CLAIRE G.

ESTIMADA-OGUE MAED-General Science

CPSU Hinoba-an Campus

ACTIVITY 2

3. At a point in evolutionary time, finches branched from the common ancestor into
what three genera (plural for “genus”)
1. Ground Finches
2. Tree Finches
3. Warbler Finch

What genus is the most closely related to the Tree Finches

Woodpecker finch?
What two species of finches are cactus flower eaters? 1. Large Cactus
Ground Finch
2. Cactus Ground
Finch
What would the Large ground finch eat? Seeds
 What would the Mangrove finch eat? Insects
In which direction does time pass? top of chart to Bottom to Top
bottom / bottom to top / can’t tell from the chart

Examine the cladogram below. Each letter represents a derived characteristic. Match
the letter to its characteristic.

F 1. Wings E 5. Cerci (back appendages )

C 2. 6 legs D 6. Crushing mouthparts
A 3. Segmented Body B 7. Legs
G 4. Double set of Wings H 8. Curly Antennae

CLAIRE G. ESTIMADA-OGUE MAED-General Science

CPSU Hinoba-an Campus

ACTIVITY 3
MY ETHNOGRAM – (Dog)

DIRECTION: Observe your pet animal or any available animal you have in the
house towards its behavior. Be observant in everything it does and make an
ethnogram out of it. You may take video of its actual behavior in the following areas
indicated in the table.
Time Lapse Type of
During the Behavior Behavior Description of Behavior
Behavior
My dog sleeps only in one place.
Sleep He loves to stay in his house to
sleep. Even if he is asleep, he is
still aware of his environment.
My dog loves to rest under the
Rest shade of trees. He also rests
Solitary where there is water.
Groom Self He cleans himself by licking his
skin/fur.
Maintenance When he defecates, he dig
under the ground and covers his
shit.
Travel He moves from one place to
another.
Eat He loves to eat bones from fish
and chicken.
Food Related Drink He drinks water and milk just
like us people.
Look for When he is hungry, he sniffs
Food around so that he can find food.
Groom When he feels itch, he bites his
 Others own skin/fur.
Social Play He loves to play fetch all the
time.
Aggressive Fight He fight other dogs when it gets
inside our perimeter.

Direction: Make a comprehensive discussion about your ethnogram.

1. Which behaviors were performed most frequently, and which behaviors are
less often observed?

Answer:

The behavior of my dog that is frequently observed is sleeping while

his behavior that is less observed is fighting against other dogs.

2. What is the contribution of this frequency of behavior to the animal?

Answer:

The contribution of the frequency of the behavior to my dog is that it

makes him healthier and more playful.

3. Support observation with related research that may support or in contrast

with your own observations.

Answer:

A Review of Domestic Dogs' (Canis Familiaris) Human-Like

Behaviors: Or Why Behavior Analysts Should Stop Worrying
and Love Their Dogs
Monique A.R Udell and C.D.L Wynne
Abstract
Dogs likely were the first animals to be domesticated and as such have
shared a common environment with humans for over ten thousand years.
Only recently, however, has this species' behavior been subject to scientific
scrutiny. Most of this work has been inspired by research in human cognitive
psychology and suggests that in many ways dogs are more human-like than
any other species, including nonhuman primates. Behavior analysts should
add their expertise to the study of dog behavior, both to add objective
behavioral analyses of experimental data and to effectively integrate this new
knowledge into applied work with dogs.

