Primatology.net

Infanticide and cannibalism are two extreme behaviors seen in primates. Though extreme, the persistence of these behaviors in primates suggest that they are adapted for and had evolved to serve different purposes. Infanticide and cannibalism can be considered as both reproductive and survival strategies. Infanticide has always been associated with males killing off the progeny of former dominant males to make females more sexually receptive and to shorten the birth interval. Cannibalism, on the other hand, is not as sinister as it has always portrayed to be but just a coping mechanism. Ingestion of body parts, usually own offspring, is a response to cope with food scarcity. Lack of food resources would inevitably result in the death of the offspring thus cannibalization returns the caloric investment back into the mother. A new paper by Culot et al. (2011) has documented a case of infanticide and cannibalism in a wild female moustached tamarin (Saguinus mystax).

Moustached Tamarin (S. mystax) from The Bronx Zoo, New York City. Photo from Wikipedia.

S. mystax belong to the Callitrichid family, and like all Callitrichids has an interesting reproductive strategy unlike those of other primate families. Callitrichids form multimale-multifemale group and has a polyandrous (one female, multiple male) mating system. Callitrichids are the only primate family that consistently give birth to twins. The gestation period for S. mystax is 6 months. Usually, only one dominant female is reproductively active and shares offspring rearing responsibilities with multiple males in the group. However, an unstable dominance hierarchy among females might lead to multiple births within the group and will compromise the survivability of both the group and the offspring from stress, less parental investment and lack of food resources.

The researchers were studying how help from male moustached tamarins in the same group and the absence of female competition ensure the survival of offspring when they observed a female cannibalizing an infant. Necropsy and genetic analyses were used to rule out diseases and to determine paternity. They found that the infant has no diseases and did not die from trauma (falling from tree). Instead, it was a healthy infant and was being cannibalized by its own mother.

The mother was seen biting and then eating the head of its own infant during a period when another female was pregnant and gave birth just 1 month later. Before that, the perpetrator had given birth to twins three times successfully when four to five adult and subadult males were present in the group. Although we do not know for certain that the infant was alive when the mother started biting it, our field observations preceding the event suggest it probably was. The possible infanticide case and the two cases of births and early death of the infants occurred while only two to three adult males were present in the group. This could be the second case of maternal infanticide reported in the genus Saguinus and the similar circumstances suggest a common pattern. Culot et al. (2011).

Five common hypotheses proposed by Hrdy (1979) were used by the authors to try to explain maternal infanticide and cannibalism in this scenario. These hypotheses are resource competition, sexual selection, social pathology, exploitation, and parental manipulation.

The resource competition and sexual selection hypotheses were rejected because it was maternal infanticide, and not infanticide from another female. The social pathology hypothesis was rejected because it predicts infanticide restricted in areas that are disturbed by humans. The study group was habituated and had many successful births, therefore social pathology was ruled out. The exploitation hypothesis was also reject because the mother did not kill her infant to exploit its meat. Observation shows that the mother only consumed the brain and parts of the infant’s neck.

The parental manipulation hypothesis was accepted because the authors think that it best explains the scenario. The offspring was not pathological nor did it fell from the tree. Instead, it was a healthy infant that was killed by its own mother. According to Hrdy (1979), victim of parental manipulation does not necessarily have to be defective but also born “at the wrong place in the wrong time”.

The authors concluded that parental manipulation is the best explanation for this possible maternal infanticide scenario. Parental manipulation strategy can happen in a group with poor capacity to raise the offspring from multiple breeding females, birth intervals that are shorter than 3 months, and low infant survival probability due to physical injuries or weakness.

References:

Do you know that fossil primates once roam North America? I didn’t know either so this discovery was a shock and a “d’oh” moment at the same time.

Lingual view (side that touches the tongue) of Mescalerolemur horneri partial mandible.
Scale bar equals 2 mm. Photo from Kirk & Williams (2011).

