Primates

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 417–433

Mating patterns, mate choice, and birth season heterosexual relationships in free-ranging rhesus macaques

  • Joseph H. Manson
Article

Abstract

Birth season adult heterosexual nonkin relationships of 50 free-ranging female rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) in two social groups at Cayo Santiago, Puerto Rico were examined using focal follow (289 hr) and ad lib data. Eighty-eight percent of subjects had at least one relationship characterized by particularly high frequencies of spatial proximity, grooming, or both. These were designated “friendships.” Males intervened in aggressive interactions more frequently on behalf of Friends than non-Friends. Female aggressive support of males was extremely rare. Higher-ranking males experienced more friendships than lower-ranking males. High-ranking females had higher-ranking Friends than low-ranking females. Older females had higher-ranking Friends than younger females. Females groomed high-ranking Friends more than they were groomed by them, whereas they groomed low-ranking Friends less than they were groomed by them. In one social group, high-ranking females were more likely than low-ranking females to groom their Friends more than they were groomed by them. Males were more responsible than females for spatial proximity maintenance in 9 of 14 Friend dyads for which sufficient data were available. Neither male nor female dominance rank affected responsibility for proximity maintenance in Friend dyads.

Eight of 24 females had friendships with males with whom they had completed copulations during their conception peri-ovulatory period of the preceding mating season. Two of 19 females completed peri-ovulatory copulations with Friends during the following mating season. Friendship was not correlated with either of two demonstrated female mate choice indicators: (1) proximity maintenance during estrus; or (2) cooperation with male “hip-grasp” courtship attempts. Males directed “muzzle-up” courtship signals at lower rates toward Friends than toward non-Friends.

These and other investigators' results indicate that (1) protection from aggression is the primary benefit to female rhesus macaques of birth season heterosexual relationships; (2) the most effective protectors are in greatest demand as Friends; and (3) friendship has no effect or an inhibitory effect on mate choice in this species. Benefits to males of friendships were not apparent from this study but may include coalitional support against lower-ranking males.

Key Words

Macaca mulatta Heterosexual relationships Mate choice Cayo Santiago 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann, J., 1974. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods.Behaviour, 49: 227–265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmann, S. A., 1962. A field study of the sociobiology of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta).Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 102: 338–435.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Axelrod, R. &W. D. Hamilton, 1981. The evolution of cooperation.Science, 211: 1390–1396.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berard, J. D., 1990. Life history patterns of male rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago. Ph.D. thesis diss., Univ. of Oregon, Oregon.Google Scholar
  5. ————,P. Nürnberg, J. T. Epplen, &J. Schmidtke, 1993. Male rank, reproductive behavior, and reproductive success in free-ranging rhesus macaques.Primates, 34: 481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bercovitch, F. B., 1986. Male rank and reproductive activity in savanna baboons.Int. J. Primatol., 4: 201–235.Google Scholar
  7. Bernstein, I. S., 1976. Dominance, aggression and reproduction in primate societies.J. Theor. Biol., 60: 459–472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowlby, J., 1969.Attachment and Loss. Hogarth Press, London.Google Scholar
  9. Catchpole, H. R. &G. van Wagenen, 1978. Reproduction in rhesus monkeys,Macaca mulatta. In:The Rhesus Monkey,G. H. Bourne (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 118–139.Google Scholar
  10. Chapais, B., 1983a. Structure of the birth season relationship among adult male and female rhesus monkeys. In:Primate Social Relationships,R. A. Hinde (ed.), Blackwell Scientific Publ., Oxford, pp. 200–208.Google Scholar
  11. ————, 1983b. Reproductive activity in relation to male dominance and the likelihood of ovulation in rhesus monkeys.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 12: 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ————, 1986. Why do adult male and female rhesus monkeys affiliate during the birth season? In:The Cayo Santiago Macaques,R. G. Rawlins &M. J. Kessler (eds.), SUNY Press, Albany, New York, pp. 173–200.Google Scholar
  13. Dunbar, R. I. M., 1988.Primate Social Systems. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Gordon, T. P., 1981. Reproductive behavior in the rhesus monkey: social and endocrine variables.Amer. Zoologist, 21: 185–195.Google Scholar
  15. Gouzoules, S. &H. Gouzoules, 1987. Kinship. In:Primate Societies,B. B. Smuts,D. L. Cheney,R. M. Seyfarth,R. W. Wrangham, &T. T. Struhsaker (eds.), Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 299–305.Google Scholar
  16. Halliday, T. R., 1983. The study of mate choice. In:Mate Choice,P. Bateson (ed.), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
  17. Hill, D. A., 1987. Social relationships between adult male and female rhesus macaques: I. sexual consortships.Primates, 28: 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ————, 1990. Social relationships between adult male and female rhesus macaques: II. non-sexual affiliative behaviour.Primates, 31: 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hinde, R. A. &S. Atkinson, 1970. Assessing the roles of social partners in maintaining mutual proximity as exemplified by mother-infant relations in rhesus monkeys.Anim. Behav., 18: 169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huffman, M. A., 1991a. Mate selection and partner preferences in female Japanese macaques. In:The Monkeys of Arashiyama: Thirty-five Years of Research in Japan and the West,L. M. Fedigan &P. J. Asquith (eds.), SUNY Press, New York, pp. 101–121.Google Scholar
  21. ————, 1991b. History of the Arashiyama Japanese macaques in Kyoto, Japan. In:The Monkeys of Arashiyama: Thirty-five Years of Research in Japan and the West,L. M. Fedigan &P. J. Asquith (eds.), SUNY Press, New York, pp. 21–53.Google Scholar
  22. ————, 1992. Influences of female partner preferences on potential reproductive outcome in Japanese macaques.Folia Primatol., 59: 77–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahan, J. P. &A. Rapoport, 1984.Theories of Coalition Formation. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  24. Kaufmann, J. H., 1967. Social relationships of adult males in a free-ranging band of rhesus monkeys. In:Social Communication Among Primates,S. A. Altmann (ed.), Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 73–98.Google Scholar
  25. Maghsoodloo, S., 1975. Estimates of the quantiles of Kendall's partial rank correlation coefficient.J. Stat. Comp. Simul., 4: 155–164.Google Scholar
  26. ———— &L. Laszlo Pallos, 1981. Asymtotic behavior of Kendall's partial rank correlation coefficient and additional quantile estimates.J. Stat. Comp. Simul., 13: 41–48.Google Scholar
  27. Malik, I., P. K. Seth, &C. H. Southwick, 1984. Population growth of free-ranging rhesus monkeys at Tughlaqabad.Amer. J. Primatol., 7: 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manson, J. H., 1992. Measuring female mate choice in Cayo Santiago rhesus macaques.Anim. Behav., 44: 405–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ————, 1993. Sons of low-ranking female rhesus macaques can attain high dominance rank in their natal groups.Primates, 34: 285–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ———— &S. E. Perry, 1993. Inbreeding avoidance in rhesus macaques: whose choice?Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 90: 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin, R. D., A. F. Dixson, &E. J. Wickings (eds.), 1992.Paternity in Primates: Genetic Tests and Theories. Karger, Basel.Google Scholar
  32. Maynard Smith, J., 1982.Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  33. Melnick, D. J., M. C. Pearl, &A. F. Richard, 1984. Male migration and inbreeding avoidance in wild rhesus monkeys.Amer. J. Primatol., 7: 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Noë, R., 1990. A veto game played by baboons: a challenge to the use of the Prisoner's Dilemma as a paradigm for reciprocity and cooperation.Anim. Behav., 39: 78–90.Google Scholar
  35. Orians, G. H., 1969. On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals.Amer. Naturalist, 103: 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ransom, T. W. &B. S. Ransom, 1971. Adult male-infant relationships among baboons (Papio anubis).Folia Primatol., 16: 179–195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rawlins, R. G. &M. J. Kessler, 1986. The history of the Cayo Santiago colony. In:The Cayo Santiago Macaques,R. G. Rawlins &M. J. Kessler (eds.), SUNY Press, Albany, pp. 13–45.Google Scholar
  38. Sade, D. S., 1967. Determinants of dominance in a group of free-ranging rhesus monkeys. In:Social Communication Among Primates,S. A. Altmann (ed.), Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 99–114.Google Scholar
  39. ————,B. D. Chepko-Sade, J. M. Schneider, S. S. Roberts, &J. T. Richtsmeier, 1985.Basic Demographic Observations on Free-ranging Rhesus Monkeys, HRAF Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  40. Small, M. F., 1993.Female Choices: Sexual Behavior of Female Primates. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, D. G., 1981. The association between rank and reproductive success of male rhesus monkeys.Amer. J. Primatol., 1: 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smuts, B. B., 1985.Sex and Friendship in Baboons. Aldine, Hawthorne, New York.Google Scholar
  43. ———— &R. W. Smuts, 1992. Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: evidence and theoretical implications. In:Advances in the Study of Behavior, Vol. 22,P. J. B. Slater,J. S. Rosenblatt,M. Milinski,C. T. Snowdon (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–63.Google Scholar
  44. Stolte, L. A. M., 1978. Pregnancy in the rhesus monkey. In:The Rhesus Monkey,G. H. Bourne (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 171–230.Google Scholar
  45. Strum, S., 1982. Agonistic dominance in baboons: an alternative view.Int. J. Primatol., 3: 175–202.Google Scholar
  46. Takahata, Y., 1982a. Social relations between adult males and females of Japanese monkeys in the Arashiyama B troop.Primates, 23: 1–23.Google Scholar
  47. ————, 1982b. The socio-sexual behavior of Japanese monkeys.Z. Tierpsychol., 59: 89–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Trivers, R. L., 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism.Ouart. Rev. Biol., 46: 35–57.Google Scholar
  49. Vessey, S. H. &D. B. Meikle, 1987. Factors affecting social behavior and reproductive success of male rhesus monkeys.Int. J. Primatol., 8: 281–292.Google Scholar
  50. Walters, J. R. &R. M. Seyfarth, 1987. Conflict and cooperation. In:Primate Societies,B. B. Smuts,D. L. Cheney,R. M. Seyfarth,R. W. Wrangham, &T. T. Struhsaker (eds.), Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 306–317.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph H. Manson
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of MichiganUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesU. S. A.

Personalised recommendations