Dogs in Human Society

Our Intertwined Past
Sir John Lubbock's opinion, outdated though its language may be, is
not an inappropriate summary of the state of research on dog behavior today.
Domestic dogs are never far away from most people's lives, but objective
understanding of their behavior is still surprisingly scarce.
A better understanding of the variables controlling dog ( Canis
familiaris) behavior could have practical importance for the growing number
of industries that utilize the behavior of domestic dogs—not only in formal
training settings, such as police dogs, drug-sniffer dogs, guide dogs, and so
forth—but also in the public realm, where the line between the love of man's
best friend and the fear of so-called “bad dogs” is a source of great anxiety.
In addition, a more complete understanding of the role of social stimuli, which
develops as a result of a natural history of operant and classical conditioning
within the domestic dogs' home environment, could play a crucial role in
maximizing the quality of our interactions with dogs in a variety of settings.
Humans and dogs share a long intertwined history. DNA evidence
suggests domestic dogs most likely diverged from wolves in different places at
different times beginning as long as 135,000 years ago (Vila et al., 1997). This
is when the morphological structure of certain groups of wolves began to
change to more closely resemble the modern domestic dog. Anthropologists
and archaeologists have argued that this is an overestimate, claiming that the
best way to determine the time of domestication is to look for signs of a close
association between dogs and humans (Morey, 2006). One way this has been
done is by looking for evidence of dog burials. The earliest burial remains of a
domestic dog are 14,000 years old and were found in Bonn-Oberkassel,
Germany (Nobis, 1979). The dimensions of the well-preserved lower jaw and
teeth suggest that this animal was domesticated and could be compared to a
small sheep dog, making it the oldest known domesticated animal and a
companion of the Cro-Magnon Man in the late Paleolithic age (Nobis, 1979).
The time line of dog burials around the globe indicates the spread of dog
domestication at different geographic areas (Morey, 2006).
Role of Dogs in Human Society
The exact location and lineage of the first domesticated dog are still
under debate, but the impact that humans have had on the domestic dog as
a species is undeniable. Dogs play an astonishing range of roles in human
society. Many individuals put their faith in rescue dogs when stranded in the
wilderness or capsized in cold water. Others rely on guide dogs to get them
safely to multiple destinations on a daily basis. Drug dogs, de-mining dogs,
police dogs, termite- and even cancer-detecting dogs are trained and utilized
as substance detectors even in the face of competition from the latest
technology. There are herding dogs, hunting dogs, sled dogs, and various
other specializations that are crucial to the livelihoods of many individuals, not
to mention the role dogs play in entertainment and the pleasures of individual
dog ownership—sufficiently reinforcing to sustain 74.8 million dogs in the
United States, at a cost to their owners of over $100 billion (American Pet
Products Manufacturers Association, 2007).
However, qualities desired in one specialization may not be appropriate
in dogs filling another capacity. For example, the dependency on human
guidance and direction sought in companion dogs may inhibit a rescue dog's
ability to problem solve and function independently in situations when its
handler is out of sight (Miklósi, Pongracz, Lakatos, Topál, & Csányi, 2005). It
is important, therefore, to take breed specializations and individual history
into account when selecting dogs for specific tasks. The more that is known
about dog behavior, the more that can be done to make the training of
working dogs as efficient as possible.
A greater understanding of dog behavior also would be beneficial in a
society that perceives dog attacks and consequent deaths to be a growing
problem. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that 2% of the
population is bitten by a dog each year (over six million people) and ten to
twenty of these bites are fatal—with the victim usually a child (Humane
Society of the United States, 2007). Recently, the Minnesota Department of
Health (2007) reported a 40% increase in the number of hospital treated dog
bites between 1998 and 2005. According to attorney Kenneth Phillips this
increase in medically treated dog bites is representative of an increase in the
dog population at large, which rose 36% from 1986 to 1994 (Phillips, 2007).
The public response to increased media reporting of dog attacks has been to
label certain breeds as “bad dogs.” Malcolm Gladwell (2006) in the New
Yorker likened the profiling of “dangerous dog” breeds to the racial profiling
that has dominated the search for terrorists since September 11th, 2001. As
with most forms of prejudice and profiling, the banning of specific breeds of
dogs from municipalities (most commonly at present the pit bull), fails to
effectively identify the environmental causes of undesired behavior so that
positive behavior can be reinforced and aggressive behavior controlled with
more enlightened methods. Breed profiling may lead not only to a misguided
fear of well-behaved dogs identified with a “bad” breed, but may also offer a
false sense of security around a dog showing warning signs of aggression just
because it comes from a breed with a good reputation.
Phylogeny VS. Ontogeny
 Despite the omnipresence of dogs in human lives, scientific study of
the factors that have allowed dogs to thrive in human environments has until
recently been surprisingly meager.
The causes of the characteristic behaviors of dogs can be understood
at two levels. First are the phylogenetic influences on behavior that arise as a
result of the unique evolutionary past of domestic dogs. Second, and perhaps
more importantly (at least in the sense that they are available for modification
in real time), are the ontogenetic causes that are the history of contingencies
of reinforcement each domestic dog experiences within human society during
its lifetime.
The phylogeny of dogs is particularly interesting because, instead of
natural selection by the environment, artificial selection by humans is
responsible for the hundreds of breeds of domestic dog that exist today.
There is also evidence that selection for desirable physical and behavioral
traits has led to many changes in social behavior as unexpected byproducts
(Hare & Tomasello, 2005). This has led some scientists to attribute the
propensity of dogs for human social interaction to convergent evolution,
where the two genetically distinct species were shaped by similar selective
pressures (Hare & Tomasello, 2005).
There is, of course, no question that genes play a role in the behavior
of domestic dogs, but a dog's individual environmental history plays a major
role in shaping its behavior over its lifetime. From the time a puppy is brought
into a human household it is completely dependent on human caretakers for
all of its needs. The majority of reinforcers a dog will have access to
throughout its life are controlled, either directly or indirectly, by humans. This
is comparable to the situation of young human children, and may explain in
part the similarities in sensitivity to human social stimuli shown by dogs and
children. However, unlike children, domestic dogs remain dependent on
humans for primary reinforcers, such as food, water, access to mates, and
even touch, throughout their lifetimes. Consequently, their access to
reinforcers is contingent upon appropriate behavioral responses within the
human social environment. Furthermore, behavior directly related to
subordinance and dependency is often shaped in dogs from a young age. A
puppy that sits by its bowl and whines for food will usually have a greater
chance of reinforcement than one who seeks out a source of food on its own,
such as from a closet or off a table. Similarly, a dog that gets its leash or goes
to the door and barks when it has to relieve itself will likely be praised and be
given the opportunity to mark its territory, in addition to lessening the
pressure in its bladder. A dog that urinates in the house, in contrast, is likely
to receive punishment in the form of scolding and in having its owner clean
away its territorial scent. In this way, dependence and sensitivity to human
contingencies are shaped quickly in domestic dogs in human households. In
many cases reinforcement depends on the dog's ability to recognize social
stimuli presented by humans, both subtle human gestures that may serve as
discriminative stimuli for certain behaviors and overt mands which command
a direct and specific response from the dog.
The Study of Dog Behavior in Historical Perspective
The behavior of dogs was very important in the early history of
comparative psychology. Darwin wrote extensively about dog behavior,
intelligence and emotions, often using his own dogs as examples. He believed
that dogs had emotions such as love, fear, shame, and rage, as well as
dreams, and the ability to imitate and reason (Darwin, 1871). Darwin also
commented on how domestication impacted the behavior of domestic dogs,
decreasing their fear of humans, and he even argued for the evolution of
distinct barks with various meanings.
Darwin's neighbor in Downe, Sir John Lubbock, was one of the first to
carry out experimental tests of the intelligence of dogs. In the first recorded
experiment on nonhuman language abilities, Lubbock trained his dog, Van, to
bring him a card labeled “food” by reinforcing this response with the
presentation of bread and milk upon retrieval. Once Van could readily
discriminate between the “food” card and a blank card, Lubbock added more
cards containing words such as “out,” “bone,” “water,” and “tea,” and
reinforcing their retrieval with the action or item on the card. Although his
data were, by his own admission, preliminary at best, Lubbock reported that
out of 113 card retrievals, Van selected the “food” card 80 times and the “tea”
card 31 times. Since the dog consumed these items with alacrity, Lubbock
concluded that the dog had learned to communicate his wants effectively
(Lubbock, 1889). Van's successes inspired Lubbock to attempt to use this
method to test the dog's color discrimination abilities as well as its ability to
count, but no results were published.
The most famous early researcher to use dogs was, of course, Ivan
Pavlov. As is widely known, he discovered the form of conditioning now
associated with his name using domestic dogs as experimental subjects.
Pavlov exploited this phenomenon to explore dogs' sensitivity to scents,
touch, temperature, and musical tones (Pavlov, 1906/1966). Less well known
is that he speculated on the role of Pavlovian conditioning in the training of
domestic dogs: “You lift the dog's paw saying ‘give me your paw’ or even
‘paw,’ and then give the dog something to eat. After repetition of this
procedure the dog gives its paw at these words; it does so without any word
of command when it has a keen appetite” (Pavlov, 1936/1966, p. 309).
Current Directions in Dog Research
The last twenty years have seen a resurgence of research into the
behavior of domestic dogs. Most of the studies reviewed here have drawn
their inspiration from work on developmental and cognitive questions in
humans and nonhuman primates. This search for common psychological
processes in humans and dogs has been motivated by the fact that humans
and domestic dogs have shared a common environment and similar selective
pressures for tens of thousands of years.
Responsiveness to Human Social Cues
One of the most interesting behavioral characteristics of the modern
domestic dog is its predisposition to attend and respond to human social
gestures and cues. Skinner (1953) noted that the behavior of other individuals
can be an important source of social stimuli. Gestures and cues are social
stimuli that likely started out as behaviors that directly impacted the behavior
of another individual in a reinforcing or punishing way. Skinner gives the
example of a policeman's “stop” signal, which could have originated from the
action of a man putting out his hand against another man's chest forcing him
to stop. If this were aversive, the second man might learn to stop before he
reached the first man's upheld hand in future presentations (Skinner, 1986).
Once a gesture is established, an individual's history with the stimulus shapes
his or her behavior in its presence. Thus, if the social contingencies are
established already for behavioral responses to a particular gesture, contact
with the original behavior that evolved into the gesture is not essential. Other
examples of common human gestures include pointing, nodding, reaching
towards something, or glancing between an object and another individual.
Skinner focused on how gestures might come to act as social stimuli in
humans, but the basic principles could easily be applied to dogs as well. For
example, if a human throws a dog's ball in a game of fetch, the throwing
motion or outstretched arm serves as a discriminative stimulus to chase
something in the direction of the release. This reaction most likely ties into
the reinforcing effects of chasing a ball or catching prey along with the social
reinforcers received for retrieving the object. This behavior, of following the
direction of an outstretched arm, may generalize to less dynamic forms of the
stimulus, and the dog may begin to follow gestures such as pointing or fake
