Johan M.G. van der Dennen (
In this chapter, I use the term ‘biopolitics’ to mean evolutionarily-informed political science. Politics has been characterized as “Who gets what, when, and how” (Lasswell, 1936), but rather than about material possessions, politics is understood to be about power, more specifically about collective power, especially differential group power competition, hierarchy and stratification in power distribution, and the universal struggle to enhance power, and to maintain or challenge/destroy this status quo. Politics “should be found in any system of nature in which conflicts of interest exist among cooperating organic units” (G. Johnson, 1995: 279). My main focus will be competitive intergroup relations in monkeys and apes, or as I (van der Dennen, 1995) called it ‘Intergroup Agonistic Behavior’ (IAB). I also briefly treat interindividual and intercoalitionary agonistic behavior when relevant.
Early Reports from the Zoo
Zuckerman’s baboon colony was not the only
zoo community to indulge in orgies of slaughter. Hall (1964) reported that
“fighting broke out in a group of 17 baboons at the Bloemfontein Zoo (in
Reynolds (1971) observed 24 rhesus monkeys
(Macaca mulatta) at
At the Zürich Zoo, where Kummer (1957) (see also Kummer & Kurt, 1965) made observations on 15 hamadryas baboons, bites serious enough to cause nasty wounds were commonplace (Russell & Russell, 1968).
After the initial observations of the baboon colony at the London Zoo by Zuckerman, the age-old ‘simian’ prejudices (cf. Morris & Morris, 1966) generally seemed confirmed: apes and monkeys were perceived as vicious, violent, ferocious and lascivious creatures.
Diablo, the Monkey ‘Warlord’
In 1938, when Carpenter (1942, 1964) shipped his rhesus monkeys from India to Cayo Santiago (an islet of 40 acres off Puerto Rico), the land and sea transport was carried out under frightful conditions. There was food shortage on the voyage, and the mothers were under such stress that that most of them fought their young for food, and at least eight mothers killed their babies. During their first year on the islet, there was heavy mortality from lethal fighting, and indeed they seem to have remained unstable and relatively aggressive long afterwards. In particular, the social machinery of leadership selection had been grievously upset. Hence in one of the bands that now formed there arose an aggressive dictator called Diablo, more autocratic and bad-tempered than even those of the zoo colonies.
Diablo’s band waged what amounted to a war of conquest; eventually they had the run of the whole islet. The normal band territorial system had completely broken down. Carpenter removed Diablo, and peace returned to the island (Russell & Russell, 1968).
Yerkes & Yerkes (1929) had been
studying the behavior of individual monkeys for many years in
Soon after the end of the Second World War,
enterprising Japanese scientists (notably the Primate Research Group of
Together with other early observations by (in alphabetical order): Altmann, Bygott, Carpenter, Cheney, DeVore, Fossey, Galdikas, Gartlan, Goodall, Haddow, Hall, Hamburg, Hrdy, Itani, Izawa, Jay, Kawanaka, Koford, Kortlandt, Kummer, Mason, Moynihan, Nishida, Nissen, Reynolds, Saayman, Schaller, Seyfarth, Silk, Southwick, Struhsaker, Sugiyama, Suzuki, Teleki, Ullrich, Washburn, Wrangham, among many others, these studies revealed the intricate societal structures, the affiliative systems and the rather peaceful modus vivendi (with some spectacular exceptions) of monkey and ape populations. Violence, indeed, appeared to be a density-dependent phenomenon in captive populations, enhanced by an unbalanced sex-ratio.
Also early observations in the wild suggested that chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) lived in an amiable web of friendships and occasional get-togethers (Nissen, 1931; Reynolds & Reynolds, 1965; Goodall, 1968, 1971; Albrecht & Dunnett, 1971). The apes were now regarded as gentle, peace-loving creatures, especially after the publications on bonobos (Pan paniscus) by Parish (e.g., 1994, 1996) de Waal (e.g., 1984), and Parish & de Waal (1999).
In retrospective the twenty most important discoveries in primatology from a biopolitical and ‘biocriminological’ perspective (not in chronological order) are:
Biopolitics and primatology have been bedfellows from the very beginning of their disciplines (e.g., Masters, 1975, 1983, 1989; Willhoite, 1976; Peterson & Somit, 1980; Schubert, 1983; Somit, 1990; Schubert & Somit, 1982; Schubert, 1991; Schubert & Masters, 1991; G.Johnson, 1995; Somit & Peterson, 1995, 1998; etc.)
Threat, attack, and submissive behavior patterns (together termed “agonistic behavior”) are most likely to occur among chimpanzees under the following conditions (Goodall, 1968, 1971, 1986; Hamburg, 1972; 1978; Bygott, 1974; 1979; Tutin, 1975; Pusey, 1979; Trudeau, Bergmann‑Riss & Hamburg, 1981): (1) In daily interactions involving dominance (status); (2) following the recent occurrence of other attacks; (3) in long‑term changes in status or dominance, particularly among males; (4) when apparent unexpressed aggression toward higher ranking members is redirected at a lower status individual; (5) in the protection of infants by adults of both sexes, but especially by females; (6) in defending against potential predators; (7) in killing and eating animals of other species; (8) in terminating severe disputes among subordinate animals; (9) in association with a presumably painful injury; (10) in exploration of strange or threatening areas; (11) in meeting relatively unfamiliar chimpanzees; (12) in circumstances were highly valued resources are in short supply; (13) by resident females towards newly transferring females; and (14) when relatively unfamiliar animals are crowded in the presence of highly valued resources.
Additionally, Bygott (1979) reports that the most frequent context of attacks and displays occurred at meetings between two individuals who had been separated for at least half an hour.
Some further generalizations on agonistic relationships offered by Bygott (1974) are: (1) A male’s ability to dominate other males in agonistic interactions changes with age, peaking at physical maturity. (2) Attacks between adult males of the same community are very rare; (3) Adult males are dominant in all their fights with all other age/sex classes. (4) Two or more adult males may form a coalition (usually between brothers) that strengthens the status of both members over that which could have been obtained individually. (5) Agonistic interactions are rarer than expected between relatives of different age/sex classes. (6) Agonistic relationships between females are rare.
Now, such patterns and contexts of agonistic behavior may be taken to be fairly representative for the primates in general, though every species shows its own species‑specific profile of agonistic patterns and contexts. A characteristic form of agonistic behavior lacking in chimpanzees, is, for example, the ‘stink fight’ of ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) (Jolly, 1966), the aggressive ‘herding’ of females as described in Papio [c.] hamadryas (Hall & DeVore, 1965; Kummer, 1968; 1971), or violent rape as described in the orangutan (e.g., Pitcairn, 1974). Furthermore, primate species differ in their degree of showing breeding seasonality of aggression, different types of dominance hierarchies, sexual harassment, territoriality, coalitions, social organization, and so on. But, by and large, the agonistic repertoire as described above gives a fairly accurate picture of primate agonistic behavior in general.
Bernstein & Ehardt (1985) reviewed data from a wide variety of species and report that aggression, on average, accounts for 2‑5 percent of a monkey's daily activity budget (Higley, 2003: 19). The most frequent context in which aggression is seen is in defense of status (i.e., dominance) (Higley, 2003: 20; Walters & Seyfarth, 1987: 307-308).
In both captive and free‑ranging animals, old scars and wounds, at times even severe wounds, are frequently observed, especially among adult males (Rawlins & Kessler, 1986; Southwick, Beg & Siddiqi, 1965; Steenbeek, Piek, van Buul & van Hooff, 2000). Females also receive wounds, especially during the breeding season (Higley, 2003: 20-21).
The social setting in which aggression is most likely to occur is probably when two troops meet, or, in captivity, during the introduction of unfamiliar monkeys into an existing group, or the formation of a new group (Altmann, 1962; Bernstein, Gordon & Rose, 1974; Carpenter, 1974; Cheney, 1981; Poirier, 1974; Southwick, Beg & Siddiqi, 1965; Southwick, Siddiqi, Farooqui & Pal, 1974) (Higley, 2003: 22; see review in van der Dennen, 1995). While severe aggression is more frequent between strangers, among some particularly aggressive individuals, and within groups of some species, it occurs among virtually all primate species studied.
While it is often believed that primate males are more aggressive than females, among many species of Old World primates, rates of aggression are surprisingly similar between the sexes. Nevertheless, some sex differences have been demonstrated (Higley, 2003: 24).
Socially living primates must learn not only to recognize social cues of aggression but also to restrain and control their own impulses whenever necessary. In fact, achieving high dominance status within a troop may depend on inhibiting aggression as much as on expressing it (Higley, 2003: 26).
frequency of aggression between two individuals does not necessarily reflect
the overall aggressiveness of their social relationship. Since rates of
aggression are to some extent dependent on the frequency with which individuals
come into contact, animals that associate regularly may appear to be more
aggressive toward each other than ones that spend less time together. For
example, same-sexed peers and kin often show high rates of aggression. However,
these individuals usually interact less aggressively than others when the
frequency of association is taken into account (e.g., toque macaques [Macaca
1977; Japanese macaques [Macaca fuscata]:
Infanticide: It is now well documented that Hanuman langurs, after driving a leader male from his females, may systematically kill all infants in the troop (Sugiyama, 1967; Mohnot, 1971; Hrdy, 1974, 1977, 1979). In this way the new leader ensures that most subsequent infants will carry his genes. Of interest are Fossey’s (1979) observations relating to infanticide in the mountain gorillas: three infants were killed as a result of aggressive intergroup interactions. Moreover, on one occasion the lone silverback responsible left with the mother of the dead infant a week later.
Killing of infants has also been reported in chimpanzees (Suzuki, 1971; Bygott, 1972; Goodall et al., 1979), patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) (DeVore, pers. comm. in Fossey, 1979), purple-faced langurs (Presbytis senex senex) (Rudran, 1973), redtail monkeys (Simonds, 1977; Struhsaker, 1978), hamadryas baboons (Kummer, Götz & Angst, 1974), crab-eating macaques (also known as Java monkeys) (Macaca fascicularis) (Washburn & Hamburg, 1968), and Verreaux’s sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi verreauxi) (Littlefield, 2010).
Infanticide and cannibalism often go together, e.g., in chimpanzees (Bygott, 1972; Goodall, 1977 et seq.; Kortlandt, 1980; Nishida, 1980; Kawanaka, 1981; Itani, 1982; Schubert, 1983).
Confusing paternity in order to mitigate male aggression is thought to be a common female anti-infanticidal tactic (Strier, 2001: 88).
Sexual coercion and harassment: On sexual coercion in primates see Muller & Wrangham (2009). The most plausible alternative to the fertilization tactic theory of rape is the sexual coercion hypothesis proposed by Smuts & Smuts (1993; Clutton-Brock & Parker, 1995). In some species, according to this line of thought, rape may be an evolved male mechanism whose primary aim is not fertilization in the present, but control – for the ultimate purpose of fertilization in the future.
Sexual coercion looks also to be the underlying reason of male battering of female chimpanzees, because the mating patterns in Gombe demonstrate how particularly effective male domination is. As Goodall (1986: 481) described it: “Almost always, unless he is crippled or very old, an adult male can coerce an unwilling female into copulating with him”. So the rule seems to be: Coercion works. Furthermore, Goodall stated: “Males may attack females seemingly in order to drum into their victims, again and again, that theirs is a male-dominated society” (see also Silk, 2002a).
females have active tendencies toward polyandrous mating, and show
opportunistic sexual proceptivity when encountering new males. Harassment by
males of sexually attractive females is most salient among the
Reconciliation and consolation: Reconciliation (e.g., Silk, 1997, 1998, 2002b; de Waal, 2006; 2009) should not be exaggerated. For example, Daniel, Santos & Cruz (2009) recorded 190 agonistic interactions and subsequent post-conflict behavior in a captive group of brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Only 26.8% of these conflicts were reconciled. Reconciliation was more likely to occur between opponents that supported each other more frequently and that spent more time together (supporting the ‘valuable relationship’ hypothesis).
