Ethology Journal Online http://ethologyjournal.org/index.php/EI <p><strong>Ethology Journal Online publishes peer-reviewed research and review papers and popular articles in Ethology and related disciplines, </strong>e.g., Evolutionary Biology, Philosophy of Science, Animal Learning, Behaviorism, Comparative Psychology, and Anthropology. <em>Ethol J Online</em>&nbsp;is an NPO, independent of commercial, religious and political interests. The journal receives no sponsorship in any form. All income is generated via reader subscriptions. The authors of published articles receive an annual royalty.</p> <div class="grammarly-disable-indicator">&nbsp;</div> <div class="grammarly-disable-indicator">&nbsp;</div> <div class="grammarly-disable-indicator">&nbsp;</div> <div class="grammarly-disable-indicator">&nbsp;</div> Ethology Institute en-US Ethology Journal Online 2049-3630 <p>© <strong>Copyright</strong> by&nbsp;<em>Ethology Journal Online</em> and the authors.&nbsp;<strong>Third-parties may not redistribute </strong>the material in this journal&nbsp;in any form. The <strong>fair use</strong> (as is the U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index) of an article, i.e., quoting for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching or research, is not an infringement of copyright.</p> The Wolf Within http://ethologyjournal.org/index.php/EI/article/view/14 <p>Our love-hate relationship with the wolf, the animal that shares 15 thousand years of common ancestry with man’s best friend, the dog, suggests a deep conflict, one that is well hidden and maybe closer to each of us than we dare to admit. Are we hiding a skeleton in the closet? Why do we take great pains to understand and be kind to our dogs, whilst we hunt the wolf mercilessly? Mythology and religious convictions, as well as economic factors, came to play a significant role in our relationship with the wolf. However, it is our relatively quick adoption of dualism and a mechanistic view of the world—forcing us to part with holism and animism—that might have left us with deep scars and, ultimately, a conflict of identity.</p> Roger A. B. Abrantes ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2011-12-01 2011-12-01 2 1 1 4 Do Animals Have Feelings? http://ethologyjournal.org/index.php/EI/article/view/15 <p>Scientists avoid anthropomorphic language, suggesting other animals have human intentions and emotions, as it may indicate a lack of&nbsp;objectivity. We can't prove that animals, other than humans, have particular emotions. All we can see is their behavior but the same applies to humans. The only reason for our inference&nbsp;that someone feels something particular is by resemblance. If so, we fail to see why we cannot accept that animals (at least some species) also can be happy, sad, etc. Therefore, if it is a fallacy to attribute human characteristics to other animals, it must also be fallacious to claim that because we do, they don’t, because we can, they can’t. We call the first <em>anthropomorphism</em>; the second, we will name <em>anthropodimorphism.</em></p> Roger A. B. Abrantes ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2011-12-01 2011-12-01 2 1 5 8 The Difference between Signal and Cue http://ethologyjournal.org/index.php/EI/article/view/17 <p>In the behavioral sciences, there is some confusion regarding the meaning of the terms signal and cue and some authors use it interchangeably. Among animal trainers, there seems to be no consensus at all, the terms being used at the authors’ discretion without further explantations. We review the general consensus in the behavior sciences and improve the definitions so they are compatible with Darwinian evolution theory.&nbsp; Conclusion: A&nbsp;signal&nbsp;is everything that intentionally changes or maintains the behavior of the receiver.&nbsp;A&nbsp;cue&nbsp;is everything that unintentionally changes or maintains the behavior of the receiver.</p> <div class="grammarly-disable-indicator">&nbsp;</div> Roger A. B. Abrantes ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2011-12-01 2011-12-01 2 1 9 12 The Magic Words ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ http://ethologyjournal.org/index.php/EI/article/view/18 <p>‘Yes’ and ‘no’ are two short, one-syllable words, which may convey the most critical information for many organisms, their lives depending on it. At one level, a string of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ processes regulates their organic and cellular functions, at another, their behavior, and ultimately, their survival. If we said these words didn’t require explanation, most would probably agree—and yet we’d be wrong. Some languages don’t have words for ‘yes’ and ‘no’ and use quantifiers instead, which suggests cognitive and emotional elements connected to their meaning. Both parents and dog owners commit an elementary mistake adding to the aversive connotation of ‘no.’ The universe and machines have no queries with ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Maybe ‘yes’ and ‘no’ appeared in some languages when action was more decisive than emotion. 'Yes’ and ‘no’ convey essential bits of information in a succinct and precise way. When communicating in languages, which include them, we can benefit from using them correctly.</p> <div class="grammarly-disable-indicator">&nbsp;</div> Roger A. B. Abrantes ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2011-12-01 2011-12-01 2 1 13 19