WfKSIC, ETAL.: BKHA\I()K()K HOWllKAD WHALKS 



in an area were synchronizing? their surfacin^s and 

 dives. Many were too far apart to be in visual con- 

 tact. Ljungblad et al (1980) also reported synchrony 

 among whales engaged in water-column feeding ~75 

 km east of Kaktovik, AK. They reported that 

 "... whales were observed on the surface almost at 

 regular intervals and gave the impression of resting 

 between dives; then, suddenly, no whales would be 

 seen in any quadrant for several minutes." 



Although synchrony in surfacings by animals far 

 apart suggests acoustic contact between animals, it 

 is not proof of communication over that distance. 

 The synchrony could be established through indepen- 

 dent responses to common external cues. It could 

 also occur if the animals were close together and 

 visually synchronized before observations began; the 

 observed synchrony would then be a residual 

 phenomenon that persisted because of whales diving 

 and surfacing for similar lengths of time. None of 

 these possible explanations -acoustic communica- 

 tion, common external cues, or residual phenomenon 

 - can be either proven or discounted at this time. 



Synchrony in Orientations 



Analysis of orientations provides additional 

 evidence that widely separated whales at times syn- 

 chronize their behavior during summer. Our best 

 data were from three flights in 1980 when we flew in 

 a straight line. At these times, we counted each in- 

 dividual only once. Rayleigh and x^ tests (Batschelet 

 1972) show that whale orientations were significant- 

 ly nonrandom (Table 4). 



For flights when we circled to make detailed 



behavioral observations, we analyzed orientations 

 using the first heading noted for each surfacing of a 

 whale. Because we were making repeated observa- 

 tions on the same animal in some cases, any consis- 

 tency in orientations during those flights is attrib- 

 utable in part to different whales, and in part to 

 subsequent surfacings of the same whale. In 1980 

 and 1981, the whales were oriented nonrandomly 

 during 7 of the 11 flights with enough data for 

 analysis (Table 4). The headings changed from day to 

 day, however, and bore no apparent relationship to 

 the general behavior of the whales. In 1982, no signi- 

 ficant departures from uniformity were found during 

 any of the five flights with sufficient data for 

 analysis. 



The headings on the latest day with observations 

 in 1980 and 1981 usually were not in the direction to 

 be expected at the beginning of the westward migra- 

 tion. On 31 August 1980, most bowheads observed 

 while we circled north of the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula 

 were oriented north, east, or south (mean 121 °T 

 (true). Table 4). However, later that day on a direct 

 flight, we found other bowheads to be oriented 

 toward the south (mean 189° T). In this same general 

 area, Renaud and Davis (footnote 9) also recorded a 

 slight eastward tendency for bowheads seen on 

 21-24 August 1980, but a significant southwestward 

 tendency (236 °T) on 3-4 September 1980. On 8 

 September 1981, most whales west of Herschel 

 Island were oriented toward the northeast (62 °T), 

 again not the direction to be expected at the begin- 

 ning of westward migration. These results support 

 our impression that most of the whales we observed 

 were not migrating. 



Table 4— Bowhead orientations, judged relative to true north from the air, 1980-81. Only during the direct flights was each 

 observation known to represent different animals. During the circling flights, each whale was scored an unknown number of 

 times (but only once per surfacing). 



'/ means cell sizes too small for a chl-square test. 



371 