Anywho … A fossil primate from the Eocene Epoch was discovered in Devil’s Graveyard badlands of West Texas by Anthropologists Christopher Kirk and Blythe Williams. Named Mescalerolemur horneri, this new fossil primate lived about 43 million years ago is a member of the extinct group, adapiforms, that are found all over the Northern Hemisphere. Mescalerolemur looked like a modern-day greater dwarf lemur and weighs about 370 grams.

Interestingly enough, Mescalerolemur are more closely related to Eurasian and African adapiforms than those from North America. Darwinius masillae, famously known as Aunt Ida, was a Eurasian adapiform. Another interesting fact to point out is that Mescalerolemur had unfused mandibular symphysis, similar to those of Strepsirrhines (lemurs, lorises and galagos). The authors posit that this is definitive evidence that adapiforms are more similar to Strepsirrhines than Haplorrhines (humans are Haplorrhines). Kirk &Williams (2011) published their findings on Journal of Evolution: New adapiform primate of Old World affinities from the Devil’s Graveyard Formation of Texas (PDF). You can also read more about the discovery at EurekAlert: Anthropologist discovers new fossil primate species in West Texas.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

Last week, I blogged about the semantics of alarm calls in vervet monkeys. This post will focus solely on the ingenious experiment by Robert Seyfarth, Dorothy Cheney and Peter Marler (1980) to test whether vervet monkey alarm calls convey information or if these calls were just an uncontrollable auditory response to predators. Their question was simple; would vervet monkey alarm calls alone elicit different responses?

A vervet monkey. Photo from Wikipedia.

Here’s what the researchers did in the field. They used playbacks of recorded vervet monkey (subjects) alarm calls from concealed speakers. Equal amount of alarm calls for leopard, eagle and snake were used. These alarm calls were recorded from known adult male, adult female and juvenile vervet monkeys in the field. Trials were done when subjects were on the ground and also when they were in the trees. These trials were conducted in the absence of predators to eliminate visual cues from the caller.

Alarm calls were broadcasted in different amplitudes to mimic natural alarm calls. In succession from loudest to lowest amplitudes are alarm calls for leopard, eagle and snake. Subsequently, leopard calls have the lowest pitch while snake calls have the highest pitch. To control for the possible effects of amplitude, the researchers broadcasted alarm calls that do not differ significantly in the amplitudes for all three predators.

Table from Seyfarth et al. (1980). Click on illustration for its original size

The alarm call playbacks showed two types of responses. First, subjects of any sex and age looked at the direction of the speaker and spent more time scanning their environment once an alarm call was made for more than 10 seconds. The researchers believe that they might be scanning for additional cues from the “caller” and the subject’s surrounding.

Second, each alarm calls seem to elicit a distinct response from the subjects. Remember the trials were done when the subjects were on the ground and on the trees? When subjects were on ground, leopard calls were more likely to make them run up into the trees and eagle calls made them look up and run into cover (bushes) Snake calls made them look down. When subjects were on the trees, leopard calls were more likely to make them run higher in trees and to look down. Eagle calls made them look up and sometimes run out of trees. Snake calls made them look down.

From the results, Seyfarth et al. (1980) posit that vervet monkey alarm calls alone do elicit different responses. It’s hard to tease out whether these alarm calls symbolize the predator ”leopard” or a command ”run up tree”. However, we can postulate that these alarm calls are rudimentary semantic signals used to warn other conspecific of impending danger. For those that are not familiar with semantics, it refers to the meaning of a symbol, sign, word or phrase. In this case, vervet monkey alarm calls are semantic signals because it conveys a specific meaning.

Reference:

Seyfarth, RM. Cheney, DL. Marler, P. 1980. Monkey responses to Three Different Alarm Calls: Evidence of Predator Classification and Semantic Communication. Science 210(4471): 801-803.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

Anti-predatory alarm calls are important  for social animals to alert others of approaching predators. Without the presence of “language”, some non-human primates are known to give out different predator-specific alarm calls to alert conspecific. These non-human primates include ring-tailed lemurs (Zuberbühler et al., 1999), white-faced capuchin monkeys (Fichtel et al., 2005), Diana monkeys (Zuberbühler, 1999), Campbell’s monkeys (Ouattara et al., 2009) and vervet monkeys (Seyfarth et al., 1980).