tosses to static objects to be retrieved. The use of gestures could
undoubtedly be shaped in many species through this process over time, but
dogs appear to demonstrate a sensitivity for human gestures that many other
nonhuman species lack (Brauer, Kaminski, Riedel, Call, & Tomasello,
2006; Hare, Brown, Williamson, & Tomasello, 2002).
Responses to gestures usually are tested in an object-choice paradigm.
In this test, a reinforcing object is hidden in one of two or more locations or
containers. The subject enters the test area, and a gesture is given to indicate
the location of the object. Alternative hiding places are equated for smell and
other cues and are usually sham-baited to control for the effects of noise and
human scent. The dog is then allowed to approach the containers and
indicate a choice by touching or coming within a required distance of one of
the locations.
 Miklósi, Polgárdi, Topál, and Csányi (1998) carried out the first study
investigating the use of human social cues by domestic dogs. Modeled
primarily on studies with humans and nonhuman primates, two bowls were
used to hide food items in an object-choice paradigm. One of the bowls was
baited out of sight of the subject; the location of the food was determined by
a coin toss with no bowl being baited more than twice in a row. The dog then
was led back into the room and was held 3 meters from the bowls. The
experimenter, who stood behind the bowls, made eye contact with the dog
and then gave the predetermined gesture. The experimenter then returned to
a neutral position and the dog was allowed to indicate its choice by
approaching one bowl. A correct choice resulted in food reinforcement and an
incorrect choice ended the trial with no reinforcement. Five gestures were
used in this study: pointing, bowing (bending the upper torso), nodding,
head-turning, and glancing with the eyes only. Each gesture was presented a
minimum of 30 times before the next was introduced. All dogs experienced
the gestures in the order given here. To progress to the next gesture, 80%
accuracy had to be met for the previous condition.
All 6 pet dogs in this study were able to use pointing, head nodding,
bowing, and head turning to identify the target bowl without explicit training
in the first fifteen trials, and the only significant initial difference among dogs
was the ability to use gazing as a discriminative stimulus (Miklósi et al., 1998).
Subsequent studies have analyzed a wider set of gestures and found dogs
that can use, or be trained to use, various types of pointing with the arm or
extensions of the arm (Hare & Tomasello, 1999; Miklósi et al., 2005; Miklósi et
al. 1998; Soproni, Miklósi, Topál, & Csányi, 2001; Soproni, Miklósi, Topál, &
Csányi, 2002; Udell, Giglio & Wynne, 2008), glancing (Miklósi et al.
1998; Soproni et al. 2001; Udell et al., 2007), local enhancement by a
human's presence near the target (Hare & Tomasello, 1999), and a human
placing a token on a target (Hare & Tomasello, 2005; Udell et al., 2008).
Other studies of the exploitation of human gestures by dogs have
varied the way in which conditions are presented. Instead of a hierarchical
series of gestures in which one gesture must be learned to criterion before
the next is introduced, some studies have presented conditions in orders that
vary across subjects and thus control for the effects of generalization from
one gesture to another (Brauer et al., 2006). Others have used probe
methods to insert novel gestures into a series of trained or familiar gestures
such as pointing (Soproni et al., 2002). These studies have largely supported
the conclusions from the pioneering work of Miklósi et al. (1998), suggesting
that Miklósi et al.'s positive conclusions were not artifacts of having the dogs
master one gesture type before proceeding to the next.
Particularly noteworthy in these studies of dog responsiveness to
human gestural cues, is that some of the successful dogs in these studies had
only had minimal contact with humans or did not live as pets in human
households. Miklósi et al.'s (1998) study included 5 assistant or guide dogs
that did not reside in a typical household setting and yet still performed above
baseline in the pointing and bowing conditions in the first 15 trials.
The degree to which individual dogs attend to human social cues and
their tendency to rapidly integrate new behaviors into their repertoire based
on the consequences that follow from them, says something about both their
development and their environment. For dogs to provide adaptive responses
to human gestures requires not only attentiveness and close proximity to
human action, indicative of some sort of social attachment to humans, but
also sensitivity to context within a human environment.
This conclusion gains strength from recent research on the role of
context in the training of basic commands, such as “sit” and
“come.” Fukuzawa, Mills, and Cooper (2005) demonstrated that unintentional
human cues influence how dogs respond after training. Dogs who responded
to the commands “sit” and “come” reliably when a human was giving the
command, showed declines in performance when the command was given by
tape recorder in the human's presence, and declined further when the human
wore tinted sunglasses. Furthermore, when the human experimenter gave the
two commands from behind a screen, out of sight of the dog, the dogs
responded dependably to the “come” command but not to the “sit” command
(Fukuzawa et al., 2005). This finding makes sense when the context of
training and previous exposure is considered. “Come” is often applied and
reinforced when presented from a greater distance or when the dog is out of
sight, whereas the “sit” command is usually given and reinforced only when
the dog is in close proximity to the human issuing the command.
Ability to Cue Humans
Most research in the area of social cues has focused on the dog's
response to human gestures, but a study by Miklósi, Polgárdi, Topál, and
Csányi (2000) found that dogs that had seen a food item or a toy hidden in a
specific bowl placed out of their reach while their owner was out of the room,
were able to communicate to their owner the location of the hidden target
item when he or she returned. These dogs showed a significant increase in
mouth licking, vocalization, sniffing, looking at the owner, and looking at the
location of the hidden object after the toy had been hidden and the owner
returned. Vocalizations and gaze directed at the location of the hidden object
were also higher when the owner was present than when the dog was left
alone after hiding, although both behaviors occurred in both conditions
(Miklósi et al., 2000). Gazing between the owner and the location of the food
or toy occurred an average of three times in the first minute, with 8 out of 10
dogs looking first at their owner and then at the location of the hidden item
(Miklósi et al., 2000). This suggests that the dogs remembered where the
desired object was hidden after the person who hid it had left the room, and
that the dogs displayed behaviors, such as glancing between the naive owner
and the location of the object, specifically instrumental in getting the owner to
uncover the target object.
Dogs also follow the behavioral cues of other dogs in object-choice
tasks. In one study, dogs could find a hidden item at above-chance levels
when a trained demonstrator dog oriented towards the correct location while
gazing at it, or presented a local enhance cue such as sitting by the correct
location (Hare & Tomasello, 1999). The specifics of this study will be
discussed later, but these findings may suggest that this kind of “showing” or
cuing behavior is part of the everyday behavioral repertoire of the domestic
dog.
Object Permanence
“Object permanence” is a Piagetian term for an individual's continued
interest in a stimulus after it has disappeared from sight. Children go through
several stages of object permanence during development, from a complete
disregard for obscured objects at the earliest ages of testing, to sustained
search for hidden objects starting around age 2 years. Dogs have been tested
for object permanence of varying levels. Gagnon and Doré (1992) completed
a series of eight tests with 30 dogs of different breeds. The first four tests
made up the visible displacement task. In these tests a toy was placed behind
a screen in full view of the dog, and subsequently moved from screen to
screen—but always so that the dog could easily observe the movements. The
last four tests made up the invisible displacement task. In these tests the toy
was first placed in a container before it was moved. The container with toy
was then placed behind a screen, the toy was inconspicuously removed from
the container and left behind the screen, and finally the now-empty container
was shifted behind a different screen. The dog could not know that the
container was empty and would naturally go to the container first. An
individual that has mastered invisible displacements is one that, on finding the
container to be empty, returns to the last place the container stopped to
search for the toy. Reinforcement in this study consisted of the opportunity to
play with the toy once it was found.
Gagnon and Doré (1992) found that their dogs were more successful
on the visible displacement tasks than on the invisible tasks, but some dogs—
those that experienced all four visible displacement tasks first before moving
on to the invisible displacements—were then successful on the invisible
displacement tasks. Unlike the studies of dogs following human gestures, the
data in most cases showed improvements across trials rather than a
spontaneous ability to follow the cues offered.
This study is important within a Piagetian framework because it
showed that domestic dogs could display behaviors characteristic of the sixth,
and most advanced, stage of object permanence (Gagnon & Doré, 1992).This
conclusion, however, is not universally accepted. Other research has
suggested that although dogs still search for the toy in invisible displacement
tasks, they are not truly demonstrating stage six behavior because their
search patterns do not match those of children in that stage (Watson et al.,
2001). Furthermore, a follow-up study provides evidence that dogs in these
types of experiments are not showing object permanence at all. Collier-Baker,
Davis, and Suddendorf (2004) demonstrated that it was the final resting place
of the pole used to move the target ball that cued successful responding, not
object permanence after all.
Theory of Mind
Dogs appear to be sensitive to the attentional state of humans and this
in turn has an impact on their behavior in a variety of situations. For example,
in conditions where taking a piece of food has been forbidden, domestic dogs
are much more likely to take the food if the human experimenter does not
have a direct view of the food or of the dog approaching the food (Brauer,
Call, & Tomasello, 2004; Call, Brauer, Kaminski, & Tomasello, 2003). In
conditions where the experimenter has a clear view of the dog and the food,
dogs typically obey the wait command given by the experimenter. However,
dogs instructed not to take the food often disobey if the human's eyes are
closed, if the human's back is turned, if the human is distracted, if the human
leaves the room, or if some barrier blocks the human's view of the food and
the dog's approach to the food (Brauer et al., 2004; Call et al., 2003).
Gacsi, Miklósi, Varga, Topál, and Csányi (2004) concluded that the
body orientation and eye visibility of a human also has an effect on the
begging behavior of dogs. Dogs were given the opportunity to approach and
beg from one of two women holding sandwiches. In one condition the two
women faced the dog: One with a blindfold on her head, and the other with a
blindfold over her eyes. In the other condition one woman faced the dog and
tried to maintain eye contact without moving her head or body, whereas the
other woman faced away from the dog and ignored it. Dogs were given a
piece of food no matter whom they begged from in each trial. Nevertheless,
in both conditions, dogs begged significantly more from the seeing or
attentive individuals than from the other woman.
Research of this kind often has been used in support of the possibility
that dogs possess a “theory of mind” or ability to adopt the perspective of
others (e.g., Brauer et al., 2004; Gacsi et al., 2004). However, such
performances also could be due to past experience with similar contingencies.
When food is forbidden, taking the food while a human's face is oriented to
the food and visible to the dog would likely be punished. However, taking food
in situations where the human's face is not appropriately oriented is more
likely reinforced by obtaining the food and less likely to be punished.
Furthermore, if begging from a person who is looking at a dog usually leads
to reinforcement and begging from someone who is not oriented towards the
dog does not (as might occur at a family dinner table), then reinforced
begging behavior directed towards attentive individuals should increase
whereas nonreinforced behavior towards nonattentive individuals should
decrease. Despite the fact that reinforcement was available for begging from
either woman in Gacsi's study, a long history of begging would increase the
probability of begging from an attentive person in the first place, and the dog
may never come into contact with the new contingencies. Furthermore, it is
possible that a dog reared with different contingencies in place, for example
one that only successfully obtains food when humans are not looking, would