Similarly, Kempes, de Castro & Sterck (2008) found that both (aberrantly) aggressive rhesus monkeys and human children do not reconcile.
One can deduce from de Waal’s work that reconciliation and “other-regarding behavioral dispositions” are only an in-group phenomenon. Adang (1999) has emphatically pointed out that there is no – never – reconciliation after episodes of intergroup violence in chimpanzees.
Commenting on de Waal’s Peacemaking, Somit (1990: 578-579) aptly remarked: “Unfortunately, the kind of intragroup personal conflict with which de Waal deals is profoundly different, qualitatively and quantitatively, from conflicts involving large-scale societies and states… While our politicians and diplomats might personally be more than willing to embrace the bonobo strategy, ‘make love, not war,’ I doubt that it affords a very promising method of resolving international rivalries and ethnic antagonisms”.
Consolation may be considered related to reconciliation, but, nonetheless, evidence for consolation (requiring empathic ability) among primates is sparse indeed (Bernstein, 1999: 74). Interestingly, in contrast to the former statement, Fraser (2008) found that in chimpanzees the best predictor of reconciliation was the absence of consolation and the best predictor of consolation was the absence of reconciliation, suggesting that consolation may act as an alternative to reconciliation. Thus, valuable partners may reduce post-conflict stress levels in recipients of aggression through consolation when reconciliation fails to occur. Furthermore, mathematical modeling suggests that reconciliation and other affiliative patterns may arise as a side effect of the dominance style (egalitarian vs. despotic) in macaques (Puga-Gonzalez, Hildenbrandt & Hemelrijk (2008).
Romero & de Waal (2011) confirmed the occurrence of appeasement (i.e., postconflict affiliation by a bystander toward an aggressor) in captive chimpanzees. They also found that appeasement occurred more often in the absence of reconciliation than after its occurrence suggesting that appeasement may act as an alternative to reconciliation when the latter fails to occur.
Over the past decades a continuing study of a semi-captive group of chimpanzees at the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands has focused on the importance of (opportunistically) coalitional behavior by males in the establishment and maintenance of, and change in, the primary (i.e., the male) dominance structure of the group (van Hooff, 1973a,b; de Waal, 1978 et seq.; Adang, 1999). An independent female dominance structure is much more stable (see also McGuire, 1982; Hrdy, 1981). Dutch ethologists (Noë, de Waal & van Hooff, 1980; de Waal & van Hooff, 1981; de Waal, 1982 et seq.) and American political scientists alike have discussed the dominance behavior of the Arnhem chimpanzees in terms of cost-benefit analysis, and explicitly as political behavior homologous to that readily observable among contemporary humans (e.g., Schubert, 1983).
It appears that rather than staying with relatives, adult males are opportunistic in their relationships, making and breaking alliances for individual advantage as the relative power of each male waxes and wanes (Pusey, 2001: 24).
Adult males of many primate species frequently form alliances to dispute existing dominance relationships. This occurs, for example, when two males challenge a third who outranks them both (squirrel monkeys [Saimiri sciureus]: Baldwin & Baldwin, 1981; baboons: Hall & DeVore, 1965; Packer, 1977; Rasmussen, 1981; Collins, 1981; Smuts, 1985; Japanese macaques: Stephenson, 1975; chimpanzees: Goodall, 1968; de Waal, 1982; Nishida, 1983). Although such alliances often involve unrelated males, they may consistently involve the same individuals (e.g., Packer, 1977; Saayman, 1971; Nishida, 1983; Walters & Seyfarth, 1987: 316).
Plavcan, van Schaik & Kappeler (1995) found that, among primate species in which the outcome of fights is typically determined by coalitionary fighting, selection for weaponry (canines) is reduced. In particular, male chimpanzees have relatively small canines for their body size, consistent with other evidence that success in battle for chimpanzees depends on coalition size rather than individual weaponry (Wilson, Britton & Franks, 2002; van Schaik, 2002: 937).
Polyadic social aggression
Monkeys and apes often resolve fights based on the willingness of others to join on one side or another. In this way size and strength become much less important than the size and reliability of social alliances in resolving fights between individuals. It is no longer the largest and most powerful that will be the victor, but now perhaps the most socially adept (Bernstein, 1999: 74).
Chapais (1991: 200-202) distinguished six functional categories of (triadic, polyadic) aggressive alliances: protective alliances, revolutionary alliances, conservative alliances, resource-specific coalitions, defensive coalitions, and xenophobic alliances, which include all instances in which individuals belonging to the same group jointly threaten or attack one or more members of another group. Such coalitions may develop in three contexts: territorial defense, the repelling of potential immigrants, and dominance interactions between groups. Note that this category of xenophobic alliance is exactly the same as my category of intergroup agonistic behavior (IAB).
Coalitions have the character of transactions which continue as long as both participants derive net benefits and/or have more influence or freedom of movement than in other possible combinations. In an analysis of coalition formation and agonistic third-party intervention in a semi-captive group of chimpanzees, de Waal (1978; cf. also 1982) distinguished a category of protective support, in favor of the weaker party in a conflict, and a category of opportunistic support, in favor of the stronger party.
An increasing number of experimental studies provide evidence that dyadic social relationships in primate groups are affected by third group members and the relations among these (e.g., Kawai, 1965; Kummer, Götz & Angst, 1974). With respect to agonistic interactions complexity appeared to be the rule rather than the exception in two well-established captive groups of Java monkeys: in each group more than half of all aggressive actions occurred during interactions with three or more participants. A detailed description and categorization of the types of agonistic interaction among Java monkeys has been given by de Waal, van Hooff & Netto (1976).
Two of these types of polyadic interactions have in common that one or several group members intervene aggressively in a conflict between others:
(1) Agonistic interactions in which the aggressive party is attacked are called Reactor-Alliances (RA) and the intervening individual is referred to as a protective-aggressor.
(2) If it is the aggressive party that receives support, the interaction type is called an Actor-Alliance (AA), in which we can distinguish the role of start-aggressor and one or several join-aggressors (de Waal, 1978).
From each group of monkeys about 1,000 agonistic interactions were recorded. The analysis of the data revealed that the tendency to join aggressors is considerably higher than the tendency to protect aggressees. In one group 135 AA’s and 44 RA’s occurred, in the other group 110 AA’s and 53 RA’s.
The more altruistic form of support, which depends on a relationship of attachment and affiliation, and the more opportunistic kind, where intervention depends on the possible advantage gained by the supporter, have also been found in other primate species (e.g, Netto & van Hooff, 1986; See Harcourt & de Waal, 1992). Triadic and polyadic interactions appear to be common in primates generally (Walters & Seyfarth, 1987: 309).
The paramount majority of all agonistic interactions is apparently an intragroup phenomenon, but some species also exhibit intergroup agonistic behavior which may be more or less collective and orchestrated. This will be the subject of the next paragraphs.
Observing hamadryas and gelada (Theropithecus gelada) baboons in Abyssinia, Sanderson (1955) witnessed “terrific battles, amounting almost to organized warfare – with surprise raids, the taking of prisoners, wide maneuvers, and other grossly human tactics” (quoted in Bigelow, 1969: 31; and Young, 1991: 411).
Van Hooff (1990) vividly portrayed a
massively escalated agonistic episode between two olive baboon (Papio [c.]
anubis) groups of about 100 and 150 individuals respectively, at
See especially Smuts, Cheney, Seyfarth, Wrangham & Struhsaker (1987) for pictorial evidence of similar ‘pitched battles’ in a number of other primate species such as vervet monkeys, redtail monkeys, gray langurs, gelada baboons, and rhesus macaques.
DeVore & Hall (1965), describing
intergroup relations in chacma baboons (Papio
[c.] ursinus) of
Fighting between bands of hamadryas baboons – the most ‘sexist’ society among the primates – is also conducted by the males. It consists almost entirely of spectacular bluffing, during which the opponents fence at each other with open jaws and slap swiftly back and forth with their hands. Film analysis showed that in spite of appearances, physical contact seldom occurs. Only when one male turns and flees he is apt to receive a scratch on the anal region (Kummer, 1968, 1971). Kummer (1968) described a battle royal between bands of hamadryas over bait he provided.
(2009), two troops of hamadryas baboons have been filmed going to war, with
hundreds of monkeys entering into a pitched battle (http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/
earth_news/newsid_8400000/8400019.stm). The fight, filmed by the BBC Natural
History Unit, appeared to be triggered by male baboons attempting to steal
females from the harems of rivals. Usually, the two troops live relatively
peacefully alongside one another on a 1 km-long cliff in the
According to Kitchen & Beehner (2007: 1552), primate groups do not always, or even often, act as cohesive, cooperative units against extra-group animals, even when all members would benefit from excluding rivals. How individuals respond when facing extra-group rivals can vary within a species and even among members of the same group.
Cases in which males cooperate to defend a group or territory are rare among mammals in general (Pusey, 2001: 19).
Raids into neighboring territories may occur for different reasons, including the increase of foraging and mating opportunities directly or indirectly through the killing of neighboring rivals. Lethal raids have been mainly observed in humans and chimpanzees, with raiding males being reported to search purposefully for neighbors.
Bygott (1974, 1979), Wrangham (1975, 1979);
Goodall (1979 et seq), Goodall et al. (1979), Nishida, 1979, 1980), and Itani
(1982) were the first to report on the intercommunity relationships of the
By the end of the Four Year War, the Kahama community – seven males and three adult females and their young – had been annihilated. Researchers witnessed five of the attacks, in which Kasakela chimpanzees tore at their victims’ flesh with their teeth as if they were common prey (P. Miller, 1995: 106).
Bygott (1979) and Goodall et al. (1979) emphasized that the males actively seek out agonistic interactions with the adjacent community during their patrolling. Also Nishida (1979, 1980) and Itani (1982) have observed similar group antagonism in chimpanzees, which was described by Itani as a “skirmish in a war”. On the patrolling behavior of some ‘warrior groups’ Itani also reports: “they looked as if they were aiming for the best chance of encountering another group”, or as if they were looking for an opportunity to ‘hunt down’ conspecifics and inflict fatal injuries (Manson & Wrangham, 1991). Furthermore, the attacks were all characterized by “unusual brutality and persistence” (Bygott, 1979), and the observers could not escape feeling that the aggressors were ‘intentionally’ trying to kill their victims. All observed lethal attacks were unprovoked and lasted at least ten minutes. The victim was deliberately held down by some of the attackers, and subjected to a treatment more brutal than any found in intracommunity aggressive episodes. As Itani (1982) phrased it: “antagonistic interactions of a group versus an individual, or a group versus another group, with the intent to kill, is peculiar to chimpanzee society”.
Interestingly, intercommunity encounters involve mostly males. Females (usually while in estrous) sometimes accompany males on patrol, but they do not typically initiate ‘hostilities’ (Goodall et al., 1979; Wrangham, 1975). Another intriguing observation is that the intense excitement shown by the aggressors during and after the attacks rather easily ‘spills over’ into hunting and killing other primates (red colobus or baboons), which might suggest that at least in some instances similar motivational mechanisms may be involved in both intraspecific violence and interspecific predation (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1975; Bygott, 1979; Kortlandt, 1980; Vogel, 1989). Many observers have consensually remarked how arousing it is for primates to participate in and to observe the killing and eating of a prey animal. Some observers have described meat-eating by chimpanzees to be a social, almost a ritualized, experience for the participating animals (Kortlandt, 1980).
Possibly brief attacks on females encountered in overlap zones between neighboring communities attract rather than repel the females concerned (Goodall et al., 1979); some young unhabituated females not only remained within the home range but gradually moved into the core area despite occasional attacks (Pusey, 1979). The male gang attacks on the old male Goliath are particularly puzzling, both in view of his extreme old age and his history of long and peaceful associations with the aggressor males. He could in no way be considered a reproductive competitor (Bygott, 1979).
