Primates references

?
F Mandrillus prefer mates with bright red faces, not neccessarily the most dominant
Setchell, 2004
1 of 48
Papio anubis F sexual swelling size gives information about fertility and parity. Colour doesn't give same information
Higham et al., 2007
2 of 48
BR increases with increasing GS due to increased food acquisition, U shaped curve due to increased intragroup competition
Wrangham, 1979/1980
3 of 48
clear distinction of IGFC and PFC
Van Schaik, 1983
4 of 48
predator defense determines lower limit of GS, feeding competition determines upper limit
Dunbar, 1988
5 of 48
differing motivations for food sharing: sigalling, reciprocity, IBI, kinship
Jaeggi & Gurven, 2013
6 of 48
F grouping and food, WGC, WGS, BGC and WGS
Koenig, 2002
7 of 48
F driven by food, M driven by F- sociality evolved because benefits F
Wrangham, 1980
8 of 48
Hylobates lar monogamy study, 25% polyandry
Ulrich & Sommer, 1997
9 of 48
There are few species which fit the true defintiion of monogamy: 2 adult group, similar set of social behaviour
Fuentes, 1998
10 of 48
Evolution of monogamy in primates: F over dispersed resource, reducing risk of predation, defending an exclusive resource, infanticide
Van Schaik & Dunbar, 1990
11 of 48
High ranking F have more expensive sons
Trivers & Willard, 1973
12 of 48
Local Resource Competition hypothesis, High ranking F have more F
Silk et al., 1981
13 of 48
Local Resource Competition Intensity hypothesis
Van Schaik & Hrdy, 1991
14 of 48
r strategists
MacArthur & E.O Wilson, 1967
15 of 48
K strategists
Pianka, 1970
16 of 48
Infanticide in semonpithecus entellus
Sommer, 1994
17 of 48
alloparenting may be very important for human evolutionary success, allows dietary shifts, allowing greater brain development
Hrdy, 2009
18 of 48
alloparenting comparison of colobine and cercopithecines
McKenna, 1979
19 of 48
Macaca sylvanaus do not fit the socioecological model of alloparenting
Paul, 1999
20 of 48
saimiri scuireus do not fit the socioecological model of alloparenting- nepotistic and despotic but high levels of handling
Paul, 1999
21 of 48
provisioned verse not provisioned semonopithecus entellus
Power et al., 2013
22 of 48
non reproductive benefits from F promiscuous mating: sperm deletion, M recruitment, parental investment, infanticidal reduction
Soltis, 2002
23 of 48
purpose of leaf clipping in chimps in Mahale, Tanzania
Nishida, 1980
24 of 48
spontaneous establishment and propagtion of A frame grooming in captive chimp population
de Waal & Seres, 1997
25 of 48
Juvenile and adult chimps carry sticks that resemble dolls
Kahlenberg & Wrangham, 2010
26 of 48
African rainforest PA success
Stuhskaker et al., 2004
27 of 48
Fish hunting behaviour first observed in macaca fuscata in 1979
Watanabe, 1989
28 of 48
culutre= "All aspects of human adaptatioin including technology, tradition etc."
Jurmain et al., 2003
29 of 48
prestige effects learning in pan troglodytes
Horner et al., 2010
30 of 48
Review of the understanding of primate culutre: pan trogolodytes have local traditions which uniquely identify them, key difference of humans in cummulative culutre, obatin culutre by social learning- imitation and emulation, humans copy more
Whiten, 2005
31 of 48
39 unique culutral variants in pan troglodytes
Whiten et al., 1999
32 of 48
pan pansicus may perform branch dragging behaviour to inform group travel information and facilitate group movement
Schamberg et al, 2017
33 of 48
recent experiments show that apes know what others do and do not see: gaze following, food competitoin, begging, self knowledge
Tomasello & Call, 2006
34 of 48
Somatic verse genital selection
Short, 1979
35 of 48
self medication in leaves to remove prasites
Shurkin, 2014
36 of 48
papio sp. eat specific type of leave to remove the trematodes that cause schistosomasis
Shurkin, 2014
37 of 48
predation pressure is soley responsible for group living
Alexander, 1974
38 of 48
increased GS increase daily travel length, weaker relationship between GS and feeding competition in folivores (WGS), but food comp is a better predictor of GS in folivores, against WGS hypothesis
Janson & Goldsmith, 1995
39 of 48
terrestrial sp. bigger groups because predators, larger primates smaller groups, because predators except with very small primates as conceal not detect
Janson & Goldsmith, 1995
40 of 48
Increases in GS can result in dramatically reduced individual foraging efficiency- sets upper limit to GS
Janson, 1988
41 of 48
In Macaca silenus subs will feed apart form groups to reduce WGC, but then have higher predation risk
Koenig, 2002
42 of 48
with WGC and BGC dom F should be more tolerant of subs because need for intergroup competition
Koenig, 2002
43 of 48
GS and composition influence M and F RS in Alouatta caraya and agreed with Alouatta palliata
Belle & Estrada, 2008
44 of 48
F Lemur catta GS and RS support IGFC - U shaped curve
Takahata et al., 2006
45 of 48
Group living is advantageous because information can be exchanged about the prescence of food
Eisenberg et al., 1972
46 of 48
Group living is advantageous because communal defense of food sources
Wrangham, 1980
47 of 48
M infanticide leads to social monogamy
Opie et al., 2013
48 of 48

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Higham et al., 2007

Back

Papio anubis F sexual swelling size gives information about fertility and parity. Colour doesn't give same information

Card 3

Front

Wrangham, 1979/1980

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Van Schaik, 1983

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Dunbar, 1988

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Biology resources:

See all Biology resources »See all Primatology resources »