English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The establishment of a peck-order in the domestic chicken obviously is based on individual recognition, as the flockmates learn to peck their social inferiors and to avoid those to which they are subordinate. Schjelderup-Ebbe (1923) found that when the loppy comb of a hen was turned and fastened to the other side of the head, she was not recognized by the members of her flock. Guhl (1953) reported that dubbed hens were attacked by their inferiors when returned to the pen; and when several hens were dubbed they developed a peck-order, indicating that the comb was not the sole means of individual recognition. The experiment reported here was an attempt to explore further the visible features which affect individual recognition in chickens. Thorpe (1951) reviewed evidences of various types of recognition, such as the perception of mates, of eggs, of other species of birds, and of other individuals within’the flock. He considered it probable that personal recognition by structural and color characteristics is the exception. Auditory clues appear to be important in some species. Armstrong (1947) in his review concluded that deportment in many species appeared to provide the main clues for individual recognition. Various aspects of recognition also were discussed by Nice (1943). Much of the evidence cited in these reviews was taken from reports of general observations rather than from experimental studies. Techniques have been devised for the study of sex recognition by Noble (1936), and Noble and Vogt (1935) ; of predator recognition with the use of models by Nice and Ter Pelkwyk (1941), by Kramer and von St. Paul (1951), and by Hartley (1950); of familial recognition by Cushing and Ramsay (1949) and by Ramsay (1951) ; and of individual recognition by Bennett (1939). Birds which form a social hierarchy, such as chickens, doves, and pigeons, usually attack a strange bird of the same species or breed that is introduced into the pen or cage. An experimentally modified bird which is attacked upon return to its group has been considered as being unrecognized by its penmates. Bennett (1939) altered appeaiantes of ring doves by dyeing the feathers and by modifying contour with feathers glued to the tips of feathers to produce a ruffled appearance. Feathers were plucked in some areas to change contour. She concluded that differences in color or contour are not factors of considerable importance in recognition of individuals in flocks of ring doves. As these birds exhibit peck-dominance rather than peck-right, Bennett found it difficult to determine precisely whether nonrecognition occurred and temporary disturbance of the social order was used as a criterion for loss of recognition. Chickens were used in the present experiment as these birds readily attack a stranger and form a rather stable peck-order based on peck-right. The attention was focused on the visible features which may play a significant role in individual recognition.

Visual Patterns in the Recognition of Individuals among Chickens