It appears that the violence of the chimpanzee ‘warriors’ is especially severe towards old, lactating, and anestrous females, and considerably less severe towards females in estrus, i.e., those with high reproductive value. “In particular, young nulliparous females are not attacked severely and instead may be escorted by or forced to travel with the aggressors (Wolf & Schulman, 1984; Goodall, 1986). This makes sense as part of a male reproductive strategy because such females are destined to transfer to a new group and are therefore potential mates. While lethal attacks were likely to be directed against solitary males and anestrous females, estrous females seem to be considered an attractive and alienable resource which can be transferred into the attackers’ group” (Manson & Wrangham, 1991).
Similarly, Ghiglieri (1984, 1987, 1988)
reported on the
Ghiglieri (1987) and Alexander (1989) speculated that this strategy may be a pattern common to the human-chimpanzee-bonobo (huchibo) clade. Especially, the combination of male-male cooperation, territoriality and female transfer has been singled out as the starting condition for lethal intergroup aggression (Goodall, 1986; Ghiglieri, 1987, 1988; Alexander, 1989; Manson & Wrangham, 1991; van der Dennen, 1995).
Manson & Wrangham (1991) referred to the chimpanzee ambush-like pattern of stealth, stalking and ‘stabbing in the back’ as “lethal male raiding”, and asserted that it is similar to armed raiding in small-scale human societies.
Goodall (1986: 492-493) stated: “it is clear that interactions between males of neighboring communities are typically hostile”. She outlined the common aspects in the five attacks she witnessed:
(a) the attacks were all long – the shortest lasted at least ten minutes, and three continued more than twice as long; (b) all were gang attacks, during which the aggressors sometimes assaulted the victim one after the other, or two to five assailed the victim simultaneously; (c) all the victims were, at some point, held to the ground by one or more of the aggressors while others hit and pounded; (d) all the victims, in addition to being hit, stamped on, and bitten, were dragged first in one direction, then another;... and (g) during each incident the observers, all thoroughly experienced in chimpanzee behavior, believed that the aggressors were trying to kill their victims... because the attacked showed some of the patterns which, while commonly seen during the killing of large prey, have not been seen during intracommunity fighting – as when one of Goliath’s [adult male] legs was twisted, when a strip of flesh was torn from Dé’s [adult male] thigh, or when Satan [adult male] drank the blood pouring from Sniff’s [adolescent male] nose. Moreover, in all cases the attacks continued until the victims were incapacitated (Goodall, 1986: 529; see also Thayer, 2004: 171).
From the five long-term sites where chimpanzees live with neighbors (Budongo, Gombe, Kibale, Mahale, and Taï) we now have more than 180 years of data on 11 communities. The 5 sites yield direct evidence of kills of neighbors in 33 cases, and a further 16 suspected victims. They also show repeated interest in killing, evidenced from patrolling of borders to attempts to isolate, immobilize and intensely batter or cut a victim (Wrangham, 2006).
At Mahale, Nishida and his colleagues (Nishida, 1979, 1990; Nishida, Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, Hasegawa & Takahata, 1985) confirmed Goodall’s insights about chimpanzee warfare and discovered that the chimpanzee community they called the K-group gradually became extinct over 15 years as almost all of its adult males died in conflict with the neighboring and much larger M-group. As the number of males was reduced the females were incorporated, at first gradually and then later en masse, into the invading group, as was most of the K-group’s territory, where they mated with the victorious males (Nishida, Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, Hasegawa & Takahata, 1985: 289-292). Kibale also provides evidence of coalitionary kills (Thayer, 2004: 175; Wrangham, 1999: 9; see also Ghiglieri, 1999: 174-175).
Border patrols, deep incursions, ‘commando’ attacks, ‘lateral’ attacks’, coalitionary kills (but not ‘back-and-forth’ attacks), as described in some (gruesome) detail by Goodall (1986), Nishida (1979, 1990), Nishida, Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, Hasegawa & Takahata, 1985; Ghiglieri, 1999; Boesch et al. (2007, 2008), Boesch & Boesch-Achermann (1999/2000), Wrangham (1999), and Thayer (2004: 167-176), are probably all variants of the general phenomenon of coalitionary, intercommunity lethal raiding in chimpanzees.
Among the western subspecies of chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes verus, there is no evidence of lethal intraspecific aggression toward adults or infants from the Bossou or Taï research stations (Thayer, 2004: 175).
According to current data, as reported by Wrangham, Wilson & Muller (2006), the average conservatively estimated risk if violent death for chimpanzees (271 per 100,000 per year) falls in the same order of magnitude as the median value for rates of death from warfare among subsistence-society hunters and farmers (164 and 595 per 100,000 per year, respectively – data compiled mainly by Keeley, 1996). Thus, the authors concluded, among chimpanzees the risk of death from violence appears roughly similar to the risk experienced by humans living in subsistence societies.
On chimpanzee ‘warfare’ see also: Alexander, 1987, 1989; Arnhart, 1995; Boehm, 1992; Boesch & Boesch, 1989; Boesch & Boesch-Achermann, 1999/2000; Boesch et al., 2008; Crofoot & Wrangham, 2009; Diamond, 1992; Gat, 2006; Ghiglieri, 1987, 1988, 1989; Goodall, 1986: 530-34; Hamburg, 1991; Kelly, 2005; Knauft, 1991; Lund, 1995; Manson & Wrangham, 1991; McGrew, 1991; Otterbein, 1985, 1997; Roscoe, 2007; Sherrow & Amsler, 2007; Smith, 2007; Stanford, 1998, 1999; Thayer, 2004; Trudeau, Bergmann‑Riss & Hamburg, 1981, 1981; van der Dennen, 1995; van Hooff, 1990; Watts, Muller, Amsler, Mbabazi & Mitani, 2006; Williams, 2000; Williams, Oehlert & Pusey, 2004; Williams et al., 2008; Wilson & Wrangham, 2003; Wilson, Mjungu & Pusey, 2011; Wilson, Wallauer & Pusey, 2004; Wrangham, 1987, 1991, 1996, 1999; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996; Wrangham & Pilbeam, 2001; Young, 1991; among many others. It is still hotly debated whether lethal male raiding in chimpanzees and humans represents a synapomorphy (shared derived trait) or a homoplasy (convergent evolution) (Wrangham, 1999: 19-20; Wilson & Wrangham, 2003: 385). Explanations of chimpanzee raiding will be presented below.
Aureli, Schaffner, Verpooten, Slater & Ramos-Fernandez (2006) reported on the first cases ever witnessed of raiding parties of male spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi yucatanensis), a species expected to show such a behavioral tendency, given its similarity with humans and chimpanzees in critical socio-ecological characteristics, such as fission-fusion social dynamics and male-male bonding. Despite the high degree of arboreality of spider monkeys, all seven witnessed raids involved the males progressing single file on the ground in unusual silence. This is remarkably similar to the behavior of chimpanzees. The circumstances around the raids suggest that factors such as reduced mating opportunities, number of males relative to that in the neighboring community, and the strength of bonds among males could play a role in the timing of such actions. The raids did not appear to be aimed at finding food, whereas there is some indication that they may directly or indirectly increase reproductive opportunities. Although no killing was observed, the possibility cannot be excluded, according to the authors, that spider monkey raids may be aimed at harming rivals if a vulnerable individual were encountered. The similarity of spider monkey raids with those of chimpanzees and humans supports the notion that lethal raiding is a convergent response to similar socio-ecological conditions.
“As there is no evidence for cooperative hunting in spider monkeys, the similarity of spider monkey raids with those of chimpanzees and humans could challenge the proposal of a link between group hunting and lethal raids based on the occurrence of both in humans and chimpanzees, but of neither in bonobos (Goodall et al., 1979; van Hooff, 1990; van der Dennen, 1995; Wrangham, 1999)” (Aureli, Schaffner, Verpooten, Slater & Ramos-Fernandez, 2006: 494-495).
Little is known yet about bonobo (Pan paniscus) (also known as pygmy chimpanzee and gracile chimpanzee) intercommunity encounters. Encounters are mostly avoided, but when they occur they appear mildly antagonistic, ranging from peaceful mixing in the border area (and mainly confined to adult males giving branch-dragging displays), to nonlethal fighting (no observation has been made of participants killed in intergroup fights), and violent clashes sometimes leading to bloody wounds (Badrian & Badrian, 1984; Kano, 1984; Kano & Mulavwa, 1984; Knauft, 1991; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). There appears to be intergroup dominance attenuating agonistic contacts (Kano, 1987; Kitamura, 1983; Nishida & Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, 1987).
The “make love, not war” species, the “ape from Venus” does not exist. In the wild, bonobos appear to be much less ‘sexy’ and much more aggressive (including intergroup violence) than in semi-captivity (Vervaecke, 2002: 123). Even the first signs of hunting of black mangabeys by bonobos have been observed, as well as the consumption of monkey meat (Surbeck & Hohmann, 2009; Surbeck, Fowler, Deimel & Hohmann, 2008).
Stanford (2001) pointed out that the contrast between bonobos and chimpanzees, as painted by de Waal (e.g., 2001) derives largely from a comparison of wild chimpanzees with captive bonobos. In bonobos, intercommunity encounters, too, often involve aggression, and within the group it is often the females who are ‘demonic’ (Slurink, 2002: 272).
Shea (1983) has argued that a variety of bonobo morphological traits are neotenous and pedomorphic compared to common chimpanzees, and proposed that these changes resulted from selection for reduced sexual dimorphism in morphology and behavior. Wrangham & Pilbeam (2001: 11-12) elaborated Shea’s idea with the specific suggestion that reduced sexual dimorphism functioned to reduce aggressive behavior by adult males.
Anatomically and behaviorally the bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee) may be characterized as a slender and pre-pubescent (pedomorphic or juvenilized) form of chimpanzee. Taxonomically speaking the two species Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus should be renamed the robust and the gracile chimpanzees (Kortlandt, 1999: 25) (and humans the ‘third’ chimpanzee as suggested by Diamond ).
Gracile chimpanzee society is a maternocracy. Another conspicuous characteristic of gracile chimpanzee society is its friendliness and peacefulness in combination with substantial male-female equality (e.g., de Waal & Lanting, 1998). Generally, young mammals are much more tolerant, amicable and playful among themselves than adults. So it might be that the friendliness and peacefulness among the adult graciles is more or less an accidental byproduct of their anatomical and behavioral pedomorphism or juvenilization of the species (Kortlandt, 1999: 35-36).
This suggestion was supported by Boose & White (2011) who reported that “factors related to female cohesion reduce the benefit of male direct and coalitionary aggression and instead have selected for alternative individual male strategies utilizing indirect agonism”.
Even contrasts between the male‑dominated hierarchies of chimpanzees, on the one hand, and the more egalitarian relationships of bonobos, on the other hand, come down to the degree to which individuals or groups can monopolize resources, such as food and mates, that are important to reproduction (Strier, 2001: 78-79).
Four subspecies of gorilla are recognized
today: Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla
The wild mountain gorilla is organized into age‑graded‑male troops. Dominance behavior is very low‑keyed and overt aggression nearly nonexistent (Schaller, 1963; 1965a,b; Fossey, 1971 et seq.). Groups respond in variable and unpredictable ways when they meet. Usually the encounters are peaceful, but mutual aggression and aversion, and sometimes severe violence, also occur on occasion (Watts, 1989; Sicotte, 1993; Robbins, Sicotte & Steward, 2001; Bermejo, 2004; Doran-Sheehy, Greer, Mongo & Schwindt, 2004; Magliocca & Gautier-Hion, 2004; Robbins & Sawyer, 2007; Robbins, 2010). Fossey has stressed the importance of the personal idiosyncracies of the dominant males (silverbacks), who control the movements of the group.
(2010) has pointed out that female dispersal occurs only during intergroup
encounters. Therefore intergroup encounters are key events for male-male
competition and female choice. Males ‘herd’ females away from opposing group.
