Explore the vast range of titles available.

The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: “assistance animal”, “companion animal”, “educational/school support animal”, “emotional support animal”, “facility animal”, “service animal”, “skilled companion animal”, “therapy animal”, and “visiting/visitation animal”. At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., “skilled companion animal” and “service animal”) due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed.

This paper identifies the law’s failure to recognise and protect the human–companion animal relationship in the housing arena. The nature of the human–companion animal relationship has striking similarities to human–human relationships in the socially supportive aspects of the relationship such as attachment, nurturance and reliable alliance. This contributes to the social life and sense of well-being of the owner. There is also evidence that the human–companion animal relationship can have physical health benefits such as lowering the risk of death by cardiovascular disease. It is clear that society benefits from the human–companion animal relationship, which many owners perceive as akin to family, in the form of healthier, less isolated people with better social networks. Yet in the key area of housing, the law does nothing to protect or even recognise this relationship. In consequence, every year thousands of tenants in both the public and private sector are faced with ‘no pet’ covenants in their leases and grapple with difficulties such as reduced housing options, higher rents or the traumatic decision to give up their companion animal for rehoming or euthanasia. This is especially prevalent amongst vulnerable people, like the elderly and mentally ill, who are more likely to need to move into supported accommodation. This article examines housing law in countries, such as France and Canada, that prohibit ‘no pet’ covenants in residential leases and provides arguments for the effective formulation and implementation of such law in the UK.

Placing early groups into the overall phylogeny of eutherian mammals can be challenging, particularly when the group does not have extant members. We investigated the relationships of the Taeniodonta, an extinct group from the Late Cretaceous through Paleogene of North America. This group has a few purported close relatives, including Cimolestes , Procerberus , and Alveugena , that may form a sequence of ancestors and descendants. The leading hypothesis is that Procerberus gave rise to taeniodonts through Alveugena . We test this hypothesis and analyze relations to known stem and crown Eutheria to determine the place of taeniodonts in eutherian phylogeny. Cladistic analyses were performed using previously published characters and datasets, namely a taeniodont/cimolestid specific dataset and a reanalysis of Wible and colleagues ( 2009 ), with added taxa for both. Our studies suggest that taeniodonts arose from Cimolestes through Alveugena , that Procerberus is more distantly related to taeniodonts, and that taeniodonts and their relatives are stem eutherians. We diagnose the Taeniodonta based on these analyses. Other Paleogene groups, especially those allied with Cimolestes such as tillodonts and pantolestans, merit further study. Our findings indicate that stem eutherians such as the Taeniodonta, in addition to crown eutherians, continued to diversify during the Paleogene.

The covid-19 pandemic, and in particular, the rise in pet ownership, the greater focus on home-life during lockdowns and the normalisation of hybrid-working conditions post-pandemic, has shed light on an under-researched area of law that affects millions of people across the world: the use of ‘no pet’ covenants in private rental housing. This article identifies the prevalence of ‘no pet’ covenants as a socio-legal problem that is of global significance. It assesses the legal regulation of pets in private rental housing through a Harm Assessment approach that has global application. A Harm Assessment approach balances harms to various stakeholders in both the use and restriction of ‘no pet’ covenants. In countries that have no legal regulation of pets in housing it can be used to assess the need for legislation. This approach considers the character, magnitude and likelihood of the harm, something which has had little consideration to date. Drawing, by analogy, on the work of Feinberg and his analysis of harm within the context of the legitimacy of state interference with individual liberty, this article adapts his theory of harm to assess the need for legal regulation of pets in rental housing. The legitimacy of a Harm Assessment approach is supported by the existing literature on ‘no pet’ covenants, from which the dominant theme of harm emerges. Identifying and weighting the types of harm to be balanced varies depending on cultural, religious and geographic considerations and further research is needed to better understand the harms in different countries.

Wildlife trade—both legal and illegal—is an activity that is currently the focus of global attention. Concerns over the loss of biodiversity, partly stemming from overexploitation, and the corona virus pandemic, likely originating from wildlife trade, are urgent matters. These concerns though centre on people. Only sometimes does the discussion focus on the wildlife traded and their welfare. In this article, we make the case as to why welfare is an important component of any discussion or policy about wildlife trade, not only for the interests of the wildlife, but also for the sake of humans. We detail the harm in the trade as well as the current welfare provisions, particularly in relation to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which guide global transport and trade. There are a number of ways that the current approach to wildlife welfare could be improved, and we propose ways forward in this regard.