Alarm calls are typically high frequency sounds because these calls are hard to localized by predators. On the other hand, low frequency sounds are easier to localized by predators. Calls that are hard to localized by predators are selected for because conspecific can pick up on the warning but predators cannot identify the location of the caller. If an individual successfully alert its social group of approaching predator yet does not reveal its location, it will significantly decrease the chance of the caller to be detected and increase the chance of its social group to avoid predation.

Here, I will focus on the study of predatory alarm calls in vervet monkey (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) by Seyfarth et al. (1980) in the Amboseli National Park, Kenya. Vervet monkeys are Old World monkeys that range between Eastern and Southern Africa. These monkeys are diurnal and live in closely-knit social groups. They are quadrupedal and are both terrestrial and arboreal. Like all Old World monkeys, vervet monkeys have the characteristic cheek pouches that enables them to forage and store food to be eaten later. Male vervet monkeys have blue scrotal area and a red penis. Males and females are sexually dimorphic, with males slightly larger than females.

Vervet monkeys are known to elicit predator-specific alarm calls. Three well-documented vervet monkey alarm calls are those for leopard, martial eagle and python. Leopard alarm calls are short tonal calls produced in a series of inhalations and exhalations. Eagle alarm calls are low pitched grunt while python alarm calls are high pitched “chutters”. Different alarm calls seem to evoke different responses to individuals that heard the alarm calls. However, the first reaction of a vervet monkey upon hearing an alarm call is to look at the direction of the caller. Looking at the direction of the caller gives them clues as to why the alarm calls were made and also where the caller is facing reveals the direction of the approaching predator. You can listen to these different alarm calls on this site.

As we said before, different alarm calls evoke different responses. Leopard alarm calls would make the monkeys run up into the tree to avoid being ambushed by the leopard. Also, these monkeys would sit on the branches further away from the tree because, even though leopards can climb trees, the branches could not support the leopard’s weight. When an eagle alarm call is given, vervet monkeys would make them look up, run for the nearest bush or both to avoid an approaching aerial attack. Python alarm calls would the monkeys stand bipedally and look down on the ground.

Adult vervet monkeys are more discriminatory when eliciting alarm calls. Infants and juveniles calls however, are less discriminating as they attribute most terrestrial mammals with leopard calls, flying birds with eagle calls and stick-like figures with snake calls (although, compared to infants, juveniles are more discriminant when making alarm calls). In spite of that, adult vervet monkeys seem to elicit eagle alarm calls to different species of raptors and non-raptors (see illustration below). We can infer that adult vervet monkeys attribute eagle alarm calls to birds with the same silhouette as martial eagles. As vervet monkeys get older, they seem to have a better association between predator species and types of alarm calls. Vervet monkeys generally pay more attention to adult alarm calls than those of juveniles or infants.

The study of vervet monkey alarm calls by Seyfarth et al. (1980) laid an important ground work to better understand the complexity of animal communications. By showing that vervet monkeys make different alarm calls to different predatory species, we can posit that vervet monkeys have the ability to categorize different species. The ability to discriminate between terrestrial mammal, flying birds and snake-like objects starts during infancy in vervet monkeys. As they get older, they are better at associating predators with specific alarm calls.

The ability to over generalize during infancy is evident in both vervet monkeys and humans. For example, upon learning the word “dog”, human infants would refer to quadruped mammals they see as “dog”. As the infant grows, so does the ability to associate the semantic meaning of words they learned. However, the acquisition of alarm calls in vervet monkeys is different than the acquisition of speech (language) in humans. Alarm calls in vervet monkeys are instinctual and not learned. Humans, however, have to learn their language. Failing to do so during the “critical period” generally will result in the inability to learn language in later years. Feral child are examples of human infants that lack linguistic input during their critical period of language acquisition.