Furthermore, she observed that: (1) Interactions with solitary males are more
likely to be aggressive and/or result in avoidance behavior (both Karisoke
[Virunga] and Bwindi [
Furthermore, Robbins reported 3 cases of mountain gorilla silverbacks suffering severe injuries and dying following intergroup encounters (Watts, 1989; Williamson, pers. comm.; Grueter, pers. comm.). All were solitary males attacked by multimale groups, and all were relatively young silverbacks, which is suggestive of imbalance of power. She also reported 2 cases of Western lowland silverbacks suffering severe injuries and dying following intergroup encounters (Jeffery, Abernethy, Tutin, Anthony & Bruford, 2007; Cipolletta, 2006, in press). Both were older group-living silverbacks. It has been suggested that Western lowland gorillas tend to have more ‘peaceful encounters’ than mountain gorillas. Bradley et al. (2004) found through genetic analysis that neighboring males were often, but not always relatives. Therefore they proposed the ‘male network hypothesis’: low levels of aggression may be due to males interacting differently towards relatives in neighboring home ranges.
Collective defensive behavior is highly differential among animal species. Most of them have neither defense nor offense in their repertoire. Collective defense is exemplified by avian mobbing of raptors, and collective territorial defense in some other bird species. In some avian species territorial defense involves regular patrolling of territorial boundaries and chorus vocalizations by all group members in concert.
Among social carnivores, a number of species show coordinated lethal attacks. In wolves (Canis lupus), family-based packs occasionally invade neighboring packs’ territories, attacking residents; Mech (1977) found that intraspecific conflict accounted for 43% of deaths not caused by humans. Among spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), who, like wolves, live in family-based, territory-holding groups, intruders into a clan’s territory are likely to be attacked and killed, and smaller clan subgroups patrol the territory boundaries, confronting other ‘patrols’ (Kruuk, 1972, 1975). Neighboring clans sometimes engage in pitched battles over carcasses of prey that one or the other of the groups has killed.
In lions (Panthera leo), which also live in groups (prides) based on a group of related females and one or more associated males, interpride encounters occur, but lethal injury is rare. When invading males are attempting to take over a pride, there may be lethal injuries, though once one male cedes reproductive rights, aggression typically stops. New males are likely to commit infanticide (Bertram, 1976, 1978; Packer, 1986; Packer & Pusey, 1982, 1983, 1984).
Collective defense would be rather pointless if there were no threat or danger of offense. In the remainder of this chapter I shall focus on these (mainly primate) species in which intraspecific intergroup agonistic behavior, involving observed offensive episodes, has been clearly ascertained.
1. The overwhelming majority of gregarious and social mammalian species does not have IAB in its behavioral repertoire. It is likely that these species lack the requisite social and cognitive skills, such as a coalitional psychology, to cooperate polyadically for the sake of orchestrated intergroup competition: a high-risk/high-gain strategy.
2. The majority of species in which IAB has been documented belong to the primate order (see Appendix). The intergroup behavior of primates is extremely variable – in terms of frequency and intensity of encounters (even between different populations of the same species), the resources being contested, and the sex of the participants – and ranges from very relaxed and ‘peaceful’ to lethal raiding (J.L. Brown, 1975; Eberhard & Candland, 1981; Cheney, 1987; Crofoot & Wrangham, 2009). Some level of intergroup aggression occurs during intergroup encounters in most primates whether or not they actually defend a home range (Fashing, 2001: 219).
Escalated aggression rarely occurs during intergroup conflicts in group-living primates. One possible explanation is that the costs of aggression, compared to the potential benefits, are high (Crofoot & Wrangham, 2009: 18). An alternative explanation is that the collective action problem inherent in group-level resource competition presents an obstacle to high individual investment (Nunn & Lewis, 2001; Nunn & Deaner 2004; Kitchen & Beehner 2007; Crofoot & Wrangham, 18-19), though protecting reproductive investment seems, at least partly, to explain the willingness of individuals to defend the group, even when others do not assist (Kitchen & Beehner, 2007: 1566-1567). Also dominance rank explains behavioral variation in agonistic intergroup participation in several species (capuchins [Cebus capucinus]: Fragaszy, Visalberghi & Fedigan, 2004; Tibetan macaques [Macaca thibetana]: Zhao, 1997; blue monkeys: Payne, Lawes & Henzi, 2003; black howlers [Alouatta pigra]: Kitchen, 2004; ring-tailed lemurs: Nunn & Deaner, 2004; bonnet macaques [Macaca radiata]: Cooper, Aureli & Singh, 2004). Thus, collective action problems are solved in several species because the animals reaping the benefits are the ones providing the service (Kitchen & Beehner, 2007: 1564-1565).
In most primate species conflicts between groups are rare. Neighboring groups generally avoid each other. When groups spot one other, the group most eccentric in relation to its home range generally is the first to retreat, or, in case a dominance-subordination relationship exists among the groups (vide infra), the subordinate group retreats (Kawanaka, 1973; Eberhard & Candland, 1981; McKenna, 1982; Cheney, 1983, 1987).
Among primates, exclusive use of space is
generally maintained by (a) site attachment and avoidance of the ranges of
neighboring groups (mutual proximity-dependent avoidance); (b) site-dependent
aggression and regular definition of the conventional location of boundaries;
and (c) active defense of (exclusive access to) an area’s resources by
advertisement and/or eviction of intruders (territoriality). The behavioral
mechanisms regulating spacing and grouping may vary within a genus, and even
within a species (Robinson, Wright & Kinzey, 1987). For example, in a Callicebus
torquatus (yellow-handed titi monkey) population in
Intergroup confrontations between dusky titi appear to be very frequent, conspicuous, regular, and predictable, occurring at stable boundary areas, and either limited or markedly affected by time of day (Klein, 1974).
Table 1: Outcomes of Primate Group Encounters (after Eberhard & Candland, 1981)
Complete Fusion Groups coalesce permanently, with restructuring of social relations (e.g., rhesus monkeys: Bernstein, Gordon & Rose, 1974).
Fission-Fusion Groups aggregate and interact, but subsequently diverge (e.g., mountain gorilla: Schaller, 1963).
Indifference Groups in proximity, but appear indifferent to, or ignore each other (e.g., Himalayan langurs: Sugiyama, 1976).
Mutual Avoidance Coordination of range use such that groups seem to avoid contact (e.g., prosimians: Sussman & Richard, 1974; Owl monkeys: Wright, 1978).
Unilateral Avoidance Avoidance or displacement of one group by another (e.g., baboons: Nash, 1976; rhesus: Gabow, 1973; Japanese macaques: Kawanaka, 1973).
Mild Threat Groups engage in gestural, locomotor, or vocal displays or threats (e.g., squirrel monkeys: Baldwin & Baldwin, 1976; bonobo: Nishida & Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, 1987).
Intensive Threat High intensity threats involving chases, physical contact between animals is rare (e.g., Kloss’s gibbon: Tenaza, 1975);
Ritualized Contact Aggressive physical contact between groups, but serious injury occurs rarely (e.g., black-and-white colobus: Schenkel & Schenkel-Hilliger, 1967).
Injurious Contact Severe aggressive contact, with injury or death in both groups (e.g., cercopithecines: Struhsaker, 1969).
Killing Death of one or more animals in one group (e.g., squirrel monkeys: Candland et al., 1978).
As a rule, most primate agonistic group encounters are of the ‘ritualized contact’ type, in which injuries are rare and hardly serious, and fatalities virtually unknown (Eberhard & Candland, 1981; King, 1980). The few times when contact between groups results in a collective skirmish, it seems to be the result of incidental escalation of brawls between peripheral individuals in which others interfere, rather than a deliberately coordinated and concerted enterprise (van Hooff, 1990). Some non-territorial species have evolved loud calls (‘duetting calls’) that aid in the regulation of intergroup spacing and mutual avoidance. In contrast, when groups defend all or part of their home ranges, most intergroup interactions are characterized by aggression rather than by mutual avoidance. Friendly interactions (play, grooming, copulation) between members of different intraspecific groups do, however, occur in both territorial and nonterritorial species (Cheney, 1987: 272).
The agonistic repertoire in these encounters ranges from vocal and gestural displays, bluffing and intimidation, via threats, chases, ‘pitched battles’ to ‘deliberate’ killing. The level of agonism in macaques depends on the previous history of the troops, familiarity of the members, rank of the troops, and location of the encounter (Chapais, 1983; Ciani, 1986; Hausfater, 1972; Vessey, 1968).
Troops of rhesus macaques (Southwick, 1962; Southwick, Beg & Siddiqi, 1965), Japanese macaques (Kawanaka, 1973), langurs (Sugiyama, Yoshiba & Parthasarathy, 1965; Ripley, 1967), and howlers (Southwick, 1962, 1963; Carpenter, 1965), avoid contact with each other when approaching the overlapping zones. When two howler troops approach each other, they will engage in a noisy howling battle, but Southwick (1963) reported that he never saw two howlers fight.
Adjacent social groups in the majority of colobines generally interact aggressively (Struhsaker & Leland, 1987: 91; Yeager & Kirkpatrick, 1998), with adult males usually the most aggressive and frequent participants. In most populations of Presbytis entellus, adult females (Ripley, 1967), as well as youngsters (Hrdy, 1977) may play prominent roles in intergroup fights. In at least one population of this species, however, neighboring groups were extremely tolerant of one another (Jay, 1965).
Poirier (1974) summarized the major
characteristics of colobine aggression (genera Colobus and Presbytis). Much
of colobine aggressive behavior, and certainly some of its most dramatic
instances, are witnessed between rather than within troops. Among some
colobines, extreme aggression is witnessed between males of bisexual and
all-male groups. When members of the latter invade a bisexual troop,
infanticide and group leadership change is common. Oates (1977) studied the
black-and-white colobus of the
Home range size is influenced by both dietary requirements and the spatiotemporal distribution of food (Cheney, 1987; Clutton-Brock & Harvey, 1977). A group’s ability to patrol its range on a regular basis is correlated with the presence or absence of territoriality (Mitani & Rodman, 1979). This is in accordance with the ‘economic defendability’ model of territoriality (J.L. Brown, 1964, 1975).
4. Facilitating and/or aggravating
conditions of IAB in primates include: extreme crowding and population density
due to e.g., areal reduction, competition for food at artificial feeding sites
and other rather ‘pathological’ conditions such as disruption caused by human
interference. Probably the most fierce intertroop fighting observed in monkeys
was that described by Southwick, Beg & Siddiqi (1965) among rhesus monkeys
living in a temple in
5. In primate species which form all-male groups, defense by the leader of the bisexual group against the violent appropriation and abduction of females by the all-male group may result in prolonged and severe fighting with skirmishes and raids lasting for periods of 3-10 days (Bygott, 1979; Mohnot, 1971).
In capped langurs (Presbytis pileata [Trachypithecus pileatus]), intergroup aggression is not related to defense of food sources by either sex, but rather appears to involve attempts by males from outside the group to interact with group females. During intergroup encounters, resident females bite and push females that approach an intruding male. Males appear to use intergroup encounters as a means of defending their own females while gaining access to those of other groups (Stanford, 1991).
Mate defense and the exploration of new breeding opportunities appear to be important functions of intergroup conflict also in moustached tamarins (Saguinus mystax) (Garber, Pruetz & Isaacson, 1993) and baboons (Papio spp.) (vide supra).
6. For some primate species agonistic intertroop or intercommunity encounters may be highly attractive (at least for some individuals, mostly young males) (chimpanzees: Bygott, 1979; Goodall, 1986; gibbons: Ellefson, 1968; mountain gorillas: Fossey, 1979; langurs: Ripley, 1967; Morrison & Menzel, 1972), and confrontations may be actively sought and provoked (which suggests intrinsic motivation: They seem to be ‘spoiling for a fight’). On the other hand, it has become increasingly clear lately that female involvement in IAB has been systematically underestimated. For example, among rhesus macaques at Cayo Santiago, “violent intergroup squabbles... were marked by sustained fighting in line formation... 2-20 animals faced off with individuals of an opposing group and reciprocally lunged, batted, and growled... participants in the line were most often adult females and 2- to 5-year-old males (i.e., juveniles and subadults)” (Hausfater, 1972). Adult females may be more involved than males and in a number of species are reported to constitute the central phalanx (Manson & Wrangham, 1991).