show the exact opposite behavior. In this case it is not the individual's “theory
of mind” which is at stake, but rather the development of a foraging strategy
based on the greatest chance of reinforcement.
Word Learning
In 2004 Science published a report of an exceptional border collie
named Rico. Rico could recognize vocal labels for over 200 items, mostly toys,
which he retrieved by name. Kaminski, Call, and Fischer (2004) demonstrated
that Rico also was able to identify a novel item from a group of familiar items
and would retrieve the novel item in response to an unfamiliar item name in
70% of trials. Exclusion learning and fast mapping were said to occur, and
Rico was credited with not only pairing an unfamiliar name with a novel item
but remembering the new name for the novel item in later testing sessions.
Rico's vocabulary is certainly impressive and suggests the potential
dogs may have for learning associations between items and human vocal
cues. However, Rico's ability to fast map—or pair items with a novel name
after one association—was far from perfect. When he was given the name of
one of the previously novel items ten minutes after the first pairing, Rico
retrieved the correct item out of a pile of nine toys in four out of six trials.
However, when tested an hour after the first pairings, using a different set of
items, his performance dropped to retrieving the correct item in three out of
six trials (Kaminski et al., 2004).
The study with Rico raises interesting questions about the capacity
dogs have for name learning and the amount of exposure required to learn
the names of new objects. But more research is needed before the
implications of his performance become clear. Questions that remain open
include: Is Rico an exceptional dog, or could his achievements be replicated in
other dogs given appropriate training? What might the necessary and
sufficient training regimen be to train a dog to respond to vocal labels in this
way? What is the limit of a dog's vocabulary? How does a dog generalize to
words pronounced in different ways and by different individuals?
Individual and Breed Differences
It is a widely accepted part of the common lore that different breeds of
dogs show characteristic behavioral patterns and aptitudes, and that
individual dogs differ in their temperaments. In an attempt to quantify these
lay impressions, Svartberg (2004) developed the dog mentality assessment
(DMA). The assessment consists of a battery of tests, such as the dog's
reaction to social contact, play, chase games, passive situations, strangers,
sudden appearances of objects, and loud noises. Factor analysis on these
scores led to the identification of six traits: playfulness, chase-proneness,
curiosity/fearlessness, sociability, aggressiveness, and distance-playfulness.
Follow-up questionnaires indicated the stability and value of the DMA for
predicting broader personality dimensions, such as a placement along a
shyness–boldness continuum (Svartberg, Tapper, Temrin, Radesater, &
Thorman, 2005). However, the DMA has been less successful at identifying
and predicting long-lasting aggressiveness and nonsocial behavioral problems
(Svartberg, 2004; Svartberg et al., 2005).
Evidence for inherent breed and sex differences, as measured with the
DMA, is limited. One study indicated that high scores on the boldness scale do
not correlate with the breed or sex of a dog. However, breed and sex appear
to play some role for the lower scoring dogs, of which female German
Shepherds and the other tested breed of working dog, Belgian Tervurens,
scored lower than male German Shepherds (Svartberg, 2002). Furthermore, a
later study (Svartberg et al., 2005) indicated that scores on all six personality
traits did not vary significantly by breed types divided into herding dogs,
guarding dogs, and gun dogs. This is not to say that differences do not exist
between individual breeds; however, the source of these differences does not
seem to be explained by the current personality tests or models. More tightly
controlled behavioral methods, focusing on individual differences and specific
behavior problems, may have more success at getting to the root of the
environmental influences that shape these differences in behavior.
Discussion
Social VS. Causal Cues: The Difference Between Dogs and Nonhuman
Primates
Ever since Darwin (1859), the search for human-like social cognition
(i.e., behavior controlled by human and conspecific social cues similar to that
observed in humans) has focused on our closest genetic relatives, particularly
chimpanzees. Though much remains controversial in this field, it seems clear
that chimps and several other species of primates are only modestly
successful on many tasks designed to test for human-like social reasoning.
Thus, chimpanzees are only able to follow gaze and show joint attention
under a limited set of conditions (Barth, Reaux, & Povinelli, 2005). In the
object-choice task described above, few chimpanzees or other nonhuman
primates are able to use gaze or other social cues such as pointing to identify
the location of a hidden object (Call, Hare, & Tomasello, 1998; Call &
Tomasello, 1998; Itakura, Agnetta, Hare, & Tomasello, 1999; Povinelli, Reaux,
Bierschwale, Allain, & Simon, 1997; Tomasello, Call, & Gluckman, 1997).
Successful individuals typically need dozens of repeated exposures to the cue,
and show poor transfer after even small changes to the testing environment
(Brauer et al., 2006; Call, Agnetta, & Tomasello, 2000; Itakura et al., 1999).
Dogs, in contrast, though they share much less of our genetic material
than do chimpanzees, nonetheless show a spontaneous ability to follow
human gestures to find reinforcing objects, even in the absence of training in
the laboratory. Most remarkably, even dogs raised with minimal human
contact can follow a human point and gaze gesture without explicit training
(Hare et al., 2005).
Chimpanzees also have been the species most intensely studied for any
ability to respond to the attentional state of humans or conspecifics—so-called
“Theory of Mind” abilities. However, several published studies have failed to
find any evidence of a sensitivity to another's knowledge (e.g., Brauer et al.,
2006; Povinelli & Eddy, 1996), and studies that do suggest this ability
(e.g., Hare & Tomasello, 2004) have been subject to extensive criticism
(e.g., Boesch, 2007; Heyes, 1998; Penn, Holyoak, & Povinelli, in press). Dogs,
in contrast, respond readily to human cues in these kinds of tests
(e.g., Brauer et al., 2004; Call et al., 2003; Gacsi et al., 2004).
Chimpanzees have been by far the most intensively studied species for
the comprehension of human language (including seminal studies by Gardner
& Gardner, 1969; Savage-Rumbaugh et al., 1993; Terrace, 1979), but no peer
reviewed paper has ever claimed the rapid “fast-mapping” of language
acquisition found by Kaminski et al. (2004) in the dog Rico.
Several theories have been proposed to explain why dogs perform so
well on tasks involving socially mediated stimuli. The possibility that dogs
learn to attend to human social cues simply because of the intensity of their
interactions with humans appears to be refuted by the observation that even
puppies and domesticated fox kits that have had only minimal exposure to
human beings, nonetheless respond very accurately to human cues in choice
paradigms (Hare et al., 2005).
Hare and Tomasello (2005) considered the possibility that domestic
dogs' high sensitivity to social cues is an evolutionary legacy inherited from
wolves, the dog's closest wild relative and progenitor. If general social traits
common to wild canids have simply been inherited by domestic dogs, then
wolves also should do well on tasks involving social cues. However, when
compared to wolves and wild foxes, domestic dogs (including puppies) make
significantly more correct responses on choice paradigms where social cues
serve as the discriminative stimuli (Hare et al., 2002; Hare & Tomasello,
2005). This is true even though the wolves tested had been socialized and
raised by humans in their homes as pets. Thus, it does not seem that
domestic dogs simply inherited the predisposition to attend to social stimuli
from wolves.
Hare and Tomasello's (2005) study included, alongside tests on
domestic dogs, comparison tests on fox kits that had been selectively bred
over 46 years for nonaggressive behavior towards humans. These fox kits
were compared to others reared under the same conditions but not selectively
bred for low aggression. Neither group of foxes had been raised in human
homes (nor had the earlier generations from which they were descended).
Hare and Tomasello found that the fox kits bred for nonaggressive reactions
to people performed just like domestic dog puppies on pointing and gazing
tasks. The fox kits that had not been selectively bred performed poorly on
these tasks, at a level similar to that seen in wolves (Miklósi et al., 2003).
These results suggest that during domestication, traits that were often
selected by humans, such as lack of aggression and fearlessness towards
people, may have carried with them other genetic traits that led to a
heightened responsiveness to human social stimuli (Hare et al., 2002; Hare &
Tomasello, 2005). It also is possible that by removing genetic tendencies
towards aggression and fear towards humans, other preexisting social
behaviors were no longer blocked and thus could increase in frequency.
If selective breeding and domestication serve as a likely explanation for
the success of domestic dogs on tasks involving human social cues, then that
begs the question—Why don't other domesticated animals share these
abilities? In fact, domestic cats have been shown to be only slightly less
successful than dogs in using basic pointing cues to find a hidden food item in
a simple choice test (Miklósi et al., 2005). However, when presented with an
unsolvable task, where food was hidden in a butter pot but tied to a stool in
such a way that retrieval was impossible, dogs looked between the problem
and their owner more often and for longer periods of time, whereas cats only
occasionally looked towards their owners and spent much more time trying to
get the food themselves. This may indicate that: (1) During domestication
cats were selected for traits less tied to the approach of humans and fear
reduction, or (2) less stringent contingencies exist for cats in their home
environment leading to behavior that is more independent of human action,
or both.
The lower responsiveness and less frequent orientation of cats to
human cues may in fact be related to the fact that domestic cats are closer to
their wild relatives than dogs are to wolves. The domestic cat ( Felis catus)
shows only a low level of genetic divergence from its two nearest wild
relatives (the European wildcat, F. silvestris, and African wildcat, F. libyca),
and the earliest evidence for cat domestication is only around 8,000–9,500
years BP—considerably more recent than that for dogs (between 14,000 and
135,000 years BP) (Driscoll et al., 2007; Serpell, 2000; Vigne, Guilaine,
Debue, Haye, & Gérard, 2004). The traits selected for in the domestication of
the two species also may have led to differences in the responsiveness and
attentiveness each has towards humans. Even today, many dog breeds are
selectively bred to work in close association with humans, filling specific roles
in industries such as farming, therapy, police, and search- and-rescue. Even
with earlier partnerships such as hunting it is quite probable that a dog that
stayed close to its owner or was quick to respond to its owner's actions would
have been a more beneficial working companion, securing its place in the
group and ultimately in the gene pool.
Cats were likely used as mousers and kept as pets from early in their
domestication (Vigne et al., 2004), but they are not typically bred for
purposes that require a close partnership with humans, even today. Thus, a
house cat's independence could have actually been a beneficial trait that
increased the chances of its survival in the same environment. Furthermore,
cats are often chosen as pets because they are considered low maintenance
compared to dogs. They do not require walking, they sleep or entertain
themselves most of the day, and they are typically small and quiet enough to
go unnoticed much of the time. Thus, there are many more opportunities for
cats to engage in independent behaviors without immediate human
consequences within the home environment.
Several studies have looked for key similarities and differences
between wolves and dogs. Perhaps the most striking developmental
difference between dogs and wolves is that, whereas dogs can be socialized
to humans within the first sixteen weeks of life, wolves must be removed
from their mother for human socialization before fourteen days of age, or
acceptance of humans is very unlikely (Klinghammer & Goodman, 1985).
Implications for Phylogeny and Ontogeny
In a study by Frank and Frank (1982), domesticated dogs (Alaskan
malamutes) and wolf pups that were raised in identical conditions in a home
environment showed distinct differences in both physical and social
development. Conducted as a two-stage experiment, 2 malamutes acquired at
10 days old were compared to 2 wolf pups acquired at 11 days old a year
before. The wolf and dog pups did not interact, but the conditions were kept
almost identical for the two groups during the experiment. Interestingly the
two major differences were that wolves were given more socialization to
humans, as they were required to sleep with their human foster parent two