Most of us interpret animal alarm calls as an uncontrollable auditory response to fear or pain, akin to humans yelping if we had our finger caught in a door. While this is not entirely false, some animal calls actually convey information from the caller to the listener. Seyfarth et al. (1980) posit that vervet monkey alarm calls are actually basic semantic signals or symbolic signals because each alarm calls seem to mean something to these vervet monkeys. While we don’t know if these alarm calls actually mean “leopard” or “run up to the tree”, we do know that it conveys specific information to their conspecific about approaching predators.

I will be blogging Part II of this post later this week, where I will explain in details the experiments done by Seyfarth and Cheney on vervet monkey alarm calls.

References:
Cawthon Lang KA. 2006 January 3. Primate Factsheets: Vervet (Chlorocebus) Taxonomy, Morphology, & Ecology. http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/vervet. Accessed 2011 March 9.

Fichtel, C. Perry, S. Gros-Louis, J. 2005. Alarm calls of white-faced capuchin monkeys: an acoustic analysis. Animal Behaviour 70(1): 165-176. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.09.020.

Gould, JL. Gould, CG. 1999. The Animal Mind. Scientific American Library.

Ouattara, K. Lemasson, A. Zuberbühler, K. 2009. Campbell’s Monkeys Use Affixation to Alter Call Meaning. PLoS ONE 4(11). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007808.

Seyfarth, RM. Cheney, DL. Marler, P. 1980. Monkey responses to Three Different Alarm Calls: Evidence of Predator Classification and Semantic Communication. Science 210(4471): 801-803.

Zuberbühler, K. Jenny, D. Bshary, R. 1999. The Predator Deterrence Function of Primate Alarm Calls. Ethology 105: 477–490. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.1999.00396.x.

Zuberbuhler, K. 2000. Referential labelling in Diana monkeys. Animal Behaviour 59(5): 917-927. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1317.

By Raymond Ho

The genus Nomascus are one of the four genus that occurs in the Hylobatid family. Males have erect crown hair thus giving this genus its common name, crested gibbons. Crested gibbons are sexually dichromatic; males and females of the same species have different fur coloring and markings.The males tend to have black fur while females have orange to yellow fur. All species of Nomascus are either endangered or critically endangered. Like all gibbons, their trademark is their species-specific songs that they sing to communicate to each other. These songs, unlike those from song birds, are instinctual and are not learned (Thinh et al., 2011). Gibbons are the only monogamous ape.

A new study, published this month on BMC Evolutionary Biology by Thinh et al. (2011) found that crested gibbons have species-specific song that can be used to differentiate the Nomascus species and also predict the phylogenetic relatedness of this genus. In this study, 6 Nomascus species were used as analysis: N. nasutus, N. concolor, N. leucogenys, N. siki, N. annamensis and N. gabriellae. The researchers used 92 out of 175 song recordings for acoustic analysis, analyzing 440 great calls (duets between males and females) and 447 male calls from 92 gibbon groups at 24 locations to confirm the relationship between song structure and phylogeny in Nomascus.

Video of Cao Vit gibbons (N. nasutus) singing. Notice the sexual dichromatism that occurs in males and females.

The researchers were able to tell the 6 Nomascus species apart by just listening to their song acoustics, albeit some with greater difficulties than others. N. nasutus and N. concolor could clearly be identified from their song acoustics. N. leucogenys, N. siki, N. annamensis and N. gabriellae on the other hand, have songs that are similar in structure but with minute differences. They also found a significant correlation between song structures and genetic similarity, which means that Nomascus species that are more closely related have similar song structures. This would account to N. leucogenys, N. siki, N. annamensis and N. gabriellae having same song structures but with minute differences in them because they are very closely related.