In many territorial primate species, females are frequently aggressive during intergroup interactions (e.g., ring-tailed lemurs, emperor [Saguinus imperator] and saddleback tamarins [Saguinus fuscicollis], vervets, redtail monkeys, blue monkeys, and Kloss’s gibbons [Hylobates klossii]). Female aggression is more variable, however, in species that only infrequently defend ranges. In some of these, female aggression is common (e.g., macaque spp., red howlers, capuchins). In other species, however, males are the primary antagonists, perhaps because, as Cheney (1987) suggested, encounters more often concern mate, rather than food, defense (e.g., baboons, mountain gorillas).
The wild mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla berengei) is organized into age‑graded‑male troops. Dominance behavior is very low‑keyed and overt aggression nearly nonexistent (Schaller, 1963; 1965a,b; Fossey, 1971 et seq.). Groups respond in variable and unpredictable ways when they meet. Usually the encounters are peaceful, but mutual aggression and aversion, and sometimes severe violence, also occur on occasion. Fossey has stressed the importance of the personal idiosyncracies of the dominant males (silverbacks), who control the movements of the group.
In primate species characterized by male dispersal (or female philopatry), female hostility toward other groups and cooperation in intergroup aggression is common, and may involve both resource defense against extragroup females, and, more or less collective, antagonism toward migrant, potentially infanticidal, males. Gang attacks, involving mostly females, have twice been reported to lead to deaths of males attempting to enter a group of red colobus (Manson & Wrangham, 1991). Cheney (1987: 278 ) noted that the hostility of the females toward intruder males often escalates and affects the whole group. Female antagonism toward extragroup females also occurs in some of the social carnivores.
In monogamous primate species, such as the gibbons (Hylobates spp.) and their close relative the siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus), females may be as aggressively participating in cooperative range or territory defense and other intergroup interactions as males. In these situations the animals tend to be most aggressive toward individuals of their own sex, perhaps because they represent potential mate competition (Cheney, 1987: 275). Gibbons maintain their family territories largely by vocalizations and bluffing behavior, which prevents a great deal of actual fighting. Despite this, Carpenter (1940) noted scars of healed wounds on many animals that indicate serious fighting does occur. Monogamy in the gibbons is enforced by hostility between the females, even between mother and daughter (Leighton, 1987; Cheney, 1987: 275).
In primate species characterized by female dispersion, in which the females transfer to new groups, on the other hand, females tend not to participate in aggressive intergroup interactions: e.g., in gorillas (Fossey, 1979; Harcourt, 1978), red colobus (Struhsaker & Leland, 1979), and hamadryas baboons (Abegglen, 1984). Among chimpanzee females attacks on females of other communities are rare, but not entirely absent (Goodall et al., 1979; Cheney, 1987).
Female involvement in intergroup aggression has been proposed to depend on whether resources that limit female reproduction are defensible through cooperative action. Accordingly, species in which females cooperate may be expected to be those with female philopatry. Female philopatry also appears to be associated with female participation in intergroup aggression in social carnivores such as spotted hyenas (Kruuk, 1972) and lions (Packer, Scheel & Pusey, 1990).
7. In a number of primate and carnivore species IAB is accompanied by infanticide and, occasionally, cannibalism. For the evolutionary rationale behind infanticide, as a male reproductive strategy, see Hausfater & Hrdy (1984) who also present evidence on other genera and taxa, and van Schaik & Janson (2000).
8. Personal idiosyncrasies and ‘character
structure’ of (mostly male) leaders strongly influence group integration, the
movements of the group within its home range, and dominance-subordinate
relationships with other groups (Itani et al., 1963; Kawai, 1964; Fossey, 1971
et seq; Kawanaka, 1973). Careful control of trouble within the group and
leading attacks on other groups was for instance characteristic of some leader
males at Takasakiyama. Furthermore, concerted action and scouting behavior of
group males seem to indicate a “consciousness of belonging” (Kawanaka, 1973) in
this species. In the
Furthermore, individuals may vary in their willingness to participate in intergroup aggression based on characteristics such as their age and experience (e.g., Lazaro-Perea, 2001; Kitchen, Cheney & Seyfarth, 2004; Majolo, Ventura & Koyama, 2005), fighting ability (e.g., Steenbeek, 1999), changing state (e.g., lactating: Lazaro-Perea, 2001) and temperament (Kitchen & Beehner, 2007: 1573).
9. When home ranges overlap extensively, the aggressive defense of a particular resource may be more costly than the simple avoidance of other groups. In such cases, intergroup competition is often mediated by the relative dominance of the groups involved. There is evidence for a positive correlation between a group’s size (and the number of adult males) and its ability to displace other groups (though occasionally more subtle factors – such as the history of past relations between the groups – are involved) (J.L. Brown, 1975). Observational studies support the expectation that larger groups should tend to win intergroup fights (Cheney, 1987; Packer, Scheel & Pusey, 1990; Harcourt & de Waal, 1992; Adams 1998; Gat 1999; Wrangham 1999; Boesch & Boesch-Achermann, 2000; Sugiura et al., 2000; Wilson, Britton & Franks, 2002; Thayer, 2004; Crofoot & Wrangham, 2009).
This results in a definite linear group dominance hierarchy revealed by approach-retreat encounters. Approach-retreat encounters (called Type C encounters by Deag ) have, for example, been observed in most macaque species (Givens, 1975; Saito et al., 1998; Crofoot & Wrangham, 2009). Occasionally, groups expand their home ranges at the expense of their neighbors’, and in these cases the relative sizes of the groups – as well as the fighting ability of a particular individual – may determine success (Cheney, 1987: 271-272). Robinson (1988) demonstrated a linear dominance hierarchy among groups of wedge-capped capuchins (Cebus olivaceus). A group’s overall ability to dominate another may influence the behavior of its members (Kitchen & Beehner, 2007: 1568).
10. With regard to the general function(s) of IAB in primates, Washburn & Hamburg (1972) succinctly epitomized: “Intergroup aggression either leads to one group’s having the resources of an area at its exclusive disposal, or at least creates a situation in which one is much more likely to obtain food in one area”.
Food is not the only resource nonhuman species fight over, however. Much more important is the struggle for differential reproduction. Nonhuman vertebrate males frequently come into open conflict over access to females, and/or control of resources useful in attracting females. Females, on the other hand, may cooperate in coalitions of kin to attack reproductive competitors, or the offspring of reproductive competitors (Wasser, 1983; Silk & Boyd, 1983); such situations typically involve harassment of subordinate females and infanticide, with little risk to the aggressors (See review by van der Dennen, 1992). The basic reasons for male-male intergroup aggression, rather than intergroup aggression by both sexes, probably include the different reproductive payoff curves for the two sexes in mammals generally (Low, 1993).
As Alexander (1989), and G. Johnson have emphasized: “Competition is often attributed to scarcity, but to understand fully the ubiquity in competition in a Darwinian world, it must be understood that competition normally occurs even in the absence of scarcity… there will be competition to acquire unequal proportions… In addition, certain reproductively relevant resources are inherently scarce” (G. Johnson, 1995: 293-4). In other words, in a Darwinian world, it is impossible not to compete.
Four main reasons have been offered to
explain why primates might live in groups (collective survival enterprises in
There are two important factors influencing group size in primates: predation risk promotes the formation of large groups while the costs of group living give rise to tensions that lead to the disintegration of large groups. The balance between these two countervailing forces yields the optimum group size and this will obviously be habitat-specific (Cf. Goodall’s centrifugal and centripetal forces in chimp communities). This optimum group size will, however, be subject to the constraint imposed by a third factor: the availability and dispersion of food in a given habitat (Dunbar, 1988: 131). Overall, the balance between competition and predation explains group size tendencies of different species reasonably well (van Schaik, 2002: 936).
Can we make sense of, and bring some order in, the apparent diversity of the intergroup behavioral patterns in the nonhuman primates and in the other species we have encountered? The most valiant attempt in that direction is the socio-ecological approach as developed by Wrangham (1980, 1987), van Schaik (1983 et seq.), van Schaik & van Hooff (1983), Cheney (1987), van Hooff (1988, 1990), Fashing (2001), Kitchen & Beehner (2007), among others, on the ultimate causes of primate sociality. Though differing in detail and emphasis, these authors consider powerful ecological selection pressures to have shaped the social structure of primates (and by implication other species). Other factors, such as phylogenetic inertia (Thierry [2000, 2008; Thierry, Iwaniuk & Pellis, 2000] recently found evidence of phylogenetic inertia in the genus Macaca), are also acknowledged, but the emphasis is clearly on the physical and social environment.
The socio-ecological model underlying this reasoning is, highly simplified, the following:
1. Primates (organisms in general) are considered to behave as if they were maximizing their reproductive success (RS), and to compete for resources necessary to achieve this ‘aim’.
2. As scramble competition (also called ‘exploitation competition’) and contest competition (also called ‘exclusion competition’ or ‘interference competition’) can occur within social groups as well as between social groups, four main types of competition ought to be distinguished: Within-Group Scramble (WGS), Within-Group Contest (WGC), Between-Group Scramble (BGS), and Between-Group Contest (BGC). All four types of competition can be present simultaneously in one species. The main conditions giving rise to contest competition within as well as between groups are: (a) resources in short supply, and (b) the (economic) defensibility of access to those resources. The factors limiting the reproductive success of males and females tend to be different, however, due to the strong asymmetry in parental investment. Consequently, males and females compete for different resources, and the competitive and cooperative (alliances, coalitions, bonding) isosexual interactions, as well as male-female bonds, are expected to reflect these different interests. For example, in situations where males are not able to provide significant services to females (such as protection against sexual harassment or infanticide by other males), females are expected not to develop bonds with males, and in fact should actively attempt to keep them away or repel them from their groups.
3. Reproductive success of females is determined largely by the general factor ‘health’, good condition, or nutritional and energetic status, meaning the combined effects of access to vital (food) resources, safety from predators, absence of stress overload and infectious diseases, and absence of other factors conducive to a poor physical condition, and which may adversely affect fecundity.
4. Reproductive success of males, on the other hand, is determined to a very large extent by access to fertile females (the only ‘resources’ who can convert the males’ fitness potential into reproductive success). The social behavior among males largely reflects the distribution in space and time of females, and hence mating opportunities (van Schaik, 2002: 934-935).
These two considerations combined predict strikingly different reproductive strategies for the sexes. Females, in general, will maximize RS by maintaining a good condition for a long period of time. Males, on the other hand, maximize RS (a) by fertilizing many females and by investing in the maximization of the chances of fertilization (a polygamist strategy); or (b) by investing in long-term paternal care for a small number of consecutively raised offspring (a monogamist strategy). In the former case, males will have to face fierce competition by other males. In the latter, males will have to face possible ‘marital infidelity’ by their mates, and chronic challenges and threats to their paternity confidence. In fact, sexual fidelity “is a phenomenon that seems to occur only when males can impose it on females, either directly through their greater social power or brute force, or, indirectly through controlling the resources that females and their offspring require” (Strier, 2001: 92).
5. Predation pressure largely determines sociality versus solitariness, while distribution and monopolizability of food resources largely determine the competition regime. Predictable and defendable resources are conducive to contest competition within and between groups, while abundant, non-clumped, undefendable food resources are conducive to scramble competition (i.e., competition in terms of efficiency of exploitation). When kin-based alliances of females increase access to food patches, females are expected to remain in their natal groups and cooperate with kin, and to form hierarchies of nepotistic ‘matriarchal clan systems’. They are also expected, as the resident sex, to be hostile toward (females of) other groups, in proportion to the economic defensibility of the home ranges, and to participate in intergroup conflicts as ferociously as males or even more so. Because males may aid females in dominating other groups, aggression toward extragroup males is expected to be less severe than toward extragroup females. Similarly, monogamous species are predicted to aggressively defend home ranges.
6. The competition regime largely determines the distribution and organization of females (e.g., female-bonded societies with matrilines and complex hierarchies are common in frugivorous primates with within-group contest competition), and their attachment to the natal group, and, consequently, the migration of males. Males migrate (become the exogamous sex) when females are bonded in female kin-hierarchies and, therefore, discouraged from emigrating (because they will virtually always be worse off if they emigrate to another group). Once females emigrate as well, because they live in a situation of scramble competition and, therefore, are not forced into strong female bonds, males have the option to stay in their natal group and to develop long-lasting relationships based on familiarity and kinship. In those species characterized by female dispersal, females are expected to avoid agonistic intergroup interactions and not to participate in home range defense. The intergroup behavior of males, on the other hand, should primarily involve defense of females against extragroup males.
7. The distribution, organization, and reproductive competition of males is determined largely by the distribution, organization, and monopolizability of females. When BGC competition is important, group members are expected to form a large alliance in order to improve their competitive ability as a group. This generally implies a more relaxed and egalitarian WGC regime, otherwise subordinates might either refrain from taking risks in intergroup conflicts, or even defect to another group.
In addition to food, males are expected to compete above all over access to females. Whether this competition takes the form of scramble or contest competition is determined principally by the distribution in space and time of estrous females. If females live in compact groups, access to them can be monopolized, which results in female defense polygyny (either one-male groups if the females can be guarded or herded effectively, or else multi-male groups). If the home ranges in which the females live, or the resources to which they are attracted, can be defended effectively, this gives rise to resource defense polygyny. In these situations intrasexual selection will favor contest vigor and dimorphism in males. If monopolization of females is impossible (females actively resist being monopolized or choose a diversity of mating partners), males may form either monogamous bonds with a single female (most often in the form of exclusive consort relationships with fertile females), or engage in scramble competition polygyny, in which case natural selection favors sperm competition.
The male reproductive competition regime largely determines the ‘politics’ of males, the genesis of (opportunistic) coalitions and support strategies, cooperation in hunting and intergroup conflict if present, the sharing of prey, and the functional analogon to human ‘fraternal interest groups’ in chimpanzees.
Fashing (2001) found evidence that male aggression toward extra-group rivals functions in resource defense. If males defend food resources to attract mates, it is possible that females ‘pay back’ contributing individuals in some manner (Kitchen & Beehner, 2007: 1561-1562).
Mate- and resource-defense strategies
Fashing (2001) found strong evidence consistent
with both the direct male mate defense and indirect male mate defense via
resource defense hypotheses in his study of male and female participation in
agonistic intergroup encounters in Colobus guereza (
A review of the most intensive studies of primate intergroup encounters suggests that direct male mate defense may occur in almost all primate species, while female resource defense appears to be most common in species with high levels of female philopatry.
Fashing (2001: 227-228) also presented a hypothesis that predicts when male primates are expected to adopt the resource defense strategy. First, food must be limiting and distributed in defensible patches. Second, groups must include relatively small numbers of females and/or females exhibiting estrous asynchrony so that the females are virtually reproductively monopolizable. Third, females are expected to choose to mate with males that defend resources, and to transfer to other groups once the male in their group begins to defend resources poorly. Fashing predicts that species that both meet the above predictions and include only one adult male per group are the most likely to feature males adopting the resource defense strategy. Species that may meet the above criteria include gibbons and many colobine monkeys.
In species in which males do not have priority of reproductive access to females in their groups, males are not expected to defend food resources during intergroup encounters. For example, in some cercopitechine species characterized by groups of many females and one male, including patas monkeys and at least two species of guenons (Cercopithecus ascanius and Cercopithecus mitis), adult males take no part in intergroup aggression, leaving the females to engage in range defense for themselves (Cords, 1987; Rowell, Wilson & Cords, 1991; Fashing, 2001: 228).
Although females are often victims or bystanders who do not participate at all during intergroup encounters, they can be equally or more involved than males (e.g., blue monkeys: Payne, Lawes & Henzi, 2003; vervets: Cheney, 1992; Hanuman langurs: Borries, 1993; ring-tailed lemurs: Sauther, Sussman & Gould, 1999; black and white colobus: Korstjens, Nijssen & Noë, 2005).
Given that nutrition limits female fitness, female involvement in intergroup encounters with or without male accompaniment should occur more frequently when food resources are “economically defendable” (J.L. Brown, 1964, 1975; Kitchen & Beehner, 2007: 1562).
Wrangham (1980) suggested that when resources are limiting and patchy in distribution, a group of female primates could cooperatively defend a clump against another group. Because cooperation would most likely necessitate bonding among females, Wrangham predicted that group-defense would occur more often in primate species where philopatry allows females to form social bonds with kin. Many empirical studies support this hypothesis. Participation by females is more likely (1) for female-philopatric species, (2) when at least loose bonds exist among female group members, (3) in areas with defendable resources, high between-group competition and low within-group competition, (4) when facing female rather than male competitors (particularly in sexually dimorphic and infanticidal species) and (5) when there is no option to freeload off male group-defense (Kitchen & Beehner, 2007: 1563-1564).
Crofoot & Wrangham (2009: 4-5) have recently criticized that the “tendency to treat feeding and mating competition between social groups as unrelated and, oftentimes, mutually exclusive phenomena, has created an artificial division between species where males compete over mates and species where females compete over food. Recent studies have demonstrated that males can defend food resources either directly, or as a byproduct of their mate defense (Fashing, 2001; Harris, 2005; Harris, 2006a), highlighting the flaws of this dichotomy and indicating that closer attention must be paid to the functional implications of intergroup aggression (Harris, 2007)”.
In the 1990s, many researchers set to work testing the predictions from socioecological models. This body of work confirmed many of the predictions derived from socioecological models (Altmann, 2000; Barton, Byrne & Whiten, 1996; Boinski, 1999; Isbell, Pruetz, Lewis & Young, 1999; Kappeler, 2000; Koenig, Beise, Chalise & Ganzhorn, 1998; Mitani, Gross-Louis & Manson, 1996; Mitchell, Boinski & van Schaik, 1991; Nunn, 1999; Pope, 2000; Sterck, Watts & van Schaik, 1997; see also Janson, 1992, 2000) (Silk, 2001: 12030-31)
But the analyses were unsatisfying because they could not account for much of the observed variation in social organization in primates. Moreover, while these studies revealed a number of robust associations among various ecological variables, they did not produce much insight about the causal processes underlying these correlations. Finally, these comparative studies did not consider the possibility that some of the similarities between species were the result of common phylogenetic history, not independent adaptations to ecological conditions (Silk, 2001: 12028).
The role of environment in shaping social organization was challenged by new comparative studies which took phylogeny explicitly into account (Di Fiore & Rendall, 1994). Selected pairwise comparisons of closely related primate species provide support for socioecological models, but these comparisons may not be representative. Most of the characteristics associated with WGC, including linear dominance hierarchies, nepotistic alliances, and female philopatry are found in almost all of the extant Cercopithecine species, even though they now occupy an extremely diverse range of habitats.
Thierry (2000, 2008; Thierry, Iwaniuk & Pellis, 2000) also found evidence of phylogenetic inertia in the genus Macaca. Despite sharing basic patterns of social organization, macaques display a broad range of interspecifc variation in their style of social relationships. Between-group comparisons showed in particular that conciliatory tendencies between nonkin are consistently below 12% in some species whereas they are around 50% or more in others. The use of phylogenetic analyses methods allows to assess how robust are such variations and address processes of evolutionary transformation. A first study showed that variations in the social style of macaques correlate with their phylogeny. By tracing the different characters of the social organization of macaques on their phylogenetic tree, it is possible to recognize their most ancient states and reconstruct their typical ancestral organization. A second study confirmed the occurrence of a strong phylogenetic signal for characters like conciliatory tendencies, proportions of explicit reconciliatory contacts, and kin bias in rates of reconciliation, meaning that such characters are linked to the evolutionary radiation of the macaque genus. Evolutionary change in one character leads to correlated change in other characters.
Di Fiore & Rendall’s and Thierry’s analyses indicate that there is considerable inertia in social evolution. The social systems categorized by socioecologists may represent different peaks in the adaptive landscape (Pope, 2000). If so, this seriously constrains the possible paths for change in social evolution (Silk, 2001: 12031). By limiting the changes possible to social organizations, interconnections between characters act as constraints that channel evolutionary processes and allow only a subset of organizations to arise (Thierry, 2008).
Explanations of Lethal Raiding in Chimpanzees
Goodall (1986: 526-533) herself explained the chimpanzee proto-warfare in terms of the idiosyncratic pattern of chimpanzee territoriality and preadaptations common in chimpanzees and early humans. In three important ways, she explains, chimpanzee behavior does not comply with classical territoriality:
(a) Both at Gombe and Mahale it is the relative size and the composition of the two neighboring parties that determine the outcome of an encounter, rather than the geographic location; (b) Chimpanzees have a large home range with considerable overlap between neighboring communities; and (c) It is perhaps in the violence of their hostility towards neighbors that chimpanzees, like hyenas and lions, differ most from the traditional territory owners of the animal kingdom. Their victims are not simply chased out of the owners’ territory if they are found trespassing; they are assaulted and left, perhaps to die. Moreover, chimpanzees not only attack trespassers, but may make aggressive raids into the very heart of the core area of neighboring groups.
It is also of considerable interest to find that the chimpanzees show behaviors that bear strong resemblance to, and hence may be precursors to pseudospeciation in humans. First, their sense of group identity is strong; they clearly differentiate between ingroup and outgroup, between individuals who ‘belong to us’ and those who do not. This sense of group identity is, Goodall claims, far more sophisticated than mere xenophobia. The members of the Kahame chimpanzee community had, before they split, enjoyed close and friendly relations with their aggressors. By separating themselves, it is as though they forfeited their ‘right’ to be treated as group members – instead they were treated as strangers. Second, nongroup members may not only be violently attacked, but the patterns of attack may actually differ from those utilized in typical intracommunity aggression. The victims are treated more as though they were prey animals; they are ‘dechimpized’.
Finally, Goodall observed, chimpanzees appear to possess the cognitive sophistication which is a prerequisite for the genesis of cruelty: they are capable to some extent of imputing desires and feelings to others, and they are almost certainly capable of feelings akin to (human) sympathy and empathy.
Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain the occurrence of lethal raids in chimpanzees, both in terms of the proximate mechanisms and the long-term functions (e.g., Wrangham, 1979, 1999; Wilson & Wrangham, 2003). They can be reduced to two main hypotheses (Aureli et al., 2006). Lethal raids can be viewed as an extreme form of mate competition in which males kill rival males to defend access to their own females, and possibly to gain access to females from neighboring communities (the “male-only community hypothesis”: Wrangham, 1979; Manson & Wrangham, 1991; Boesch & Boesch-Achermann, 2000; Theoretically, according to this view, the ultimate benefit of intergroup aggression among chimpanzees is expected to be increased access by aggressive males to reproductively valuable females, via either incorporation of neighbors or encroachment on the territory of neighboring males [Manson & Wrangham, 1991; cf. Low, 1993; van der Dennen, 1995]). Another possibility is that lethal raids are an extreme form of intercommunity feeding competition in which males defend or expand their territory, thus increasing the availability of food sources for themselves, the females of their community, and their offspring (the “bisexual community hypothesis” (implicit in the original ideas of Nishida and colleagues): Wrangham, 1999; Pusey, 2001; Pusey, Williams & Goodall, 1997; Williams, Oehlert & Pusey, 2004).
Since Wrangham formulated this idea of the male-only community hypothesis, evidence against it has accumulated. First, in addition to showing aggression to strange males, when males at the edges of the territory encounter stranger females who are not sexually receptive, they often attack them severely ‑ even lethally. Goodall described severe attacks between 1971 and 1982 on 20 different stranger females at Gombe, 15 of whom had infants or juveniles. In three attacks the males killed the females’ infants, but in most cases the aggression was directed primarily at the female. In 13 of 14 cases in which the female was well observed, she incurred serious wounds or left a great deal of blood. In no case were the males observed associating with these females after the attack (Pusey, 2001: 18; Wrangham, 2006). Second, females are sensitive to the position of the community border.
What then, is the purpose of a male territoriality whereby males repel not only males, but also females of other communities? Pusey, Williams & Goodall (1997) found evidence that the males are defending a feeding territory for all the community members. By expanding the community range and thereby excluding female as well as male feeding competitors, the males increased the reproductive rates of the resident females. If the community range remains large, the number of females may eventually increase as dispersing females settle in the area, but females do not seem to be ‘captured’ in the course of the initial expansion as suggested by the male‑only community hypothesis (Pusey, 2001: 19).