out of every three nights as pups, and the malamutes, who did not receive
this extra socialization, were given slightly more frequent exposure to the
outdoor enclosure. All pups were nursed by the same wolf mother until
weaning, at which point they were hand raised and fed by humans.
The wolves reached several physical developmental landmarks days
ahead of the malamutes. For example, the wolf pups began climbing over
their 45-cm pen wall at only 19 days, whereas the malamute pups could not
climb over their 15-cm den box opening at 32 days old. However, socialization
of the wolves was much more difficult than of the malamutes. At 2 weeks of
age the wolf pups avoided the human handlers whenever possible and hid
behind the wolf dam when humans approached. At 6 weeks they became less
fearful but somewhat indifferent to the human presence, preferring to be
around adult wolves or dogs in the enclosure. The malamutes, in contrast,
became more independent of the nursing wolf, and actively approached
nearby humans and engaged in “greeting frenzies” on a regular basis (Frank
& Frank, 1982).
However, this study has some potential flaws. First, all of the pups
were raised by a wolf foster mother, which could have potentially impacted
the behavior of the mother to the foster pups or the behavior of the growing
pups toward the foster mother. Without a comparison using a Malamute foster
mother for both species it is impossible to say that having a same-species
foster mother would not produce a closer bond to that individual and
therefore less of a bond towards humans. Second, since the two groups of
pups were raised at different times, other factors may have been present in
one study that were not accounted for in the next, for example, the age of
the foster mother or other canine group members and the previous
experience of the experimenters raising wolfs before raising the Malamutes.
To address some of these concerns, Kubinyi, Viranyi and Miklósi
(2007) conducted a similar study comparing the development and behavior of
wolf pups and mongrel dog pups in foster homes with human caretakers. In
this study, all pups were individually assigned to a human caretaker who hand
raised and fed his or her pup from 4 to 6 days old. Both sets of pups
participated in multiple behavioral tests from 3 to 9 weeks of age. When the
wolves reached 9 weeks of age they had to be integrated into a captive wolf
pack, but were still visited by their caretakers at least once or twice a week.
Unfortunately the mongrel dogs in the study continued to live in a human
household at this point, so testing later in their lives could have been
impacted by different home environments. Nevertheless, the study found that
the wolves could be handled by their caretakers similarly to dogs when tested
between 1 and 2 years of age. This included coming when called, sitting and
lying down on cue, allowing dog accessories such as a muzzle to be put on,
and minimal social and physical neophobia. The level of attachment,
measured by the length of time the wolves spent in close proximity to their
caretaker at 1 to 2 years of age, however, was less for wolves than it was for
the dogs. The domestic dogs also out-performed the wolves on tasks
involving more complex human social cues, such as momentary distal
pointing. The wolves could be taught to use the same level cues as the dogs
at 11 months, but only after extensive training (Kubinyi et al., 2007).
Studies comparing domestic animals and their closest genetic relatives
are a good step in the direction of identifying the role phylogeny and
ontogeny play in key behaviors that seemingly make the species behaviorally
distinct. However, much care needs to be taken to make sure both species are
treated equivalently and that the behavior that results is not a byproduct of
some unintended aspect of the experimental environment. This includes
taking into account genetic and developmental differences that may impact
how different species respond to stimuli when presented at the same age or
in different environments.
The fact that various domesticated animals do better than their
nondomesticated relatives on tasks requiring the use of human social stimuli
indicates that selective breeding and domestication play some role in this
class of behavior. These genetic traits or predispositions may have been a
result of artificial selection in some species, but they are still a product of the
evolutionary history of that species. Instead of mountains creating the
geographic isolation of a pack of wolves, stone walls and chains may have
determined which individuals could breed. In place of a natural distribution of
ecological resources, a human hand may have determined which individuals
would live or die within a pack.
Dogs may have developed at least some behaviors similar to those of
humans because the two species lived in such close proximity over 10,000
years. It also is the case that it would have been beneficial to humans to
create similar or complementary social traits in these animals through
selective breeding. Of course, over most of this history of artificial selection,
the human breeders would have understood nothing of genetics or selective
breeding. Simple operant conditioning would be sufficient to explain the
selection of dogs with desirable traits. Dogs that bit or attacked a human may
have been killed, whereas ones that worked well with humans on the hunt
and were nonviolent to their owners were taken care of and had a greater
chance of reproductive success. Over time, people would have learned to
recognize traits in puppies that had typically led to aggressiveness in older
dogs in the past, and the process of selecting desired individuals and rejecting
ones with undesirable traits would have become more efficient. In other
words, the selection of particular traits in dogs would be reinforced with the
presence of cooperative, nonaggressive dogs, whereas the tolerance or
selection of other traits might be punished with aggressive attacks or a lost
investment of food and energy if a fearful dog runs away.
Of course, phylogeny may set the limits of what is possible in behavior,
but it is ontogeny—the personal history of reinforcement—that determines
what an animal actually does. In a study by Hare and Tomasello (1999),
domestic pet dogs demonstrated the ability to use the location and gestures
of both humans and other dogs to help locate hidden food. Four conditions
were used: human–local enhance (the human squatted by the correct
location); dog–local enhance (another dog sat by the location); human–gaze-
and-point; and dog–gaze-and-point (the other dog faced and looked towards
the location). When performance was assessed as a group, the 10 subject
dogs in the study found food significantly more often in each of the
experimental conditions than in the control or baseline condition where no
cue was provided. As a group, no one condition appeared to be more helpful
than another. However, individual dogs differed greatly in which stimulus they
were most successful in using to find the target location. Only 2 dogs were
successful in all four conditions, 1 dog was successful in three conditions, 2
dogs were successful only with the human communicator, 2 only with the dog
communicator, 1 during both the human– and dog–local enhancement
conditions only, and 2 during the human–local enhancement condition only.
These differences are most likely due to different levels of experience in the
home with situations similar to the ones the experimenters set up in the
laboratory.
Dog Profiling Revisited
If, then, there is a genetic component to some aspects of behavior that
have a clear impact on human–dog interaction, can bans targeting “bad dog”
breeds such as pit bulls, or profiling based on genes in general, be justified by
maintaining the position that behavior is a product of genetic tendencies as
well? Evidence suggests that the answer is no. Although bites and deaths
attributed to pit bulls are up in recent years (Sacks, Sinclair, Gilcrist, Golab, &
Lockwood, 2000), other breeds have been number one for aggression against
humans at other times. German shepherds and St. Bernards were estimated
to be responsible for the majority of deadly dog attacks, not including police
dogs, from 1975 through 1980 (Pinckney & Kennedy, 1982). In the 1970s,
Dobermans were on the top of the list (Randall Lockwood of the ASPCA, as
cited in Gladwell, 2006), and between 1993 and 1998 Rottweilers were the
most dangerous dog breed (Sacks et al., 2000). However, these estimates are
imperfect because they do not take into account the baseline populations of
each breed in the U.S. at any given time, and identifying an individual as a
specific breed is not always clear cut. Therefore, breeds that have a larger
population may be involved in more attacks than less popular breeds but
proportionally may be less aggressive; and aggressive dogs that do not fall
clearly into a breed category are often labeled as a breed that is already
deemed aggressive, thereby inflating the numbers for that breed. However,
even in times where one breed may show proportionally higher levels of
aggressive behavior, there is evidence that this is not solely due to an
inherited “bad dog” gene. In fact, the type of owner, not the breed of the
dog, is the best predictor for dog attacks (Gladwell, 2006; Siebert, 2004). In a
quarter of fatal dog attacks, the owners previously had been arrested for
illegal fighting, and many aggressive dogs are ones that have been abused,
starved, or deprived of medical attention. In addition, some owners seek out
breeds that have a reputation as “bad dogs” and then shape the aggressive
behaviors that later seal their fate. According to Randall Lockwood, a senior
vice-president of the ASPCA, “A fatal dog attack is not just a dog bite by a big
or aggressive dog. It is usually a perfect storm of bad human–canine
interactions—the wrong dog, the wrong background, the wrong history in the
hands of the wrong person in the wrong environmental situation” (cited
in Gladwell, 2006, p. 26).
Dogs may become problems in human society because their owners
may also respond in unconventional ways to social stimuli within the
environment because of their own history—possibly exposing their dog to
contingencies governed by an abusive, isolated, or neglectful home
environment. Therefore, to fully address these and other types of behaviors
demonstrated by domestic dogs, the specific contingencies that surround the
operant and the specific properties of social stimuli that serve as effective
discriminative stimuli need to be identified and defined.
Dogs: Our Closest Relatives?
It may sound strange, but it is not unreasonable to view dogs and
humans as subject to convergent evolution (Hare & Tomasello, 2005). Over
the last 100,000 years, the social environments of domestic dog pups and
human children have become more and more similar to each other, and less
like those of either species' closer genetic kin.
It is as a consequence of this intense cohabitation that dogs have
come to emulate some behaviors that are commonly viewed as uniquely
human, such as the recognition of another's attentional state. These kinds of
complex behaviors are commonly structured in relatively vague cognitive
terminology. We hope this review will inspire behavior analysts to use the
empirical tools of our field to investigate just how closely dog social behavior
maps onto human use of social cues. Such research could answer fascinating
questions in the evolution of complex behavior, as well as enabling us to live
more safely and profitably with our “best friends.”
To Shape, Lead, Catch, or Click?
The study of dog behavior may seem new to experimental behavior
analysis, but the interest in applying behaviorist technology to dog training
dates back to Skinner's own writings. Skinner wrote: “Since nearly everyone
at some time or other has tried, or wished he knew how, to train a dog, a cat,
or some other animal, perhaps the most useful way to explain the learning
process is to describe some simple experiments which the reader can perform
himself” (Skinner, 1951/1999, p. 605). He went on to provide techniques to
shape the behavior of any animal the reader could “catch” using the basic
principles of positive reinforcement (Skinner, 1951/1999). Three decades later,
Karen Pryor reintroduced behavioral methods of dog training to a new
generation of animal trainers and pet owners (Pryor, 1984).
Notwithstanding Skinner's and Pryor's encouragement to behavior
analysts to become involved in dog training, and even a paper in the
psychological literature calling on behavioral scientists to become more
involved in the scientific development of dog training methods (Tuber, Miller,
Caris, Halter, Linden, & Hennessy, 1999), the two flagship journals of the
field, the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior and the Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, have published surprisingly few empirical papers
involving dogs as subjects, the most recent (Cohen, 1970) having a
publication date of over 35 years ago.
Surely there would be no better way to convince people of the
effectiveness of scientific behavioral techniques than to provide them with the
technology that they desire to address their current needs. Now is the time to
provide the research that will help behaviorists, and in turn society, better
understand the behavior of domestic dogs as a species, and to devise refined
and easily applied methods of training and evaluation grounded in empirical
and testable approaches to behavior.
CLAIRE G. ESTIMADA-OGUE MAED-General Science
CPSU Hinoba-an Campus

