Jack P. Hailman

Social learning of a novel foraging patch in families of free-living Florida scrub-jays.

Free-living juvenile Florida scrub-jays, Aphelocoma coerulescens, learned to forage in a novel patch (the centre of a ring) when in proximity to other family members that foraged successfully. We were able to distinguish the contributions of social learning and of individual learning, and to show that social learning occurred. The foraging task required individual jays to dig for peanut bits (chopped fragments) buried in sand in the centre of a 33-cm plastic ring. Jays were trained in their family groups to perform the task during a summer season, and were allowed to perform the task in the presence of juveniles (aged 40-85 days) in later years. Jays living in 18 control families received partial exposure to the training situation, but received no exposure to the ring before being presented with the task in the presence of their young. Juveniles in 16 families with trained jays were able to witness demonstrations and to scrounge peanut pieces from the models as they completed the task. These 41 juveniles learned more of the task than the 33 juveniles in control families. Seven juvenile jays and two older, nonbreeding jays in the trained families completed the task at least once, whereas no jays in control families completed the task. A modified task that prevented snatching also prevented transmission of the complete task, although the 22 juveniles that observed the modified task learned more of the task than the 33 control juveniles. Further analysis indicated that demonstrations had their greatest effect in increasing the probability that juveniles would enter the ring. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

PERCEPTUAL PREFERENCES AND IMPRINTING IN CHICKS.

Whether initially exposed to a strikingly patterned model or to a plain white one, Vantress-cross chicks subsequently preferred to follow the striking model. Controls given the choice at the initial training age, and other (untrained) controls given the choice at the subsequent testing age, did not show a preference.

Keep "The Auk" Alive and Flying

The rationales for changing the name of The Auk collapse to about four underlying arguments, each of which we consider flawed. Argument 1 for change is the negative influence the current name is alleged to have on tenure or advancement of junior staff at colleges and universities. Our spot-check of universitybased ornithologists revealed no clear consensus on the seriousness of this hypothesized negative influence or whether it even exists. Some of those who favored the proposed name change were quick to admit that: (1) the problem might be ameliorated if department heads more vigorously and knowledgeably defended their junior staff members, and (2) the quality of the journals content should carry more weight than the name on the cover when evaluating a colleagues publishing performance. If administrators truly are lacking in an understanding of the purpose of The Auk, perhaps the existing subtitle (A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology) should be called to their attention (tactfully, of course). We suggest that junior staff include this subtitle in their bibliographies. We remain unconvinced that this problem is as serious as has been presented, and we suspect that if and where it does occur, the listing of the full title will solve the problem. Argument 2 for change claims that the name sounds unprofessional and nontechnical and for this reason has lost in prestige as measured by a declining impact rating in Science Citation Index (from 1.40 in 1991 to 0.77 in 1995). The name being unprofessional becomes a hollow argument, indeed, when one considers the success of such journals as the American Naturalist and Nature. Those journals, and others with equally nonprofessional names, earned their prestige and status among scientists because of the quality of their content. We must stress that it is the content, not the name on the cover, that determines a journals perception among scientists. During several early years for which Citation Index data are presented, The Auk experienced unprecedented problems, slowing down and then virtually ceasing publication for a couple of years. When the backlog reached print and a timely publication schedule resumed, the impact rating began to climb. Seemingly relevant to Argument 2 is a recent analysis published in the Ostrich. Using a sample of pa-

Commentary: Creation Stories

If I recall correctly, it was early in 1962 that I boarded a bus from Kennedy International Airport to LaGuardia for plane connections home. I had been in England talking with Uli Weidmann, Niko Tinbergen, Patrick Bateson, and others who had studied gull behavior in preparation for my own studies during the upcoming summer. A chap in spiffy but conservative dress slid into the seat beside me and immediately struck up a conversation. To others Im ordinarily a sullen traveling companion, more devoted to my own thoughts than chit-chat with fellow man, but on this occasion I was mentally and physically exhausted so took the bait. He was the interrogator, I the captive. After establishing that I was a biologist, he asked, Do you believe in evolution? It is always difficult for a scientist to answer such believe-in questions accurately because belief in scientific models is a question of relative trust rather than some devoted adherence to one of two clear alternatives. Someone who has not studied the methods and limitations of science cannot possibly understand a brief answer to a believein question, so I ordinarily avoid them. In this case I had no choice, so I answered something like, It is the best hypothesis we have to account for the origin and diversity of life. All fears I had of opening Pandoras box were quickly confirmed. My companion was a revival preacher, just returned from a magnificent European tour in which The Message was brought to thousands of grateful persons. How did you come to this belief? he asked in words that still ring as clearly in my ears as if they had been spoken moments ago. There was no turning back at this point, so like some neighborhood kid who owns the only baseball, I was dr gged into the game with every anticipation of occupying right field for the duration.