Distinctive cues are predicted to evolve when the benefits obtained by the recognition process overcome its costs. When individual recognition is particularly beneficial for both senders and receivers, the expression of strongly distinctive signals is predicted to evolve. On the other hand, it could be predicted that each individual should show a very stable individual signature. In the same perspective, a great stability of the individual signatures could be expected. Lemur catta is the first non-human primate in which olfactory individual recognition has been demonstrated on the basis of the specialized brachial gland secretions. In this paper, I performed gas chromatograph analyses of right and left gland samples collected in two different periods (breeding and non-breeding seasons) from seven males. The aim was to verify if a diversification in such cues, already demonstrated at the inter-individual level, also occurs at the intra-individual level between left and right glands. I verified, by discriminant analysis and chemical distance comparisons, that each gland of each lemur has its particular signature that is maintained through time. Moreover, such diversification resulted so marked to make the overall intra-individual chemical differences similar to/as strong as the inter-individual ones. Since in rodents several odors from different glands may be integrated in individual recognition, I suggest that bilateral diversification in L. catta scents may offer an enhanced distinctiveness that could provide benefits in mate choice and social relationships.
Lemur cattaAsymmetry Chemical signatures Individual recognition Gas chromatography
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Thanks are due to people in Museo di Storia Naturale dell'Università di Pisa, Giardino Zoologico Città di Pistoia and Parco Zoo Punta Verde and Centro Interdipartimentale di Spettrometria di Massa dell'Università di Firenze for facilitating this work. Marta Biaggini and three anonymous referees for their useful comments. All experiments are conformed to the Italian law.
Gardner A, West SA (2007) Social evolution: the decline and fall of genetic kin recognition. Curr Biol 17:r810–r812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst JL, Beynon RJ (2004) Scent wars: the chemobiology of competitive signaling in mice. Bioessays 26:1288–1298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolly A, Pride RE (1999) Troop histories and range inertia of Lemur catta at Berenty, Madagascar: a 33-year perspective. Int J Primatol 20:359–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp LA, Robson J, Waterhouse JS (2006) Olfactory signals and the MHC: a review and a case study in Lemur catta. Am J Primatol 68:568–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateo JM (2006) The nature and representation of individual recognition cues in Belding's ground squirrels. Anim Behav 71:141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palagi E, Paoli T, Borgognini Tarli S (2005) Aggression and reconciliation in two captive groups of Lemur catta. Int J Primatol 26:279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palagi E, Dapporto L (2006) Beyond odour discrimination: demonstrating individual recognition by scent in Lemur catta. Chem Senses 31:437–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palagi E, Dapporto L (2007) Females do it better. individual recognition experiments reveal sexual dimorphism in Lemur catta (Linnaeus, 1758) olfactory motivation and territorial defence. J Exp Biol 210:2700–2705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira ME, Weiss ML (1991) Female mate choice, male migration, and the threat of infanticide in ringtailed lemurs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scordato ES, Drea CM (2007) Scents and sensibility: information content of olfactory signals in the ringtailed lemur, Lemur catta. Anim Behav 73:301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scordato ES, Dubai G, Drea CM (2007) Chemical composition of scent marks in the ringtailed lemur (Lemur catta): glandular differences, seasonal variation, and individual signatures. Chem Senses 32:493–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thom MD, Hurst JL (2004) Individual recognition by scent. Ann Zool Fennici 41:765–787Google Scholar