentences with 3-4 or more negatives! But I hope that their meaning is clear for I will not take the time to change them. Regards to all, Ray Stricklin From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 15-AUG-2002 07:27:10.47 To: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: enculturation >has brain size actually decreased or >has only body size increased due to domestication? And again, have the >reports about body to brain ratio taken into account changes in body >mass that are associated with changes in body fat content? Another obvious factor being environmental enrichment which may increase rat brain size as much as 8% -- wild environments tend to be more enriched. -- And that between-subject brain size differences and intelligence are dubiously correlated (or would we propose that women are less intelligent then men, that's a whole 'nother argument). Also : intelligent in what context? It seems to me that domestic intelligence is qualitatively different and as long as we define intelligence as performing 'tricks' in rather artificial circumstances the domesticated animals will always win. An equally valid task would be to ask how many domestic animals are 'smart' enough to be able to become feral. To the extent that 'enculturation' is the ability to adopt the cognitive style of the symbiont species is seems obvious that domestic animals will have done this more than wild equivalents. Emily P-K, S.A.C.