ACTIVITY 4
The unseen part of animal world. Paste your output on the specified box.

I am sorry Ma’am. I did not

capture a picture of a
protozoan due to its fast
movement.

Dragon fly wings/ foot Magnified 10x Protozoan Appearance Magnified 10x

1. What significant parts of the dragon fly as magnified contributes to the

function of that part?
Answer:
 Both pairs are membranous, transparent, and of identical length. The
hindwing is often broader in dragonflies. Because their wings are living
structures with hundreds of sensory neurons, dragonflies can fly properly
even in stormy and ambiguous environments. These neurons constantly
transmit sensory data to the brain, allowing the insects to fly over turbulence
without incident.

2. Are protozoan considered as animal? What characteristic does it have that

would qualify it as an animal? Defend your answer by citing specific sources
for your claims.
Answer:
Protozoans are not considered as animals. Most protozoa are made out
of a single cell. They are animal-like because they are heterotrophs and can
move. Although protozoa are not animals, they are regarded to be animal
ancestors.
CLAIRE G. ESTIMADA-OGUE MAED-General Science
CPSU Hinoba-an Campus

ACTIVITY 5
Instruction: Look for the new/modern In Vitro and In Vivo technology used in
reproduction cases in the internet. Follow the content that is needed to analyze the
case:

 Create an eye-catching title of the case

 Background information (Provide relevant information about the situation or any
other factors that set the stage for the case)
 Problem Statement: Clearly state the problem or challenge that the case study
addresses. Identify the specific issues, conflicts, or decisions that need to be
analyzed and resolved. The problem statement should be concise and specific
 Analysis: This is the main body of the case study and includes the detailed
analysis of the problem and relevant factors.

Proposed solution: Provide specific and realistic solution(s) or changes needed.

Support this solution with solid evidence, such as Concepts from class (text readings,
discussions, lectures), research studies and Personal experience.

Answer:
The New Normal in Human Reproduction
Abstract
In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a complex set of techniques designed to improve
fertility, prevent genetic abnormalities, and aid in childbirth. During IVF, mature eggs
are extracted from the ovaries and fertilized in a laboratory using sperm. The
fertilized egg (embryo) or eggs (embryos) are then placed in the uterus. A full IVF
cycle takes roughly three weeks. When these processes are divided into sections,
the procedure can take longer.
The most effective form of assisted reproductive technology is IVF. The
treatment can be performed with the couple's own eggs and sperm. Alternatively,
IVF may use eggs, sperm, or embryos from a known or anonymous donor. A
gestational carrier, or someone who has an embryo implanted in their uterus, may
be employed in some instances. Many factors influence your odds of having a
healthy baby with IVF, including your age and the cause of infertility. Furthermore,
IVF can be time-consuming, costly, and intrusive. IVF can result in a pregnancy with
more than one fetus if more than one embryo is implanted to the uterus (multiple
pregnancy).

Some problems that arise during In Vitro Fertilization

1. Slow down regulation: Downregulation can take longer than predicted;
normally, this involves delaying the initiation of FSH injections by 4-7 days.
If a cyst forms, it is usually treatable with an hCG injection. Another option
is to break the cycle and restart it in 1-2 months.
2. Stopping treatment for under-stimulation: If fewer follicles form
than predicted, the best choice may be to discontinue treatment and
restart with stronger drugs. This occurs in approximately 10% of cycles. If
you do not respond well during a publicly sponsored cycle, we will decide
whether to terminate your participation and whether you will be granted
another publicly funded cycle.
3. Over-stimulation: Having an excessive number of follicles increases the
risk of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS). The solution is
determined by the level of risk. It might range from terminating the cycle,
suspending FSH injections for a few days to cause some follicles to stop
developing - a process known as coasting - to freezing all embryos to
avoid pregnancy because pregnancy raises the risk of OHSS.
 4. Ovulation before egg collection: This occurs in about in about 1 in
200 cycles.
5. No or low fertilization: Unexpected low or no fertility can be caused by
a sperm factor, an egg factor, or just be unexplained. It rarely happens
again, and the pregnancy rate in following ICSI cycles is normal.
6. Infection of culture dishes: Occasionally, bacteria from the sperm or
the vagina can infect the culture media during egg collection, resulting in
the embryos dying. There are several techniques for reducing risk in
succeeding cycles.
7. Delayed or abnormal embryo development: Almost everyone has
some embryos that have stopped developing normally by the time embryo
transfer occurs. Sometimes all embryos cease developing before day 2 or
3, leaving no embryos to transfer. When this occurs, it might be difficult to
suggest what to do next; for some, the problem will reoccur in another
cycle, while for others, it is a 'one-off' occurrence that most likely occurred
by accident.

Analysis
The increasing use of IVF will change the way a large part of the human
population reproduces. Many countries of the world are projected to see as many as
10% of all children created through IVF in the near future. Given the rapid scientific
and technological progress of IVG and reproductive genetics, it is critical that both
the public and regulatory organizations work together to provide a framework for
the ethical assessment of developing technologies. Such public participation is
crucial. In the absence of such, as with GGM and MRT in the United States, reactive
bans on clinical research may emerge.
Furthermore, the incorporation of new technologies into clinical practice must
be scientifically sound and supported by well-designed clinical trials. Premature
commercialization of pricey and unproven "add-ons" to IVF has long been a problem
in the profession, affecting everything from procedures to drugs to laboratory
techniques. The widespread use and promotion of experimental IVF add-ons may
diminish public trust in the reproductive medical sector as a whole. As a result, it is
critical for the industry to emphasize solid proof of technology safety and efficacy
before enabling them to be supplied routinely to IVF patients. Reproductive
medicine, particularly IVF, is quickly revolutionizing human reproduction and will
thus continue to be of critical relevance to both science and society.

ADVANCED ZOOLOGY FINAL EXAMINATION

(June 10, 2023)

Name: CLAIRE G. ESTIMADA-OGUE Rating: ____________

Instruction: The questions provided should be answered comprehensively.

Supporting related studies/sources (citations) is needed to be used to back up
discussion.
1. How does evolutionary origin of animals contribute to the diversity of animals?
Answer:
Animal evolution is the foundation of the remarkable diversity we observe
today in the animal kingdom. Here are several key ways in which the evolutionary
origin of animals contributes to their diversity:
1. Speciation is an evolutionary process that results in the development of new
species. Genetic mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection can lead
animal populations to diverge over time, resulting in diverse species with
distinct features. This branching process results in a varied range of species
with varying forms, behaviors, and adaptations.
2. Animals have evolved to adapt to a variety of environments. Individuals with
features that boost their chances of survival and reproduction in specific
ecosystems are favored by natural selection. As a result, animals have
evolved a variety of adaptations to cope with distinct ecological niches, such
as physical features, physiological systems, and behaviors. This diversity of
adaptations allows animals to live in a wide range of environments, including
deserts, forests, oceans, and mountains.
3. Animals and their relationships with other creatures have shaped their
evolution. Co-evolution happens when species impact each other's
evolutionary paths through interactions like predation, competition,
mutualism, or symbiosis. Predator-prey relationships, for example, have
resulted in the evolution of protective mechanisms in prey and predatory
 methods in predators. Co-evolutionary interactions contribute to animal trait
and behavior diversification.
4. Adaptive radiation is the fast diversification of a single ancestral species into
several species in order to exploit different ecological niches. When animals
colonize new environments or when large environmental changes create
opportunity for new adaptations, this process occurs frequently. Adaptive
radiation has been critical in the diversification of animal lineages, resulting in
the emergence of a diverse range of species with varying ecological roles and
features.
5. Genetic diversity and mutation are the building blocks of evolution. Natural
selection acts on genetic variation within populations, resulting in the survival
and reproduction of individuals with beneficial features. Mutations, which are
random changes in DNA, inject new genetic variants into populations,
potentially boosting variety. Mutation and genetic variation both contribute to
the continuous evolutionary process and the emergence of new animal forms.
Overall, the evolution of animals has resulted in an incredible diversity of species,
each with a unique set of adaptations, behaviors, and ecological roles. The
interaction of genetic variety, natural selection, and environmental conditions has
affected the course of animal evolution, resulting in the beautiful diversity we see
today in the animal kingdom.
2. Explain the concept of animal behavior and investigate the concept of animal
cognition which are supported by higher cognitive abilities in certain species. Identify
one animal exhibiting complex cognitive skills. What would be its implication for our
understanding of animal intelligence.
Answer:
Animal behavior describes the actions, reactions, and activities that animals
exhibit in response to their surroundings and internal states. It includes locomotion,
nutrition, reproduction, communication, social relationships, and problem-solving.
Genetic variables, environmental cues, learning, and evolutionary history all
influence animal behavior.
The mental processes and capacities involved in perception, learning,
remembering, problem-solving, decision-making, and communication are referred to
as animal cognition. It is the ability to gather, process, store, and use information
from the environment. Higher cognitive abilities, which differ between species,
support animal cognition.
While cognitive ability can be found in many animals, several species have
more advanced cognitive capacities. These animals frequently indicate the ability to
learn from experience, problem-solving abilities, memory retention, and a level of
awareness or consciousness. They may also demonstrate communication abilities,
self-awareness, and kinds of social learning.
The bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) is an example of an animal with
advanced cognitive abilities. Dolphin intellect and cognitive talents are well known.
They have high problem-solving abilities, sophisticated communication via
vocalizations and body language, and self-recognition in mirror tests—all of which
indicate self-awareness. Dolphins are also capable of social learning, cooperative
hunting, and using tools or objects in their surroundings.
Dolphins have been observed doing complicated cognitive tasks including as
concept formulation, memory-based tasks, and understanding and responding to
human gestures and directions. Their cognitive talents imply intelligence and
extensive cognitive processing, making them an enthralling example of animal
cognition in the animal realm.

