Primates

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 351–364 | Cite as

Nilgiri langur (Presbytis johnii) territorial behavior

  • Frank E. Poirier
Article

Abstract

During 1250 hours of observation 84 intertroop encounters were witnessed suggesting territorial behavior. Most of these involved an exchange by adult males of visual and/or vocal signals. Chasing was rare, and when it occurred, it seemed to be “ritual chasing.”

The amount of intertroop male intolerance was unexpected. Arboreal animals occupying upper story vegetation which provided an unobstructed view of the surroundings, could easily avoid contact. It is therefore interesting that males regularly sought other males to display against. Although encounters were frequent, the cost to the participants was minimal because physical contact and injury rarely occurred.

The exact function of Nilgiri langur territories is unclear. Presumably, territorial behavior regulated population dispersal, especially of adult males, and population numbers. Territorial behavior also protected core areas against incursions which indirectly prevented, or minimized, overfeeding and overcrowding.

Keywords

Adult Male Animal Ecology Regulate Population Core Area Physical Contact 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bernstein, I., in press. The lutong of Kuala Selangor.Google Scholar
  2. Bourlière, F., 1962.Natural History of Mammals. Alfred A. Knopf and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Burt, W. H., 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals.J. Mam., 24: 346–352.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, C. R., 1934. A field study of the behavior and social relations of the howling monkeys (Alouatta palliata).Comp. Psychol. Monogr., 10: 1–168.Google Scholar
  5. ——, 1940. A field study of the behavior and social relations of the gibbon (Hylobates lar).Comp. Psychol. Monogr., 15 (5): 1–212.Google Scholar
  6. ——, 1964.Naturalistic Behavior of Nonhuman Primates. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.Google Scholar
  7. Collias, N. E., 1951. Problems and principles of animal sociology. In:Comp. Psychol.,C. P. Stone (ed.): 388–422.Google Scholar
  8. Darling, F. F., 1952. Social life in ungulates.Structure et physiologie des societes animaux, 134: 221–226.Google Scholar
  9. Hall, K. R. L., 1960. Social vigilance behavior of the chacma baboon.Behav., 16: 261–294.Google Scholar
  10. ——, 1965. Behavior and ecology of the wild patas monkeys,Erythrocebus patas, in Uganda.J. Zool., 148: 15–87.Google Scholar
  11. Hediger, H., 1950.Wild Animals in Captivity. Butterworth's Scientific Publications, London.Google Scholar
  12. Hill, W. C. O., 1934. A monograph on the purple-face leaf-monkeys (Pithecus vetulus).Ceylon J. Sci., (b) Vol. XIX Pr. 1: 23–89.Google Scholar
  13. Howard, H. E., 1920.Territory in Bird Life. John Murray, London.Google Scholar
  14. Jay, P, 1965. The common langur of north India. In:Primate Behavior.,I. DeVore (ed.): 197–250.Google Scholar
  15. Kaufmann, J. H., 1962.Ecology and Social Behavior of the Coati, Nasua narica on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  16. Koford, C. B., 1957. The vicuna and the puna.Eco. Monogr., 27: 153–219.Google Scholar
  17. Mason, W. A., 1966. Social organization of the South American monkeyCallicebus moloch: A preliminary report.Tulane Studies in Zool., 13: 23–28.Google Scholar
  18. Nice, M. M., 1941. The role of territory in bird life.Am. Midland Nat., 26(3): 441–487.Google Scholar
  19. Pocock, R. I., 1928. The langurs or leaf-monkeys of British India.J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 32(1–2): 472–505.Google Scholar
  20. Poirier, F. E., 1968a.The Ecology and Social Behavior of the Nilgiri Langur (Presbytis johnii) of South India. University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  21. ——, 1968b. Analysis of a Nilgiri langur (Presbytis johnii) home range change.Primates, 9(1–2): 29–43.Google Scholar
  22. ——, 1969. The Nilgiri langur (Presbytis johnii) troop. Its composition, structure, function, and change.Folia primat., 10: 20–47.Google Scholar
  23. Ripley, S., 1967. Intertroop encounter among Ceylon langurs (Presbytis entellus). In:Social Communication among Primates,S. A. Altmann (ed.): 237–255.Google Scholar
  24. Southwick, C. F., 1962. Patterns of intergroup social behavior in primates with special reference to rhesus and howling monkeys. In:The Relatives of Man,J. Buettner-Janusch (ed.): 436–455.Google Scholar
  25. Sugiyama, Y., 1965a. Home range, mating season, the male group and intertroop relations in hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus).Primates, 6(1): 73–106.Google Scholar
  26. ——, 1965b. On the social change of hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) in their natural condition.Primates, 6(3–4): 381–418.Google Scholar
  27. --, 1967. Social organization of hanuman langurs. In:Social Communication among Primates,S. A. Altmann (ed.): 221–236.Google Scholar
  28. Tanaka, J., 1965. Social structure of Nilgiri langurs.Primates, 6(1): 107–122.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre 1968

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank E. Poirier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyOhio State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations