I’ve been researching ethograms the past week and thought this one offers wonderfully detailed descriptions of canine vocalizations. Take a look!
From EthoSearch.com
Source
Cohen, J. A. & Fox, M. W. 1976. Vocalizations in wild canids and possible effects of domestication. Behavioural Processes, 1, 77-92.
Vocalize
Whines
The whines of all species recorded were typically of short duration Wolves (and Husky dog – personal observation) will sometimes extend this sound for several seconds, however, producing what has been called an undulating whine (Crisler, 1958). This sound is created by the movement of the tongue within the vocal cavity alternately blocking and opening air passages (Crisler, 1958). The fundamental and pitch of dominant frequency (pitch of DF) found in the whines of adult wolves were both about 1570 Hz. The same figures apply to the undulating whine. The fundamental for the Chihuahua ranges from 400 to 1570 Hz, while the pitch of DF is usually from 2000 to 3000 Hz. Recordings made of developing Irish Setter X Doberman Pinscher hybrid puppies indicated a range of 1500-3100 Hz for the lowest and strongest principle frequencies. Whining is most often a cyclic (i.e. rhythmic) vocalization given in distress, with the exception of the undulation whine is non-cyclic.
Yelps
These sounds, as shown by Bleicher (1963), develop in the dog in combination with the whine and later may occur separately or successively combined with a growl, bark or whine (see later). This particular sound type was not recorded in other adult canids and may be a species-characteristic of Canis familiaris. For the purpose of this study the yelp was regarded as a shortened, contracted form of the whine, a high amplitude piercing variant, the ‘yip’, being an analogous sound recorded in coyotes and jackals. The analogy of the yelp in the same context in the fox, is the scream.
Screams
The screams of red foxes tend to be of longer duration (3-1 sec or more) and occur in a greater variety of contexts than those of other canids. The grey foxes recorded emitted screams which were generally shorter than those of the red foxes, but were repeated more often. It is thus possible that the total signal value of the scream for these two species is about equal. The fundamental for most foxes studied (including the Arctic Fox) ranged from 1200 to 2000 Hz the pitch of DF was between 2000 and 5000 Hz. Chihuahua recordings indicate a fundamental of 1200-2000 Hz and a pitch of DF of 2000-3200 Hz. Recordings of Irish Setter x Doberman Pinschers show fundamental and pitch of DF values of 1800-2700 Hz. Preliminary data on the screams of coyotes indicate a fundamental of about 2400 Hz and a pitch of DF of about 2700 Hz. The scream is non-cyclic in red foxes, and repeated, but not cyclically, in grey foxes. Chihuahua puppies given painful skin stimulation screamed non-cyclically. Those placed on a cold surface, however, emitted cyclic screams.
Barks
Barks of all species recorded were of very short duration (i.e. < 0.5 set). All principal frequencies (fundamental and pitch of DF) lie in the lower register between 0 and 2000 Hz. The main differences between the barks of various canid species concern cyclicity. The domestic dog will often bark cyclically in a “sing-song” manner, one bark following another until a train of barks results. This is commonly heard during territorial defense and care or contact solicitation. Foxes bark non-cyclically, white our data indicate that wolves may bark either cyclically or non-cyclically. Further investigation is needed to distinguish the different stimulus situations that elicit these two barking forms in wolves.
Growls
Growls may vary in duration from short to extended, depending on the situation and intensity of the social encounter. The growls of all species are non-cyclic. While foxes growl only in threat and defense, wolves and some dogs growl while greeting one another, possibly reaffirming their dominance relationships. Wolves, dogs, and especially coyotes may often growl during group vocalizations. A muffled growl-bark or ‘cough’ was recorded, but not analyzed, in all canids. It may serve as a warning to offspring and others in agonistic contexts.
Howls
All recorded howls of wolves and coyotes were of long to extended duration. The fundamental for both species was between 400 and 2000 Hz and the pitch of DF from 1200 to 2900 Hz.
Mews
Preliminary evidence indicates that newborn to 5-week-old red and grey foxes tend to repeat their neonatal mews more often than dogs of the same age group. Foxes maintain this sound as part of their vocal repertoires throughout life while it is only heard in neonates of all other canids studied.
Grunts
(This sound type is to be distinguished from the groans and grunts of a sick or dying canid, or of one in intense pain as during parturition). The fundamental of the grunts of wolves and dogs ranged from 85 to 200 Hz when detectable. The sound is heard in neonates of these two species and the coyote but was not recorded in foxes.
Coos
This sound is heard only in foxes. One form is trill-like while the other is more of a cackle. Differentiation between the two forms on the basis of spectrographic evidence is difficult, and it is not yet clear which stimuli elicit each form of the coo.
Take a look at EthoSearch.org for more info!
Dogs and cats have more similarities than you might think!
The two experiments explored differences in dogs and cats by looking at feeding by a human, which the experimenters felt was appropriate because feeding involves, “a type of interaction that is usually the same in the two species” (Miklosi et al., 2005, page 180). The nonhuman animals were pulled from four different groups, those cats that lived alone, dogs that lived alone, cats that lived with dogs, and dogs that lived with cats. I found this, and many other aspects of the two experiments, illustrative of the experimenter’s attention to detail and appreciation for the complexity of the two species, as well as the potential for differences between those cats and dogs that did or did not share a home with the other species. The first experiment looked at “interspecific communicative behavior,” in addition to the nonhuman animal’s ability to comprehend and respond appropriately to a human’s use of visual communication (i.e. pointing gestures) (Miklosi et al., 2005, page 180). The second experiment explored the nonhuman animal’s use of gaze, drawing from previous studies that revealed dog’s tendencies to look to, or gaze at, a human when having trouble solving a problem (i.e. obtaining food) (Miklosi et al., 2005, page 182).
The general discussion of the two experiments revealed that these two species utilize both similar and differing techniques during interspecific communication with humans (Miklosi et al., 2005, page 184). Most notably, dogs tended to look to humans more quickly when faced with a problem, whereas cats tended to work through the problem on their own for longer before “consulting” the human (Miklosi et al., 2005, page 185). I consider this discovery one that is ripe for further research, and definitely lively conversation! Overall, as Miklosi et al. write in their closing remarks, these experiments offer a first glimpse into both the differences and commonalities between cats and dogs in their use of visual communication with humans.
Reference:
Miklosi, A. (2005). A Comparative Study of the Use of Visual Communication Signals in Interactions Between Dogs (Canis familiaris) and Humans and Cats (Felis catus) and Humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology, Vol.119, No. 2, 179-186
TheOtherEndoftheLeash.com. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://www.theotherendoftheleash.com