Why should chimpanzees, but few other mammals, engage in lethal intergroup attacks? The imbalance-of-power hypothesis developed by Wrangham and colleagues (Manson & Wrangham 1991, Wrangham & Peterson 1996; Wrangham, 1999, 2001; Crofoot & Wrangham, 2009) attempts to answer this question by drawing attention to the costs, rather than the benefits, of aggression. A growing number of studies support the view that animals use aggression strategically, when the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs of aggression (Archer, 1988; Huntingford & Turner, 1987; Wilson, 2003; Wilson & Wrangham, 2003).
The imbalance-of-power hypothesis proposes that in chimpanzees fission-fusion social structure, combined with coalitionary bonds among males, creates opportunities for low-cost killing of rivals. Chimpanzees travel in parties of varying size and composition, which may result in large disparities in party size during intergroup encounters, even among communities that are similar in overall size. In such cases, members of the larger group can kill rivals at very low risk of injury to themselves. During observed lethal intergroup attacks, three or more attackers ganged up on a single victim, who was immobilized by some of the attackers while others beat and bit the victim. Attackers themselves rarely received injuries. The imbalance-of-power hypothesis thus argues that intergroup attacks are lethal not because of unusually high benefits to be obtained from killing, but because the costs of killing are low during gang attacks. The primary, and ultimate, benefit of intergroup killing is thought to be the reduction of the coalitionary strength of rival communities, or, in other words, the weakening of the territorial power of the neighboring communities (Wrangham, 2001: 265). By reducing the fighting strength of a given community, males increase their chances of success in future battles with that community. More frequent success in battles should result in territory expansion and thus more food for group members, including females and offspring (Wrangham, 1999: 11-12; Wilson & Wrangham, 2003: 381).
for groups to achieve dominance over neighboring groups so that they can
enlarge their territories. Also
Furthermore they direct their attacks almost entirely to males, the sex that alone defends the territory. Thus while female strangers are often found alone and may be chased and beaten, more than 90% of adult victims of lethal inter-community aggression are male. Even infants killed by adults are mostly male. Those who die, therefore, are mainly the present and future defenders of the territory (Wrangham, 2006).
In the event of a successful attack there is no immediate pay-off other than the satisfaction the aggressors experience from the act itself. The implication is that natural selection has favored in chimpanzees a tendency to relish the prospect and performance of such brutality (Wrangham, 2006).
The idea that the low cost of lethal aggression elicits lethal raiding is central to the imbalance-of-power hypothesis. The imbalance-of-power hypothesis also predicts that the aggressors will be members of the philopatric sex, whether females (as in spotted hyenas, Crocuta crocuta) or males (as in chimpanzees) (Wrangham, 1999; Crofoot & Wrangham, 2009: 22).
Boesch et al. (2008) described 485 intergroup encounters involving four communities of chimpanzees of known composition from 1982 to 2005 in the Taï National Park, Côte d’Ivoire. They presented new evidence of lethal violence in this population, but confirmed that fatal violence is less common than documented for other chimpanzee populations.
Taï females have been recorded as being active participants of some of the intergroup encounters led by males (Boesch & Boesch Achermann, 2000), and confirmed by Boesch et al. (2008).
Most striking is the variation in the rate of intergroup killings, with Ngogo chimpanzees having the highest rate at two deaths per year of observation, whereas at Taï none have been observed in two of the three groups despite decades of observations. This difference cannot be attributed, according to the authors, to study duration, since some groups with shorter observation times have high death rates. Nor could it be attributed to the number of neighboring groups. Finally, the number of males in the community does not seem to explain the differences in intergroup death rates.
The intergroup death rate will likely be influenced by the number of individuals present during encounters. This includes support by other group members once encounters have started. Support can change the balance of power between opponents and influence encounter outcomes. Chimpanzee communities seem to vary in the extent to which supporting individuals join intergroup encounters.
These new observations on intergroup encounters in Taï chimpanzees confirm earlier suggestions that, in all known chimpanzee populations with enough observations, intergroup encounters are mostly aggressive and occur regularly throughout the period of study (Boesch & Boesch-Achermann, 2000; Boesch et al., 2008). Boesch et al.’s initial observations made with the North Group have been confirmed with two additional communities in Taï forest. These data as well as recent data coming from chimpanzees in other populations (Ngogo: Watts, Mitani & Sherrow, 2002; Watts, Muller, Amsler, Mbabazi & Mitani, 2006; Budongo: Newton-Fisher, 1999; Reynolds, 2005; Gombe: Wilson, Wallauer & Pusey, 2004; Loango: Boesch et al., 2007) confirm the general occurrence of intergroup competition in chimpanzees.
Direct observations of lethal aggression during intergroup conflicts in Taï chimpanzees show that this extreme behavior is general and not only restricted to East African chimpanzees (Wrangham, 1999; Wrangham, Wilson & Muller, 2006). Similar intergroup attacks by coalitions of many males who inflict numerous injuries on their victims, sometimes including removal of testes and penis, have been observed throughout the range of the chimpanzees in Africa. This strengthens the claim that this behavior is natural in chimpanzees, contrary to claims that humans induce it (Clark, 2002; Hart & Sussman, 2005; Power, 1991).
The observations by Boesch et al. (2008) show that supports regularly change the balance of power and thus create unpredictability. Second, small communities do not refrain from attacking larger communities (for example, when the Middle Group members attacked the much larger South Group or when the South Group members attacked the larger East Group), even when in very small parties. The authors’ general impression was that chimpanzees can take large risks when potential benefits are large or when failure to do so could inflict larger costs (see Grinnell, Packer & Pusey, 1995. for examples in male lions). Males in communities with a relatively small number of sexually active females might take more risks to attack groups with more females to try and improve their reproductive success, even if those groups have many more males (Boesch et al., 2008) [[reinforcing the view that intergroup violence in chimpanzees is a coalitionary high-risk/high-gain reproductive strategy, as proposed by van der Dennen, 1995]].
Mitani, Watts & Amsler (2010) found evidence that chimpanzees attack
neighbors to expand their territories and to gain access to more food. They
presented data collected over 10 years from an unusually large chimpanzee
community at Ngogo,
Also Wilson, Mjungu & Pusey’s (2011) conclusion on the Kasekela (Gombe) population pointed in that direction: “In the past, Kasekela chimpanzees directed most of their territorial effort toward the food-rich north, but gained most of their female immigrants from the south, suggesting that competition for food, rather than females, is the more common motivator for intergroup aggression in this population”.
Abegglen, J.J. (1984) On
Socialization in Hamadryas Baboons.
Adang, O. (1999) De machtigste chimpansee van Nederland: leven en dood in een mensapengemeenschap. Amsterdam: Nieuwezijds.
Albrecht, H. & S.C. Dunnett (1971) Chimpanzees in Western Africa. München: Piper.
Alexander, G.M. & M. Hines (2002) Sex differences in response to children’s toys in nonhuman primates (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus). Evol. & Human Behav., 23, 6, pp. 467-79.
Alexander, R.D. (1987) The
Biology of Moral Systems.
Alexander, R.D. (1989) Evolution of the human psyche. In: Mellars & Stringer (Eds.), pp. 455-513.
Archer, J. (1988) The
Behavioural Biology of Aggression.
Arnhart, L. (1995) Human nature – one, two, or none?: Feminism and primatology. In; Somit & Losco (Eds.), pp. 137-66.
Aureli, F. & F.B.M. de
Waal (Eds.) (2000) Natural
Aureli, F.; C.M. Schaffner; J. Verpooten; K. Slater & G. Ramos-Fernandez (2006) Raiding parties of male spider monkeys: Insights into human warfare? Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 135, 4, pp. 486-97.
Badrian, A. & N. Badrian (1984) Social organization of Pan paniscus in the Lomako Forest, Zaire. In: Susman (Ed.), pp. 325-46.
Baldwin, J.D. & J.I. Baldwin (1976) The vocalizations of howler
monkeys (Alouatta palliata) in
Baldwin, J.D. & J.I. Baldwin (1981) The squirrel monkeys, genus Saimiri. In: Coimbra-Filho & Mittermeier (Eds.).
Bateson, P.P.G. (Ed.) (1991) The
Development and Integration of Behaviour.
Bateson, P.P.G. & R.A. Hinde (Eds.) (1976) Growing Points in Ethology.
Bermejo, M. (2004) Home-range and inter-group encounters in western
gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) at
Bernstein, I.S. (1968) The lutong of Kuala Selongor. Behav., 32, pp. 1-16.
Bernstein, I.S. (1999) Animal behavior studies, Primates. In: L.R. Kurtz (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict. Vol. 1,
Bernstein, I.S. & C.L. Ehardt (1985) Intragroup agonistic behavior in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Internat. J. Primatol., 6, 3, pp. 209-26.
Bernstein, I.S. & T.P. Gordon (1974) The function of aggression in primate societies. Amer. Sci., 62, 3, pp. 304-11.
Bernstein, I.S.; T.P. Gordon & R.M. Rose (1974) Factors influencing the expression of aggression during introductions to rhesus monkey groups. In: Holloway (Ed.), pp. 21-40.
Bertram, B.C.R. (1976) Kin selection in lions and evolution. In: Bateson & Hinde (Eds.), pp. 281-301.
Bertram, B.C.R. (1978) Pride
Bigelow, R. (1969) The Dawn Warriors: Man's Evolution towards
Boehm, C. (1992) Segmentary ‘warfare’ and the management of
conflict: Comparison of East African chimpanzees and patrilineal-patrilocal
humans. In: Harcourt & De
Boesch, C. & H. Boesch (1989)
Hunting behavior of wild chimpanzees in the
Boesch, C. & H. Boesch-Achermann (1999/2000) The Chimpanzees of the
Boesch, C.; G. Hohmann & L.F.
Marchant (Eds) (2002) Behavioral
Diversity in Chimpanzees and Bonobos.
Boesch et al. (2007) Fatal chimpanzee attack in
Boesch et al. (2008) Intergroup conflicts among chimpanzees in
Borries, C. (1993) Ecology of female social relationships: Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) and the van Schaik model. Folia Primatol., 61, 1, pp. 21-30.
Bradley, B.J. et al. (2004) Dispersed male networks in Western gorillas. Current Biol., 14, pp. 510-13.
Brain, P.F. & D.
Brown, J.L. (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull., 76, pp. 160-69.
Brown, J.L. (1975) The Evolution of Behavior.
Bygott, J.D. (1972) Cannibalism among wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Nature, 238, pp. 410-411.
Bygott, J.D. (1974) Agonistic Behaviour and Social Relationships
among Adult Male Chimpanzees. PhD., Univ.
Bygott, J.D. (1979) Agonistic behavior, dominance, and social
structure in wild chimpanzees of the
Bygott, J.D.; B.C. Bertram & J.P. Hanby (1979) Male lions in large coalitions gain reproductive advantages. Nature, 282, 5741, pp. 839-41.
Byrne, R.W. & A. Whiten (1988) Machiavellian Intelligence, Social Expertise and the Evolution of
Intellect in Monkeys, Apes and Humans.
Byrne, R.W.; A. Whiten & S.P. Henzi (1987) One-male groups and intergroup interactions of mountain baboons. Internat. J. Primatol., 8, 6, pp. 615-33.
Campbell, C.J.; A. Fuentes; K.C. McKinnon; M. Panger & S.K.
Bearder (Eds.) Primates in Perspective.
Candland, D.K. et al. (1978) Behavior of unacquainted Saimiri troops upon encounter: A suggestive case study. Primates, 19, 4, pp. 643-55.
Carpenter, C.R. (1935) Behavior of the
red spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi)
Carpenter, C.R. (1940) A field study
Carpenter, C.R. (1942) Societies of monkeys and apes. Biol. Symposia, 8, pp. 177-204.
