02311nas a2200145 4500008004100000245013800041210006900179520178000248653001902028653001202047653001102059100002202070700002502092856004802117 1990 eng d00aPeripheral auditory processing in the bobtail lizard Tiliqua rugosa III. Patterns of spontaneous and tone-evoked nerve-fibre activity0 aPeripheral auditory processing in the bobtail lizard Tiliqua rug3 a

1. 70% of primary afferent fibres in the bobtail lizard were irregularly spontaneously active, with rates between 0.1 and 123.7 spikes/s (mean of 31.2 spikes/s). The rate distribution is bimodal. Mid-frequency fibres with lower thresholds tend to have higher spontaneous rates.

2. About one third of all fibres show a more prominent mode in their inter-spike interval histogram than is to be expected from a quasi-Poisson distribution. Preferred intervals in the spontaneous discharge patterns were not normally seen; this is presumably due to the lack of exclusive innervation of hair cells.

3. Primary fibres mostly responded to sound with a discharge rate increase. The form of the peri-stimulustime histogram varies between fibres; three different response types are described. Fibres of low characteristic frequency (CF up to 0.65 kHz) show a characteristic change in their response pattern with stimulation frequency; it is suggested that primary suppression plays an important role in shaping the very phasic response to tones at the fibres' upper frequency range. The responses of higher-CF fibres (CF 0.55–4 kHz) are independent of stimulation frequency. About one third of them shows a primary-like discharge pattern. The majority, however, responds with a chopper-like discharge pattern and there is evidence that this discharge, as in mammalian cochlear-nucleus stellate cells, originates from temporal summation.

4. The systematically-varying response pattern typical for low-CF fibres introduces special difficulties in defining the extent of the excitatory tuning curve and of the two-tone rate suppression area. The influence of threshold criteria on the overlap seen between both curves is discussed.

10aAuditory nerve10ahearing10aLizard1 aKöppl, Christine1 aManley, Geoffrey, A. uhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF0019241101170nas a2200169 4500008004100000022001400041245008000055210006900135260001600204520060200220100002400822700002200846700002700868700001500895700003000910856006000940 2019 eng d a1071-844300aSound Communication in Embryos and Hatchlings of Lepidochelys kempii0 aSound Communication in Embryos and Hatchlings of iLepidochelys k cFeb-11-20213 a

Recent studies have shown that acoustic signals play an important role in turtle social behavior and reproduction. We recorded embryos and hatchlings of Lepidochelys kempii inside the nest and underwater in June 2016 in Playa Santander, Veracruz, Mexico, and detected 189 sounds that were classified into 6 types according to their aural and spectral characteristics. Our results show that acoustic communication appears to be widely used in all species of sea turtles in aquatic environments, probably because of the high efficiency of this signaling modality in water compared with air.

1 aFerrara, Camila, R.1 aVogt, Richard, C.1 aSousa-lima, Renata, S.1 aLenz, Anna1 aMorales-Mávil, Jorge, E. uhttp://www.chelonianjournals.org/doi/10.2744/CCB-1386.101013nas a2200169 4500008004100000022001400041245012400055210006900179260001600248520039700264100002500661700002400686700002600710700002000736700002700756856006000783 2019 eng d a1071-844300aFirst Record of Bioacoustic Emission in Embryos and Hatchlings of Hawksbill Sea Turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata)0 aFirst Record of Bioacoustic Emission in Embryos and Hatchlings o cMay-11-20193 a

Recordings were made in nests of Eretmochelys imbricata and 107 samples of 10-min recordings revealed 575 sounds that were classified manually into 4 categories. Our results show that hawksbill turtles vocalize within the nest, especially during and after eclosion, which suggests vocalizations are important for communication among hatchlings to synchronize emergence from the nest.

1 aMonteiro, Cibele, C.1 aCarmo, Hayane, M.A.1 aSantos, Armando, J.B.1 aCorso, Gilberto1 aSousa-lima, Renata, S. uhttp://www.chelonianjournals.org/doi/10.2744/CCB-1382.102124nas a2200205 4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260001600214300001400230490000700244520149600251653002301747653001201770653001301782653002101795653002401816100002101840856005701861 2003 eng d a0033-577000aSnake Bioacoustics: Toward a Richer Understanding of the Behavioral Ecology of Snakes0 aSnake Bioacoustics Toward a Richer Understanding of the Behavior cJan-09-2003 a303 - 3250 v783 a

Snakes are frequently described in both popular and technical literature as either deaf or able to perceive only groundborne vibrations. Physiological studies have shown that snakes are actually most sensitive to airborne vibrations. Snakes are able to detect both airborne and groundborne vibrations using their body surface (termed somatic hearing) as well as from their inner ears. The central auditory pathways for these two modes of “hearing” remain unknown. Recent experimental evidence has shown that snakes can respond behaviorally to both airborne and groundborne vibrations. The ability of snakes to contextualize the sounds and respond with consistent predatory or defensive behaviors suggests that auditory stimuli may play a larger role in the behavioral ecology of snakes than was previously realized. Snakes produce sounds in a variety of ways, and there appear to be multiple acoustic Batesian mimicry complexes among snakes. Analyses of the proclivity for sound production and the acoustics of the sounds produced within a habitat or phylogeny specific context may provide insights into the behavioral ecology of snakes. The relatively low information content in the sounds produced by snakes suggests that these sounds are not suitable for intraspecific communication. Nevertheless, given the diversity of habitats in which snakes are found, and their dual auditory pathways, some form of intraspecific acoustic communication may exist in some species.

10adefensive behavior10ahearing10areptiles10asound production10avibration detection1 aYoung, Bruce, A. uhttps://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/377052