3. Discuss one type of animal defense and its importance to their social interactions
and survival.
Answer:
Chemical defenses are one sort of animal protection that is important in social
interactions and survival. Chemical defenses entail animals producing and releasing
chemicals to discourage or repel possible predators, competitors, or parasites. These
compounds can be used for a variety of functions, including warning of toxicity,
repelling invaders, and marking territory. Chemical defenses are important in many
animal species, including insects, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. Chemical
defenses provide several advantages to animals:
1. Predator Detterence: Many animals produce unpleasant or toxic
compounds that dissuade predators from attacking or eating them. These
substances might be produced by the animal's body or obtained through
its feed. When an animal is threatened, it produces or displays these
compounds as a warning signal, signaling that it is unappealing, toxic, or
hazardous to potential predators. This protective system reduces
predation danger and boosts survival chances.
2. Competitive Advantage: Chemical defenses can also be used in
competitive interactions between individuals or social groups. Individuals
in social insects such as ants and bees, for example, produce pheromones
that communicate colony identity, caste, reproduction, or alarm signals.
These chemical signals aid in the establishment of dominance hierarchies,
the regulation of social behavior, the coordination of foraging efforts, and
the marking of territories. Individuals can use chemical cues to express
their rank, repel invaders, or signal cooperation within the group.
3. Parasite and Pathogen Defense: Animals use chemical defenses to
battle parasites, diseases, and microbes. Many species produce
antimicrobial chemicals, poisons, or other molecules that hinder pathogen
development or survival. Certain frogs, for example, secrete antimicrobial
peptides that defend against bacterial and fungal illnesses. This defense
 mechanism is critical for the health and function of the animal's immune
system.
4. Mate Attraction and Reproduction: In mate attraction and
reproduction, chemical signals are frequently utilized. Many animals emit
pheromones or chemical signals in order to express their reproductive
status, availability, or appeal to possible mates. These chemical cues are
important in sexual selection, partner selection, and mating behaviors.
Animals can transmit information about their genetic fitness, reproductive
readiness, or compatibility using chemical cues, increasing their chances
of successful mating and reproduction.
Overall, animal chemical defenses are critical for survival, social interactions,
and reproductive success. These defenses aid in the deterrence of predators, the
establishment of dominance hierarchies, the coordination of social activities, the
combat of diseases, and the facilitation of successful reproduction. The sophisticated
utilization of chemical signals and defenses shows the intricate adaptations and
methods evolved by animals to navigate their ecological niches and ensure their
survival in the face of hazards and challenges.
4. Provide one examples of species with different reproductive strategies and discuss
the evolutionary advantages and trade-offs associated with it.
Answer:
The r/K selection theory, which outlines two distinct reproductive strategies
observed in nature, is one example of a species with different reproductive
strategies.
1. r-selected species: r-selected species are characterized by high reproductive
rates, producing many offspring with minimal parental investment. These species
typically have short lifespans, early sexual maturity, and high fecundity. They
prioritize quantity over quality when it comes to offspring production. Examples of r-
selected species include insects, small rodents, and some fish species. Insects, small
rodents, and a few fish species are examples of r-selected species.
Evolutionary advantages of r-selected species:
 High reproductive output: R-selected organisms improve the possibility that
some of their young will survive and reproduce, ensuring the continuation of
their genes.
 Rapid population growth: Because of their high reproduction rates, r-selected
species can quickly colonize new habitats or take advantage of transient
resource availability.
 Adaptability to changing habitats: r-selected species are frequently generalists
that can survive a wide range of environmental circumstances, allowing them
to swiftly adjust to changing surroundings.
Trade-offs of r-selected species:
 Low parental investment: Because r-selected species have many offspring,
they provide less parental care or guidance, which minimizes the individual
investment in each offspring's survival.
  High mortality rate: Because only a tiny percentage of offspring survive to
adulthood, r-selected animals have a high mortality rate, especially during
sensitive early life stages.
 Competition for resources: Because of fast reproduction, high population
density can lead to competition for limited resources in the environment.
2. K-selected species: K-selected species, also known as equilibrium species, have
a low reproduction rate but a higher parental investment in each offspring. These
species have longer lives, mature sexually later, and have fewer but better-equipped
offspring. Large mammals such as elephants, whales, and monkeys are examples of
K-selected species.
Evolutionary advantages of K-selected species:
 K-selected organisms boost their chances of survival and reproductive success
by investing more energy and resources into each child.
 K-selected species frequently occupy specialized ecological niches and are
adapted to stable habitats with relatively continuous resource availability.
 Development of specialized qualities: K-selected species' extended parental
care and longer lifespan allow for the development of specialized traits such
as sophisticated social behaviors and cognitive capacities.
Trade-offs of K-selected species:
 Lower reproductive output: When compared to r-selected species, the low
number of offspring produced by K-selected species reduces the immediate
reproductive potential.
 Slower population growth: Because K-selected organisms have lower
reproductive rates and longer generation durations, population growth is
slower.
 Vulnerability to environmental changes: Because K-selected species specialize
and rely on stable surroundings, they may be more vulnerable to disturbances
or changes in their habitat.
It's important to remember that r-selected and K-selected species are at opposite
ends of a continuum, with most species falling somewhere in the middle, displaying
a mix of strategies based on their ecological setting and life cycle traits. Each
reproductive strategy's trade-offs represent the balance between offspring quantity
and quality, as well as the adaptations required for survival and reproductive success
in certain habitats.
5. Investigate the influence of the rearing environment on the behavior and social
interactions of animals. Discuss how factors such as socialization, environmental
enrichment, and early experiences shape the behavioral development and welfare of
reared animals.
Answer:
Socialization, environmental enrichment, and early experiences all play
important roles in the behavioral development and welfare of rearing animals. These
elements have a significant influence on an animal's cognitive capacity, emotional
well-being, and overall quality of life.
First is socialization. The process through which animals learn to interact and
communicate with individuals of their own species is referred to as socialization.
Proper socialization is essential for the growth of social skills, social hierarchies, and
proper behavior. Early social interactions help animals learn important behaviors
such as mating rituals, parental care, and communication. Inadequate socialization
or unsuitable social interactions can lead to behavioral and social problems later in
life. Socialization is especially crucial for social creatures such as primates, dogs, and
many birds.
Second is environmental enrichment. Environmental enrichment is the process
of providing animals with fascinating and engaging habitats that encourage natural
behaviors, cognitive challenges, and physical activity. Enrichment can include
manipulable objects, foraging or hunting possibilities, a variety of sensory
experiences, and social engagement. Environmental enrichment prevents boredom,
decreases stress, and improves overall well-being. It encourages the manifestation
of species-specific behaviors while also providing mental and physical stimulation.
Enrichment benefits both captive animals like zoo animals and experimental animals,
as well as pets and companion animals.
Last would-be early experiences. Early experiences, particularly throughout
important stages of development, have long-term consequences on an animal's
behavior and welfare. Early exposure to a variety of stimuli, such as humans, other
animals, and varied settings, aids in the development of resilience, flexibility, and
effective reactions to future obstacles. Positive early experiences can shape an
animal's temperament, friendliness, and stress tolerance. Negative early events, on
the other hand, like as abuse or neglect, can have a negative impact on an animal's
behavioral development and emotional well-being.
Socialization, environmental enrichment, and early experiences all have a
substantial impact on an animal's behavioral development and welfare. They help
the animal adapt to its surroundings, create social relationships, engage in species-
typical behaviors, and maintain general well-being. Animal caretakers can assist the
development of healthy behaviors and improve the welfare of reared animals by
providing adequate social interactions, interesting settings, and good early
experiences. These considerations are especially crucial when raising animals in
captivity, since they may lack natural triggers and social systems seen in the wild.