Effects of Inbreeding and Social Status on Individual Recognition in Mice
Individual recognition modulates social behaviour between conspecifics, enabling an animal to assess its familiarity and kinship with other individuals (Barnard et al., 1991; Barnard and Aldhous, 1991). Wild mice identify each other through individually unique urinary odour cues that are determined, at least in part, by genetic differences (Eggert et al., 1996). By depositing these unique odour cues as scent marks, mice provide signals of their presence and social status (see Hurst et. al., this volume). Dominant males deposit scent marks at high frequency as a sign of their competitive quality and current territorial ownership, and increase their rate of scent marking where they encounter competing scent marks from other males in their territory. Countermarking of scent marks from other males by dominant males thus provides a specific test that the mice have recognised scent marks as being derived from another individual.
KeywordsInbred Strain House Mouse Dominant Male Scent Mark Individual Recognition
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Barnard, C. J., and Aldhous, P., 1991, Kinship, kin discrimination and mate choice, in:Kin recognition, (P. G. Hepper, ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Benson, T. E., Ryugo, D. K., and Hinds, J. W., 1984, Effects of sensory deprivation on the developing mouse olfactory system: a light and electron microscopic, morphometric analysis.J. Neurosci. 4:638–653.Google Scholar
- Boyse, E. A., Beauchamp, G. K., Yamazaki, K., and Bard, J., 1991, Genetic components of kin recognition in mammals. In:Kin Recognition(P. G. Hepper, ed.), pp. 148–161. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Humphries, R. E., Robertson, D. H. L., Beynon, R. J., and Hurst, J. L., 1999, Unravelling the chemical basis of competitive scent marking.Anim. Behav. 37:705–725.Google Scholar
- Koolhaas, J. M., 1999, The laboratory rat. In:The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals(T. B. Poole, ed.), Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp.313–330.Google Scholar