The Paleogene Order Taeniodonta Cope, 1876—peculiar heavy-bodied mammals, some with ever-growing cheek teeth—are grouped with the Late Cretaceous eutherian CimolestesMarsh, 1889, along with a host of other taxa in a superordinal group, the Cimolesta. Taeniodonts were thought to have arisen from Cimolestes indirectly, through Paleocene ProcerberusSloan and Van Valen, 1965. The recently described Paleocene AlveugenaEberle, 1999, until now known only from the upper dentition, has been put forth as a transitional form between cimolestids and taeniodonts on phylogenetic and biostratigraphic grounds. An older taeniodont, the Late Cretaceous SchowalteriaFox and Naylor, 2003, has since been described, complicating taeniodont origins. We describe here a lower jaw that we refer to Alveugena from the lower part of the Ludlow Member of the Fort Union Formation in North Dakota. The lower jaw comes from strata of early Early Paleocene age (Puercan 1 North American Land Mammal Age) ~8.5 m above a Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, identified using palynological criteria. A cladistic analysis is here presented using new data on Schowalteria and Alveugena, added to that of Cimolestes, Procerberus formicarumSloan and Van Valen, 1965, P. grandisMiddleton and Dewar, 2004, and Onychodectes. This analysis revealed Alveugena as the sister taxon of the taeniodonts but with a closer relationship to Cimolestes than Procerberus, suggesting that taeniodonts evolved from a Cimolestes-like ancestor. We discuss the age relations of early taeniodonts and related taxa and propose a scenario of ancestor-descendent relations that minimizes, but does not eliminate, implied stratigraphic gaps.

‘No pet’ covenants restrict or prohibit the keeping of companion animals in rented housing. They affect millions of tenants across the United Kingdom and yet have received very little consideration in the academic law literature. My research seeks to address this knowledge gap by understanding the lived experience of ‘no pet’ covenants for pet-owning tenants. By reference to different models of family including Morgan’s ‘family practices’ approach, my research shows how people construct companion animals as family members. I argue that the human-companion animal relationship falls within the meaning of ‘private life and family’ under Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights. The depth of analysis with which I examine human rights arguments in the context of ‘no pet’ covenants is an original contribution to the field. Embracing qualitative research methods, I conducted seven in-depth interviews with petowning tenants adversely affected by ‘no pet’ covenants to assess the type and magnitude of the harm they endured. I used three methods of data analysis: firstly, thematic content analysis of the interviews; secondly, narrative analysis of stories I crafted from four of my interviews; thirdly, black letter law analysis of the current law affecting the use and enforcement of ‘no pet’ covenants in England. My findings provide a framework for Parliament to assess the need for legislation to regulate the use of ‘no pet’ covenants. The paucity of academic research makes it difficult for politicians to engage in an informed debate. My research provides understanding of how the covenants affect one of the key stakeholders, namely pet-owning tenants. Since companion animals are perceived as family members, the covenants can result in significant harm to tenants sometimes having life-changing consequences. I suggest a reconceptualization of ‘no pet’ covenants from controllers of risk to contributors of harm. My empirical study constitutes a valuable exploratory pilot study that paths the way for a more comprehensive study to investigate the experience of all the stakeholders, including landlords. I present a Fair Housing framework to guide Parliament in balancing the disparate rights of all those affected. Drawing on Mill’s harm principle as developed by Feinberg, I propose a balancing strategy within the context of a Harm Assessment.

The Taeniodonta is a group of eutherian mammals from the Paleogene of North America, which evolved rapidly in the Paleocene to achieve, in some forms, large body size, hypselodont (i.e., evergrowing) canine and postcanine teeth, and peculiar patterns of tooth wear. Eleven genera of taeniodonts occur in two subgroups, recognized at the level of families or subfamilies depending on author, the Conoryctidae and the Stylinodontidae. There has not been a comprehensive computer-assisted phylogenetic analysis of the taeniodonts, and questions have arisen over the monophyly of the taeniodonts and the conoryctids. Cladistic analyses based on thirty-seven dental characters using NONA and Winclada showed that two subclades of Taeniodonta are well supported, a clade consisting of the conoryctids exclusive of Onychodectes (i.e., Conoryctella, Conoryctes, and Huerfanodon) and a clade consisting of all the known stylinodontids (Wortmania, Schochia, Psittacotherium, Ectoganus, and Stylinodon). Stratocladistic analysis, which takes into account the temporal sequence of taxa in the fossil record, supports the results of the morphological analysis. The Late Cretaceous taeniodont Schowalteria occupies the most basal position in taeniodont phylogeny, pre-dating an inferred conoryctid-stylinodontid split in the early Paleocene, and establishing the taeniodonts as monophyletic.