, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 301–307

Dominance style in female guerezas (Colobus guerezaRüppell 1835)

  • Thalia Grunau
  • Jutta Kuester


Socioecological models assume that quality and distribution of food ultimately determine female social relationships: a high quality diet and clumped food distribution should result in the establishment of a hierarchy with stable rank relations which is supported by empirical studies on frugivorous cercopithecines. By contrast, folivorous species with their low quality diet and dispersed food distribution should have egalitarian social relationships but empirical data are very rare. This study on female guerezas of a zoo group aimed to test the models in a colobine species and the results largely agreed with the predictions of the models: facial expressions, vocalizations, and gestures were not used for signalling dominance or subordination. Unritualized aggressions occurred frequently but were of low intensity, and interventions by third parties were never observed. Aggressions were exchanged bidirectionally and this was true also for food stealing and retreats. All this indicated the lack of established rank relations. Allogrooming was distributed rather equally and showed no kin bias. All these features characterize egalitarian social relationships and, hence, support the socioecological models.

Key Words

Colobus guereza Colobinae Female relations Dominance style Rank relations Egalitarian relationships 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Borries, C. 1993. Ecology of female social relationships: Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) and thevan Schaik Model.Folia Primatol., 61: 21–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Borries, C.;Sommer, V.;Srivastava, A. 1991. Dominance, age, and reproductive success in free-ranging Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus).Int. J. Primatol., 12: 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borries, C.;Sommer, V.;Srivastava, A. 1994. Weaving a tight social net: allogrooming in free-ranging female langurs (Presbytis entellus).Int. J. Primatol., 15: 421–443.Google Scholar
  4. de Waal, F. B. M. 1986. The integration of dominance and social bonding in primates.Quart. Rev. Biol., 61: 459–479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Waal, F. B. M. 1989. Dominance ‘style’ and primate social organisation. In:Comparative Socioecology,Standen,V.;Foley,R. A. (eds.), Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 243–264.Google Scholar
  6. de Waal, F. B. M.;Luttrell, L. M. 1989. Toward a comparative socioecology of the genusMacaca: different dominance styles in rhesus and stumptail monkeys.Amer. J. Primatol., 19: 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunbar, R. I. M. 1988.Primate Social Systems. Cornell Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Dunbar, R. I. M. 1991. Functional significance of social grooming in primates.Folia Primatol., 57: 121–131.Google Scholar
  9. Dunbar, R. I. M.;Dunbar, E. P. 1974. Ecology and population dynamics ofColobus guereza in Ethiopia.Folia Primatol., 221: 188–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grunau, T. 1999. Untersuchungen zum Dominanzstil weiblicher Guerezas (Colobus guereza Rüppel 1835). Diploma thesis, Univ. of Bochum, Bochum.Google Scholar
  11. Isbell, L. A. 1991. Contest and scramble competition: patterns of female aggression and ranging behavior among primates.Behav. Ecol., 2: 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koenig, A.;Beise, J.;Chalise, M. K.;Ganzhorn, J. U. 1998. When females should contest for food: testing hypotheses about resource density, distribution, size and quality with Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 42: 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lehner, P. N. 1996.Handbook of Ethological Methods (2nd ed.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Marler, P. 1969.Colobus guereza: territoriality and group composition.Science, 163: 93–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Nicholson, A. J. 1954. An outline of the dynamics of animal populations.Austral. J. Zool., 2: 9–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oates, J. F. 1977. The social life of a black-and-white colobus monkey (Colobus guereza).Z. Tierpsychol., 45: 1–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Seyfarth, R. M. 1977. A model of social grooming among adult female monkeys.J. Theor. Biol., 65: 671–698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sommer, V. 1985. Weibliche und männliche Reproduktionsstrategien der Hanuman-Languren (Presbytis entellus) von Jodhpur, Rajastan/Indien. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Göttingen, Göttingen.Google Scholar
  19. Sterck, E. H. M.;Watts, D. P.;van Schaik, C. P. 1997. The evolution of female social relationships in nonhuman primates.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 41: 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M.;van Schaik, C. P. 1992. Cooperation in competition: the ecology of primate bonds. In:Coalitions and Alliances in Humans and Other Animals,Harcourt,A. H.;de Waal,F. B. M. (eds.), Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, pp. 357–389.Google Scholar
  21. van Schaik, C. P. 1983. Why are diurnal primates living in groups?Behaviour, 85: 129–143.Google Scholar
  22. van Schaik, C. P. 1989. The ecology of social relationships amongst female primates. In:Comparative Socioecology,Standen,V.;Foley,R. A. (eds.), Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 195–218.Google Scholar
  23. Wrangham, R. W. 1980. An ecological model of female-bonded primate groups.Behaviour, 75: 262–299.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thalia Grunau
    • 1
  • Jutta Kuester
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Zoologie and NeurobiologieRuhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Zoologie and NeurobiologieRuhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany
  3. 3.Max Planck Institut fuer Biophysikalische ChemieAbteilung NeurobiologieGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations