Primates

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 28–35

Infant-use by male gelada in agonistic contexts: Agonistic buffering, progeny protection or soliciting support?

  • R. I. M. Dunbar
Article

Abstract

Two alternative theories have been proposed to explain why some male primates carry infants during agonistic encounters with other males. The first (agonistic buffering) suggests that males carry the infants of higher ranking opponents in order to defuse the latter's aggression; the second (progeny protection) suggests that males carry their own infants as a warning to opponents that they will be prepared to fight vigorously in order to protect their offspring from injury. Evidence is presented to show that both occur in gelada baboons under different circumstances and that, in addition, infant-use may in at least some cases involve indirect solicitation of support from a third party (normally the infant's mother).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Busse, C. &W. J. Hamilton, 1981. Infant carrying by male chacma baboons.Science, 212: 1281–1283.Google Scholar
  2. Crook, J. H., 1966. Gelada baboon herd structure and movement: a comparative report.Symp. Zool. Soc., London, 18: 237–258.Google Scholar
  3. Deag, J. M. &J. H. Crook, 1971. Social behaviour and “agonistic buffering” in the wild Barbary macaque.Folia Primatol., 15: 183–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunbar, R. I. M., 1983. Structure of gelada baboon reproductive units. III. The male's relationship with his females.Anim. Behav., 31: 565–575.Google Scholar
  5. ————, 1984.Reproductive Decisions: An Economic Analysis of Gelada Baboon Social Strategies. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  6. ———— &P. Dunbar, 1975.Social Dynamics of Gelada Baboons. S. Karger, Basel.Google Scholar
  7. Hrdy, S. B., 1979. Infanticide among mammals: a review classification and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females.Ethol. Sociobiol., 1: 13–40.Google Scholar
  8. Itani, J., 1959. Paternal care in the wild Japanese monkey,Macaca fuscata fuscata.Primates, 2: 61–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kawai, M. (ed.), 1979.Ecological and Sociological Studies of Gelada Baboons. Kodansha, Tokyo & S. Karger, Basel.Google Scholar
  10. Kummer, H., 1967. Tripartite relations in hamadryas baboons. In:Social Communication Among Primates,S. A. Altmann (ed.), Chicago Univ. Press, Chicago, pp. 63–72.Google Scholar
  11. Mori, U., 1979. Individual relationships within a unit. In:Ecological and Sociological Studies of Gelada Baboons,M. Kawai (ed.), Kodansha, Tokyo & S. Karger, Basel, pp. 93–124.Google Scholar
  12. Packer, C., 1980. Male care and exploitation of infants inPapio anubis.Anim. Behav., 28: 512–520.Google Scholar
  13. Ransom, T. W. &B. S. Ransom, 1971. Adult-male-infant relations among baboons (Papio anubis).Folia Primatol., 16: 179–195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Struhsaker, T. T., 1977. Infanticide and social organization in the redtail monkey (Cercopithecus ascanius schmidti) in the Kibale Forest, Uganda.Z. Tierpsychol., 45: 75–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. I. M. Dunbar
    • 1
  1. 1.Sub-department of Animal BehaviourUniversity of CambridgeMadingley, CambridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations