International Journal of Primatology

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 421–443 | Cite as

Weaving a tight social net: Allogrooming in free-ranging female langurs (Presbytis entellus)

  • Carola Borries
  • Volker Sommer
  • Arun Srivastava


We studied grooming among adults of a one-male multifemale troop of free-ranging Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus)living near Jodhpur, India, for 9 years. The 11–13 females devoted about 6% of their day to allogrooming. Adult males, whose tenures averaged 2.2 years, were transient figures in the troop's history, as reflected by their rather peripheral role in the grooming network. Females groomed males 4–40 times more frequently (1006 episodes) than vice versa- (176 episodes). Adult females received 97% of all grooming from other adult females (6655 episodes). Although females exhibited an age- inversed dominance hierarchy, they did not compete for grooming access to particular troop mates. Dyads of all possible rank differences occurred as frequently as expected: 51% of grooming was directed up the hierarchy and 49% down it. Young, high- ranking individuals gave and received significantly more grooming than the oldest, low- ranking females did. The pattern seemed to be influenced by kin selection because of the presumably high degree of female relatedness. They invested most in troopmates with the highest reproductive value, i.e., the youngest individuals. This trend was coupled with a preference of closest kin (mothers and daughters). Reciprocity was the outstanding feature since all adult females groomed and were groomed by all others. Such a tight social net might establish the necessary cohesion during frequent territorial disputes with neighboring troops.

Key words

Presbytis entellus allogrooming dominance reciprocity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods.Behaviour 49: 227–267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton, R. (1985). Grooming site preferences in primates and their functional implications.Int. J. Primatol. 6: 519–532.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, N. (1975).Social Behavior of Langur Monkeys (Presbytis entellus) in a High Altitude Environment, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  4. Boccia, M. L. (1983). A functional analysis of social grooming patterns through direct comparison with self-grooming in rhesus monkeys.Int. J. Primatol. 4: 399–418.Google Scholar
  5. Boccia, M. L., Rockwood, B., and Novack, M. (1982). The influence of behavioral context and social characteristics on the physical aspects of social grooming in rhesus monkeys.Int. J. PrimatoL 3: 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boggess, J. E. (1976).Social Behavior of the Himalayan Langur (Presbytis entellus) in Eastern Nepal, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  7. Borries, C. (1989).Konkurrenz unter freilebenden Langurenweibchen (Presbytis entellus), Ph.D. thesis, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen.Google Scholar
  8. Borries, C. (1992). Grooming site preferences in female langurs(Presbytis entellus).Int. J. PrimatoL 13: 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borries, C, Sommer, V., and Srivastava, A. (1991). Dominance, age, and reproductive success in free-ranging female Hanuman langurs.Int. J. PrimatoL 12: 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapais, B. (1983). Dominance, relatedness and the structure of female relationships in rhesus monkeys. In Hinde, R. (ed.),Primate Social Relationships, Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, pp. 208–219.Google Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1977). Activity patterns of red colobus(Colobus badius tephrosceles).Folia PrimatoL 21: 161–187.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, G. (1984).An Ecological Study of the Red Leaf Monkey (Presbytis rubicunda) in Dipterocarp Forests of North Borneo, Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. De Waal, F. B. M., and Luttrell, L. M. (1986). The similarity principle underlying social bonding among female rhesus monkeys.Folia PrimatoL 46: 215–234.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1991). Functional significance of social grooming in primates.Folia Primatol. 57: 121–131.Google Scholar
  15. Dunbar, R. I. M., and Dunbar, P. (1974). Ecological relations and niche separation between sympatric terrestrial primates in Ethiopia.Folia Primatol. 21: 36–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fairbanks, L. A. (1980). Relationships among females in captive vervet monkeys: Testing a model of rank-related attractiveness.Anim. Behav. 28: 853–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goosen, C. (1987). Social grooming in primates. In Mitchell, G., and Erwin, J. (eds.),Comparative Primate Biology, VoL 2, fart B: Behavior, Cognition and Motivation, Alan R. Liss, New York, pp. 107–131.Google Scholar
  18. Hrdy, S. B. (1977).The Langurs of Abu. Female and Male Strategies of Reproduction, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Hrdy, S. B., and Hrdy, D. B. (1976). Hierarchical relations among female Hanuman langurs (Primates: Colobinae,Presbytis entellus).Science 193: 913–915.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hutchins, M., and Barash, D. (1976). Grooming in primates: Implications for its utilitarian function.Primates 17: 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jay, P. C. (1963).The Social Behavior of the Langur Monkey, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. Jay, P. (1965). The common langur of north India. In De Vore, I. (ed.),Primate BehaviorField Studies on Monkeys and Apes, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 197–249.Google Scholar
  23. Krusko, N. A. (1990).Social Behavior, Reproduction, and Aging in Captive Female Langur Monkeys, Ph.D. thesis, Berkeley, University of California.Google Scholar
  24. Kurland, J. A. (1977). Kin selection in the Japanese monkey.Contrib. Primatol. Karger, Basel.Google Scholar
  25. Marsh, C. (1981). Time budgets of the Tana River red colobus.Folia Primatol. 35: 30–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. McKenna, J. J. (1975).An Analysis of the Social Roles and Behavior of Seventeen Captive Hanuman Langurs (Presbytis entellus), Ph.D. thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
  27. McKenna, J. J. (1977). Patterns and functions of grooming behavior among the common Indian langur monkey.Kroeber Anthropol. Soc. Papers 50: 3–12.Google Scholar
  28. McKenna, J. J. (1978). Biosocial functions of grooming behavior among the common Indian langur monkey(Presbytis entellus).Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 48: 503–510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McKey, D., and Waterman, P. G. (1982). Ranging behaviour of a group of black colobus(Colobus satanas) in the Douala-Edea Reserve, Cameroon.Folia Primatol. 39: 264–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mohnot, S. M. (1974).Ecology and Behaviour of the Common Indian Langur, Presbytis entellus, Dufrèsne, Ph.D. thesis, University of Jodhpur, Jodhpur.Google Scholar
  31. Moore, J. (1984). Age and grooming in langur male bands(Presbytis entellus). In Roonwaal, M. L., Mohnot, S. M., and Rathore, N. S. (eds.),Current Primate Researches, University of Jodhpur Press, Jodhpur, pp. 381–388.Google Scholar
  32. Poirier, F. E. (1970). The Nilgiri langur(Presbytis johnii) of south India. In Rosenblum, L. A. (ed.),Primate Behavior — Developments in Field and Laboratory Research, Academic Press, New York, pp. 254–383.Google Scholar
  33. Reichard, U. (1991).Zum Sozialverhalten einer Gruppe freilebender Weiβhandgibbons (Hylobates lar), M.Sc. thesis, University of Göttingen, Göttingen.Google Scholar
  34. Ripley, S. (1965).The Ecology and Social Behavior of the Ceylon Gray Langur, Presbytis entellus thersites, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  35. Ripley, S. (1967). Intertroop encounters among Ceylon gray langurs(Presbytis entellus). In Altmann, S. (ed.), Social Communication Among Primates, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 237–254.Google Scholar
  36. Rowell, T. E., Wilson, C, and Cords, M. (1991). Reciprocity and partner preference in grooming of blue monkeysInt. J. PrimatoL 12: 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sade, D. S. (1965). Some aspects of parent-offspring and sibling relations in a group of rhesus monkeys, with a discussion of grooming.Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 23: 1–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sade, D. S. (1972). Sociometrics ofMacaca mulatto. I. Linkages and cliques in grooming matrices.Folia PrimatoL 18: 196–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schino, G., Aureli, F., and Troisi, A. (1988). Equivalence between measures of allogrooming: An empirical comparison in three species of macaques.Folia PrimatoL 51: 214–219.Google Scholar
  40. Seyfarth, R. M. (1977). A model of social grooming among adult female monkeys.J. Theor. Biol. 65: 671–698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seyfarth, R. M. (1980). The distribution of grooming and related behavior among adult female vervet monkeys.Anim. Behav. 28: 798–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silk, J. B. (1982). Altruism among femaleMacaca radiata, explanations and analysis of patterns of grooming and coaltion formation.Behaviour 79: 162–188.Google Scholar
  43. Sommer, V. (1985).Weibliche und männliche Reproduktionsstrategien der Hanuman-Languren (Presbytis entellus)von Jodhpur, Rajasthan/Indien, Ph.D. thesis, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen.Google Scholar
  44. Sommer, V. (1987). Infanticide among free-ranging langurs(Presbytis entellus) at Jodhpur (Rajasthan/India): Recent observations and a reconsideration of hypotheses.Primates 28: 163–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sommer, V. (1994). Infanticide among the langurs of Jodhpur — testing the sexual selection hypothesis with a long-term record. In Parmigiani, S., and Vom Saal, F. (eds.),Infanticide and Paternal Care, Harwood Academic, London, pp. 155–193.Google Scholar
  46. Sommer, V., and Rajpurohit, L. S. (1989). Male reproductive success in harem troops of Hanuman langurs(Presbytis entellus).Int. J. Primatol. 10: 293–317.Google Scholar
  47. Sommer, V., Srivastava, A., and Borries, C. (1992). Cycles, sexuality, and conception in free-ranging langurs(Presbytis entellus).Am. J. PrimatoL 28: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sparks, J. (1967). Allogrooming in primates: A review. In Morris, D. (ed.),Primate Ethology, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, pp. 148–175.Google Scholar
  49. Srivastava, A. (1989).Feeding Ecology and Behaviour of Hanuman Langur, Presbytis entellus, Ph.D. thesis, University of Jodhpur, Jodhpur.Google Scholar
  50. Srivastava, A., Borries, C, and Sommer, V. (1991). Homosexual mounting in free-ranging female Hanuman langurs(Presbytis entellus).Arch. Sex. Behav. 20: 487–512.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stanford, C. (1989).Ecology and Behavior of Capped Langurs (Presbytis pileata) in Bangla Desh, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  52. Struhsaker, T. T., and Leland, L. (1979). Socioecology of five sympatric monkey species in the Kibale forest, Uganda.Adv. Study Behav. 9: 159–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sugiyama, Y. (1965). Behavioral development and social structure in two troops of Hanuman langurs(Presbytis entellus).Primates 6: 213–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sugiyama, Y. (1976). Characteristics of the ecology of the Himalayan langurs.J. Hum. EvoL 5: 249–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sugiyama, Y., Yoshiba, K., and Parthasarathy, M. D. (1965). Home range, mating season, male group and intertroop relations in Hanuman langurs(Presbytis entellus).Primates 6: 73–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Terry, R. L. (1970). Primate grooming as a tension reduction mechanism.J. PsychoL 76: 129–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Vogel, C. (1976).Ökologie, Lebensweise und Sozialverhalten der grauen Languren in verschiedenen Biotopen Indiens, Parey, Berlin.Google Scholar
  58. Vogel, C. (1988). Sociobiology of Hanuman langurs(Presbytis entellus): Introduction into the Jodhpur field project.Hum. EvoL 33: 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weber, I. (1973). Tactile communication among free-ranging langurs.Am. J. Phys. AnthropoL 38: 481–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winkler, P., Loch, H., and Vogel, C. (1984). Life history of Hanuman langurs(Presbytis entellus) — reproductive parameters, infant mortality, and troop development.Folia PrimatoL 43: 1–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carola Borries
    • 1
  • Volker Sommer
    • 1
  • Arun Srivastava
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für AnthropologieGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of JodhpurJodhpur, 342001, RajasthanIndia

Personalised recommendations