Communication, Cognitive Mapping, and Strategy in Wolves and Hominids

Peters, R. S.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-319250-9.50013-x

Cited by 29 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They also return to kills made days previously and to the den after being away hunting (Peters and Mech 1975). Peters (1978) adds that wolves need cognitive maps because they have to travel widely in order to find spatially disparate large prey that are often clumped, and they have to know where to look. The use of shortcuts increases as individuals become more familiar with the territory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

A Comparison of Problem-Solving and Spatial Orientation in the Wolf (Canis lupus) and Dog (Canis familiaris)

Hiestand

2011

Behav Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study I tested Benson Ginsburg's theory that dogs should show diminished ability, compared to wolves, in orienting in three-dimensional space and manipulating objects sequentially. Dogs of all ages and juvenile wolves should do poorly on these measures, but at some time before sexual maturity, the juvenile wolves should begin improving to the level of adult wolves. Two adult and seven juvenile wolves were compared with 40 adult German shepherds. The initial task was to pull a single rope suspended from the ceiling; complexity was increased by the addition of ropes and by changing spatial configurations. Adult wolf performance was consistently successful across all tests and requirements. Juvenile wolves had little difficulty with one and two rope tests, but did more poorly in the three rope tests. The behavior of the dogs grouped into four profiles (# of dogs): non-responders (6), one rope (15), two rope (14), and three rope responders (5).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

A Comparison of Problem-Solving and Spatial Orientation in the Wolf (Canis lupus) and Dog (Canis familiaris)

Hiestand

2011

Behav Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They employ a range of tactics to chase, catch, and kill their prey (Peters, 1978), although experimental modeling of these complex abilities is not yet available. Interestingly, data are also scarce in the case of the dog.…”

Section: Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Social Cognition: From wolf and dog to humans

Kubinyi¹

2006

ccbr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dogs' special domestication processes, their natural socialization to humans, and the possibility of tracing evolutionary changes by comparing dogs' behavior to that of wolves, make dogs altogether unique for studying the evolution of complex social behavior. Here the authors report some much needed comparisons between the behavior of dogs and wolves. The authors reveal some dog-specific behaviors, especially with regard to their interactions with humans, by comparing dogs and wolves hand-reared identically. This approach ensures that behavioral differences between dogs and wolves will be due to species-specific (genetic) differences, and not to differences in experience. The results indicate that social attraction, presumably synchronizing behavior, and communicative abilities of dogs changed markedly during the process of domestication. The authors suggest that this model of dog behavior has the potential to provide new insights into the evolution of human socio-cognitive behavior.

show abstract

“…The probability of intruders attacking residents should be greater than the probability of attacks from packs howling from outside the resident's territory. PETERS (1978) presented evidence that wolves possess knowledge of spatial relationships within their territory. Thus they are likely to know wvhether a stranger is howling within or outside their territory, especially if the stranger is relatively close to them, as we were.…”

Section: Killsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wolf Howling and Its Role in Territory Maintenance

Harrington

Mech

1979

Behav

218

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experimental study of the role of howling in wolf territory maintenance was conducted in the Superior National Forest, Minnesota. Vocal replies and behaviour of radio-collared wolves in response to human howls were analyzed for eight packs and 10 lone wolves during a 2-year period. Reply rate varied significantly throughout the year. A mid-winter increase was correlated with the breeding season, especially for groups containing breeding animals (alpha male or alpha female). A second, longer increase in reply rate started in midsummer, peaked about August, and declined to a low in early winter. The decline in autumn howling response occurred sooner in a pack whose pups developed faster. Through the year, the howling reply rate was significantly higher among all packs and lone wolves attending prey kills. The more food remaining at a kill, the higher the reply rate was. For wolves separated from their pack, the howling reply rate was dependent on their age and social role. Among adults, only alpha males ever replied alone, and their reply rate, and number of howls per session, exceeded those of other animals. Alpha males sometimes approached during howling sessions, whereas other adults usually retreated. Younger animals replied more often as pups than as yearlings, and then only during their first 7 months, after which they replied little more than most adults. Finally, larger packs replied more often than smaller packs. Specific behaviours noted during howling sessions, including movements away from the howler, indicated that howling was related to interpack agonism. In addition, three of the major factors influencing reply rate also significantly affect the level of agonism toward pack strangers : pack size, social role, and breeding season. The other two factors, kills and pups, are both important pack resources necessitating exclusive occupancy of a site. The high reply rates at sites containing kills or pups constitute strong circumstantial evidence that howling is important in territory maintenance. During howling sessions, wolves usually remained near their original site after replying, or retreated if they remained silent. This difference apparently was related to the problem of avoiding both accidental and deliberate encounters, and to cost/benefit considerations at the wolves' location. Howling was considered most effective in mediating avoidance in two situations : when two packs approached a common area of overlap, and when a pack returned to an area little used for weeks, in which scent posts would have lost effectiveness in deterring strangers. Both scent-marking and howling apparently are important in spacing. However, they differ in their roles and are complementary, with scent-marking being long-term and site-specific, and howling being immediate and long-range. Finally, lone wolves which do not possess territories, rarely replied, sharing the "low-profile" behaviour expected of surplus animals in a territorial population.

show abstract

Communication, Cognitive Mapping, and Strategy in Wolves and Hominids

Cited by 29 publications

References 5 publications

A Comparison of Problem-Solving and Spatial Orientation in the Wolf (Canis lupus) and Dog (Canis familiaris)

A Comparison of Problem-Solving and Spatial Orientation in the Wolf (Canis lupus) and Dog (Canis familiaris)

Comparative Social Cognition: From wolf and dog to humans

Wolf Howling and Its Role in Territory Maintenance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About