Reference:
Thinh, V.N. Hallam, C. Roos, C. Hammerschmidt, K. 2011. Concordance between vocal and genetic diversity in crested gibbons. BMC Evolutionary Biology 11: 36 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-36

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

By Raymond Ho

Just in time to celebrate Monkey Day tomorrow, a new species of lemur is on the verge of being formally acknowledge in science. Primatologist Dr. Russ Mittermeien first spotted this species back in 1995 during one of his expedition to Daraina, Madagascar but said that he did not have any time to follow up with his discovery until now.

This “new” species belongs to the genus Phaner or the fork-marked lemur (the species is yet to be named since they are not formally acknowledge by science). This species, like all fork-marked lemurs, feeds on exudates and flower nectar. They are nocturnal and are arboreal quadrupeds. Photo from Physorg.com by Russ Mittermeien.

There are currently four species of fork-marked lemurs, making this new species the fifth if scientifically acknowledge. Fork-marked lemurs are endemic to Madagascar, like all lemur species. They get their name from the dark stripe that runs from their back and forks on their head to their eyes. Their face and stripe actually reminds me of slow lorises.

The most likely difference between this new species (besides their color) and the other four fork-marked lemurs is definitely in the genetics. This new species is likely endangered or critically endangered due to isolated or restricted range.

On a personal note, I am truly digging the language used by the media. Instead of saying “new species discovered”, they actually wrote “new species to science”. I prefer the latter description as it is non-ethnocentric since most “newly-discovered” species are already known to the natives in the area.

For more about this news, read New lemur found in Madagascar on BBC and New lemur: big feet, long tongue and the size of squirrel on Physorg.com

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

Great news today here at Primatology.net. We made #1 in 20 Best Blogs for Primatology Students, a list compiled by Toponlinecolleges (yea, the name is quite spammy, I know). Although I’ve never heard of this site, they did a great job compiling the list. If anything, it’s a good way to get a list of Primatology blogs.

If you are interested in Primatology or if you are a Primatology/Anthropology student, check out the link and visit the other 19 blogs!

By Raymond Ho

A team of primatologists supposed discovered a new species of snub-nosed monkey in Northern Myanmar during their Hoolock Gibbon Status Review early this year. The new species was formally named  Rhinopithecus strykeri, after the President and Founder of the Arcus Foundation Jon Stryker. The locals do have a name for these snub-nosed monkeys. They call them “mey nwoah” or “monkey with an upturned face”.

This primate reported has an upturned nose which, according to the locals, made them sneeze when it rains. Locals observed that to avoid getting rain water into their nose, R. strykeri would sit with their heads tucked in between their legs. Their pelage is entirely black except for a white tuft on their ears, chin beard and the perineal end. It has a relatively long tail, about 140% of its body. R. strykeri is the first species of the Rhinopithecus genus to be found in Myanmar. The other four species (R. roxellana, R. bieti, R. brelichi and R. avunculus) are found in China and Vietnam. R. strykeri‘s range is limited only to the Maw River area. There are estimated about 260 to 330 individuals of R. strykeri left in the wild, making them Critically Endangered according to IUCN.

Read more at New Snub-Nosed Monkey Discovered in Northern Myanmar.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

By Raymond Ho

I must say, the idea of venomous primates never crossed my mind. While venomous species do exist in mammals, it is much more common in insects, reptiles and fishes. In primates, slow lorises (genus Nycticebus) are though to be venomous in Thai folklore (Wilde, 1972) but are they really?

Nycticebus
As of 2010, the genus Nycticebus consists of four species: Pygmy slow loris (Nycticebus pygmaeus), Javan slow loris (Nycticebus javanicus), Sunda slow loris (Nycticebus coucang) and Bengal slow loris (Nycticebus bengalensis). The Javan slow loris was previously recognized as a subspecies but has since been elevated to species status. These prosimians are found in different parts of Southeast Asia. Nycticebus range, in red. Illustration from Primate Info Net.

Slow lorises are arboreal primates that move quadrupedally between branches. They are nocturnal and omnivorous, feeding on plant matter and insects. Slow lorises sleep during the day, curled up like a ball in hidden parts of trees above ground. Their predators include pythons (Python reticulatus), hawk-eagles (Spizaetus cirrhatus) and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Slow lorises have a relatively low metabolism compared to similar-sized mammals (Gron, 2009). Sunda slow loris (Nycticebus coucang). Photo from Primate Info Net.

Although the words “venomous” and “poisonous” are used interchangeably in everyday speech, they are actually fundamentally different. By definition, venom has to be injected into the body, introduced by a bite or a sting. Poison, on the other hand, is ingested or inhaled  into the body by the victim. Thus, venomous and poisonous animals are altogether different.

The blue dart frog (Dendrobates azureus) is a poisonous animal while the Indian cobra (Naja naja) is a venomous animal.

So are slow lorises venomous or poisonous?
To answer this, let’s revisit the definitions of venomous and poisonous. A venomous animal injects toxins into its victim’s body by bite or sting. A poisonous animal, on the other hand, produces toxins that are poisonous once inhaled or ingested. Medical literature shows that human – slow loris injuries come from slow loris bites and not from ingesting their toxins. So are slow lorises venomous? Well, not quite.

Slow lorises have needle-like teeth called dental combs or tooth combs on their lower jaw. Paired with the constant licking of the brachial gland, it is not surprising that one would assume the dental comb plays a part in injecting brachial gland exudate into unsuspecting victims (Hagey et al., 2006). However, this is not the case.

Used for grooming, dental combs might look menacing to some but their function is less sinister than one might conjure up. A bite from a slow loris is painful due to their sharp pointed teeth. Illustration of slow loris teeth from Loris Conservation. The dental comb is on the lower jaw, shape like a spade.

Wilde (1972) reports that the victim of a slow loris bite immediately succumbs to anaphylactic shock (extreme allergic reaction) followed by hematuria. In spite of that, the victim fully recovered. There is no clinical evidence of toxic substances in slow loris saliva to support the notion that they are venomous (Wilde, 1972).

Another incident involves a 34 year-old woman who is 19 weeks pregnant. She was bitten by a pygmy slow loris at the zoo she works in. The patient only complained about an acute pain at the location where she was bitten. She did not go into anaphylactic shock (Kalimullah et al., 2008).

Reports of slow loris bites are rare in literature. However, based on these published reports, it seems that slow loris bites are not venomous (Kalimullah et al., 2008; Wilde, 1972). Due to the high degree of similarity between the brachial gland exudate of slow lorises and the Fel d 1 allergen in domestic cats, the anaphylactic shock expressed by victims is probably just a reaction to the exudate’s allergen.

What is the function of the brachial gland exudate?

Hagey et al. (2007) posit that the brachial gland exudate is used as olfactory signalling to broadcast individual home range and territories. Most nocturnal primates rely on olfaction — slow loris included. Since brachial gland exudates are not an immediate response to stress or pursuit, their function might be to deter predators, warn other slow lorises of danger or even both (Hagey et al., 2006).

I’m looking forward to more studies on these prosimians and the properties of their brachial gland exudates. More research, as well as slow loris bite records, are needed to elucidate the effects of brachial gland exudates on humans.

References:
Gron, KJ. 2009. Primate Factsheets: Slow Loris (Nycticebus) Taxonomy, Morphology & Ecology. Primate Info Net Retrieved October, 19 2010 http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/slow_loris.


Grönlund, H. Saarne, T. Gafvelin, G. van Hage, M. 2010. The Major Cat Allergen, Fel d 1, in Diagnosis and Therapy. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 151(4): 265-274.

Hagey, LR. Fry, BG. Fitch-Snyder, H. 2007. Talking Defensively: A Dual Use for the Brachial Gland Exudate of Slow and Pygmy Lorises. Primate Anti-Predatory Strategies 2: 253-272 DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-34810-0_12.

Krane, S. Itagaki, Y. Nakanishi, K. Weldon, PJ. 2003. “Venom” of the slow loris: sequence similarity of prosimian skin gland protein and Fel d 1 cat allergen. Naturwissenschaften 90: 60-62.

Kalimullah, EA. Schmidt, SM. Schmidt, MJ. Lu, JJ. 2008. Beware the Pygmy Slow Loris? Clinical Toxicology 46(7): 602. http://www.eapcct.org/publicfile.php?folder=congress&file=Abstracts_Toronto.pdf.

Wilde, H. 1972. Anaphylactic Shock Following Bite by a ‘Slow Loris’, Nycticebus coucang. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 21(5): 592-594. http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/5/592.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

An insightful paper published by Ross et al. (2010), compares zoo-living ape behavior inside their holding and exhibit areas in Lincoln Park Zoo, an accredited member of Association for Zoos and Aquarium (AZA). Zoo animals usually have at least two areas where they are housed (excluding some aquatic animals): the holding area and the exhibit area. During visiting hours and at night, zoo animals are housed in their exhibit area. In the morning, before the zoo opens, they move into the holding area to receive husbandry care and their morning food ration.

Holding and exhibit areas differ in size, design and functionality. A study by Ross and Lukas on 11 AZA-accredited zoos shows that holding areas are usually about 40 times smaller than exhibit areas (Ross et al., 2010). At the Lincoln Park Zoo, the holding area is about 9.3% of the size of the exhibit area (for both gorillas and chimpanzees). Whereas the exhibit area is designed for the complexity and to mimic the natural environment of its animal inhabitant, the holding area is usually designed for simplicity and functionality to meet husbandry needs.

Seven gorillas (2 males, 5 females; N = 7) and seven chimpanzees (3 males, 4 females; N = 7) were observed in this study. I should point out that the authors of the study is by no means criticizing Lincoln Park Zoo. It is an informal observation of behavioral changes for these animals in different environment. The result of the study shows that:

Gorillas
Inside the holding area – Increased locomotion and affiliative behavior. Also showed increased rates of aggression, self-directed behavior (subject touches, manipulates or examines the body, skin, or hair) and solitary play. Were in close proximity with each other.

Inside the exhibit area - Increased feeding and foraging behavior and also sexual behavior.

Chimpanzees
Inside the holding area – Increased aggression. Increased rate of scratching and self directed behavior (subject touches, manipulates or examines the body, skin, or hair). Were in close proximity with each other.

Inside the exhibit area - Increased feeding and foraging behavior.

Both gorillas and chimpanzees showed increased aggression accompanied with self directed behavior when inside holding area. Increase in aggression can sometimes be attributed to overcrowding and self directed behavior generally means that an animal is nervous. Being constrained in a smaller space increases the chance of mixed-sex and mixed-dominance encounters thus resulting in agonistic and submissive observations. When inside exhibit areas, both apes exhibited an increase in feeding and foraging behavior. This presumably is due to their feeding and foraging habit in the exhibit area. If I remember correctly, one of the major breakthrough in exhibiting apes (and most animals) is to encourage foraging behavior throughout the day. It is no surprise that these apes exhibit these behaviors.

These apes reacted differently when inside their holding area than in their exhibit area because they are exposed to different sensory. Apart from the difference in size and complexity, these two areas also differ in the degree of human interaction, cross-species presence, environmental factors and time spent between these two areas. An understanding of these differences and motivational factors is important in promoting optimized environments for captive apes. The authors encourage that zoos would consider species-specific functional, physical and social preferences when designing enclosures for apes regardless of frequency of use.

Reference:
Ross, S. Wagner, K. Schapiro, S. Hau, J. 2010. Ape behavior in two alternating environments: comparing exhibit and short-term holding areas. American Journal of Primatology 72: 951–959. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20857

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.