Carpenter, C.R. (1958) Territoriality:
A review of concepts and problems. In: A. Roe & G.G. Simpson (Eds.) Behavior
Carpenter, C.R. (1964) A field study of the behavior and social relations of the gibbon. In: Carpenter (Ed.).
Carpenter, C.R. (Ed.) (1964) Naturalistic Behavior of Nonhuman Primates.
Carpenter, C.R. (1965) The howlers of
Carpenter, C.R. (1968) The
contribution of primate studies to the understanding of war. In: M.H. Fried,
M. Harris & R. Murphy (Eds.) War: The Anthropology of Armed Conflict and
Carpenter, C.R. (1974) Aggressive behavioral systems. In: Holloway (Ed.), pp. 459-96.
Carthy, J.D. & F.J. Ebling (Eds.)
(1964) The Natural History of Aggression.
Chapais, B. (1983) Autonomous, bisexual subgroups in a troop of rhesus monkeys. In: Hinde (Ed.), pp. 220-22.
Chapais, B. (1991) Primates and the origin of aggression, power, and politics among humans. In: Loy & Peters (Eds.), pp. 190-228.
Cheney, D.L. (1981) Intergroup encounters among free-ranging vervet monkeys. Folia Primatol., 35, pp. 124-46.
Cheney, D.L. (1983) Intergroup
Cheney, D.L. (1987) Interactions and relationships between groups. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 267-81.
Cheney, D.L. (1992) Intragroup cohesion and intergroup hostility: The relation between grooming distributions and intergroup competition among female primates. Behav. Ecol. & Sociobiol., 3, 4, pp. 334-45.
Cheney, D.L. & R.M. Seyfarth (1977) Behavior of adult and immature male baboons during inter-group encounters. Nature, 269, pp. 404-6.
Cheney, D.L. & R.M. Seyfarth (1987) The influence of intergroup competition on the survival and reproduction of female vervet monkeys. Behav. Ecol. & Sociobiol., 21, 6, pp. 375-86.
Chivers, D.J. & J.
Herbert (Eds.) (1978) Recent Advances in Primatology. Vol. 1:
Ciani, A.C. (1986) Intertroop
agonistic behavior of a feral rhesus macaque troop ranging in town and forest
Clutton-Brock, T.H. & P.H. Harvey (1977) Primate ecology and social organisation. J. Zool., 183, pp. 1-39.
Clutton-Brock, T.H. & G.A. Parker (1995) Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim. Behav., 49, 5, pp. 1345-65.
Coimbra-Filho, A.F. & R.A.
Mittermeier (Eds) Ecology and Behavior of
Neotropical Primates. Vol. 1.
Collins, D.A. (1981) Social Behaviour and Patterns of Mating among Adult Yellow Baboons (Papio c. cynocephalus L. 1766). PhD, Univ. Edinburgh.
Collins, D.A.; C.D. Busse & J. Goodall (1984) Infanticide in two populations of savanna baboons. In: Hausfater & Hrdy (Eds.), pp. 193-216.
Cooper, M.A.; F. Aureli & M. Singh (2004) Between-group encounters among bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata). Behav. Ecol. & Sociobiol., 56, pp. 217-27.
Cords, M. (1984) Mating patterns and social structure in redtail monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius). Z. f. Tierpsychol., 64, 3-4, pp. 313-29.
Cords, M. (1987)
Corning, P. (1999) Co-operative genes: Synergy and the bioeconomics of evolution. In: Van der Dennen, Smillie & Wilson (Eds.), pp. 26-45.
Crofoot, M.C. & R.W. Wrangham (2009) Intergroup aggression in primates and humans: The case for a unified theory. In: Kappeler & Silk (Eds.), pp. 171-97.
Crook, J.H. (1968) The nature and function of territorial aggression. In: Montagu (Ed.), pp. 141-78.
Daniel, J.R.; A.J. Santos & M.G. Cruz (2009) Postconflict behaviour in Brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Folia Primatol., 80, 5, pp. 329-40.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1976) Straight-aggression and appeal-aggression in Macaca fascicularis. Experientia, 32, 10, pp. 1268-70.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1977) The organization of agonistic relations within two captive groups of Java-monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Z. f. Tierpsychol., 44, 3, pp. 225-82.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1978a) Exploitative and familiarity-dependent support strategies in a colony of semi-free living chimpanzees. Behav., 66, 3-4, pp. 268-312.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1978b) Join-aggression and protective aggression among captive Macaca fascicularis. In: Chivers & Herbert (Eds.), pp. 577-79.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1982) Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among
De Waal, F.B.M. (1984) Sex differences in the formation of coalitions among chimpanzees. Ethol. & Sociobiol., 5, 4, pp. 239-55.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1987) Dynamics of social relationships. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 421-29.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1988) Verzoening: vrede stichten onder apen en mensen. Utrecht: Spectrum.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1989) Peacemaking among Primates.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1992) Aggression as a well-integrated part of primate social relationships: A critique of the Seville Statement on Violence. In: Silverberg & Gray (Eds.), pp. 37-57.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1993) Reconciliation among primates: A review of empirical evidence and unresolved issues. In: Mason & Mendoza (Eds.), pp. 111-44.
De Waal, F.B.M. (2001): Apes from Venus: Bonobos and human social evolution. In: De Waal (Ed.), pp. 41-68.
De Waal, F.B.M. (Ed.) (2001) Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us about Human Social
De Waal, F.B.M (2006) Primates and Philosophers: How Morality
De Waal, F.B.M. (2010) The
Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society.
De Waal, F.B.M. & A.H. Harcourt (1992) Coalitions and alliances: A history of ethological research. In: Harcourt & de Waal (Eds.), pp. 1-22.
De Waal, F.B.M. & J.A.R.A.M. van Hooff (1981) Side-directed communication and agonistic interactions in chimpanzees. Behav., 77, 3, pp. 164-98.
De Waal, F.B.M. & F. Lanting
(1998) Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape.
De Waal, F.B.M. & A. van Roosmalen (1979) Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behav. Ecol. & Sociobiol., 5, pp. 55-66.
De Waal, F.B.M., J.A.R.A.M. van Hooff & W.J. Netto (1976) An ethological analysis of types of agonistic interaction in a captive group of Java monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Primates, 17, 3, pp. 257-90.
De Wit, J. & W.W. Hartup (Eds.)
(1974) Determinants and Origins of
Deets, A.C. & H.F. Harlow (1971)
Early experience and the maturation of aggression. In: V.P. Rock (Ed.) Value and Knowledge Requirements for Peace.
DeVore, I. & K.R.L. Hall (1965) Baboon ecology. In: DeVore (Ed.), pp. 20-52.
Deag, J.M. (1973) Intergroup encounters in the wild
Diamond, J. (1992) The Rise
and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee: Evolution and Human Life.
Dittus, W.P.J. (1977) Group fusion among wild toque macaques: An extreme case of inter-group resource competition. Behav., 100, 1-4, pp. 247-91.
Dolhinow, P. (1972) The north Indian langur. In: Dolhinow (Ed.), pp. 1-19.
Dolhinow, P. (Ed.) (1972) Primate
Dolhinow, P. & N. Bishop (1972) The development of motor skills and social relationships among primates through play. In: Dolhinow (Ed.).
Doran-Sheehy, D.M.; D. Greer; P. Mongo & D. Schwindt (2004) Impact of ecological and social factors on ranging in western gorillas. Amer. J. Primatol., 64, 2, pp. 207-22.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1988) Primate
Eberhart, J.A. & D.K. Candland (1981) A preliminary model of primate intergroup encounters. In: Brain & Benton (1981), pp. 577-84.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1975) Krieg und Frieden aus der Sicht der Verhaltensforschung. München: Piper Verlag.
Ellefson, J.O. (1968) Territorial behavior in the common white-handed gibbon, Hylobates lar Linn. In: Jay (Ed.), pp. 180-99.
Ellefson, J.O. (1974) A natural history of white-handed gibbons in
the Malayan peninsula. In: D.M. Rumbaugh (Ed.) Gibbon and Siamang. Vol. 3.
Else, J.G. & P.C. Lee (Eds.) (1986) Primate Ontogeny, Cognition, and Social Behaviour.
Fashing, P.J. (2001) Male and female strategies during intergroup encounters in guerezas (Colobus guereza): Evidence for resource defense mediated through males and a comparison with other primates. Behav. Ecol. & Sociobiol., 50, 3, pp. 219-30.
Foley, R.A. (Ed.) (1991) The Origins of Human Behavior.
Fossey, D. (1971) More years with mountain gorillas. Nat. Geograph. Mag., 140, 4, pp. 574-85.
Fossey, D. (1976) The Behavior of the Mountain Gorilla. Doct. Diss.,
Fossey, D. (1979) Development of the mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla berengei): The first thirty-six months. In: Hamburg & McCown (Eds.), pp. 139-86.
Fossey, D. (1981) The imperiled mountain gorilla. Nat. Geograph. Mag., 159, 4, pp. 501-23.
Fossey, D. (1983) Gorillas in
Fossey, D. (1984) Infanticide in mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla berengei) with comparative notes on chimpanzees. In: Hausfater & Hrdy (Eds.), pp. 217-36.
Fragaszy, D.M.; E. Visalberghi & L.M. Fedigan (2004) The Complete Capuchin: The Biology of the
Fraser, O.N. (2008) Stress reduction through consolation by valuable partners in chimpanzees. Paper Conf. Cognitive Processes of Conciliatory Behaviour. Biological Centre Univ. Groningen, June 12th.
Gabow, S.L. (1973) Dominance order reversal between two groups of free-ranging rhesus monkeys. Primates, 14, 2-3, pp. 215-23.
Galdikas, B.M.F. (1979) Orangutan adaptation at Tanjung Puting Reserve: Mating and ecology. In: Hamburg & McCown (Eds.), pp. 195-234.
Garber, P.A.; J.D. Pruetz & J. Isaacson (1993) Patterns of range use, range defense, and intergroup spacing in moustached tamarin monkeys (Saguinus mystax). Primates, 34, 1, pp. 11-25.
Gat, A. (1999) The pattern of fighting in simple, small-scale, pre-state societies. J. Anthopol. Res., 55, 4, pp. 563-83.
Gat, A. (2006) War in Human
Ghiglieri, M.P. (1984) The
Ghiglieri, M.P. (1987a) Sociobiology of the great apes and the hominid ancestor. J. Human Evolution, 16, pp. 319-58.
Ghiglieri, M.P. (1987b) War among the chimps. Discover, 8, 11, pp. 67-76.
Ghiglieri, M.P. (1988) East of
the Mountains of the Moon: The Chimpanzees of
Givens, R.D. (1975) Aggression in nonhuman primates: Implications for understanding human behavior. In: Nettleship, Givens & Nettleship (Eds.), pp. 263-80.
Goethe, F. (1939) Über das Anstossnehmen bei Vögeln. Z. f. Tierpsychol., 3, pp. 371+.
Goodall, J. (1965) Chimpanzees of the Gombe Stream Reserve. In: DeVore (Ed.), pp. 425-73.
Goodall, J. (1968) The behaviour of free-living chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream Reserve. Anim. Behav. Monogr., 1, 3, pp. 161-311.
Goodall, J. (1970) Tool using in primates and other vertebrates. Advanced Stud. Behav., 3, pp. 195-249.
Goodall, J. (1971) Some aspects of aggressive behavior in a group of free-living chimpanzees. Internat. Soc. Sci. J., 23, 1, pp. 89-97.
Goodall, J. (1977) Infant killing and cannibalism in free-living chimpanzees. Folia Primatol., 28, pp. 259-82.
Goodall, J. (1979) Life and death at Gombe. Nat. Geograph. Mag., 155, 5, pp. 592-621.
Goodall, J. (1986) The
Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior.
Goodall, J. (1990) Through a
Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe.
Goodall, J. (1991) Gombe chimpanzee politics. In: Schubert & Masters (Eds.), p. 105-37.
Goodall, J. et al. (1979) Intercommunity interactions in the
chimpanzee population of the
Hall, K.R.L (1962) The sexual, agonistic and derived social behaviour patterns of the wild chacma baboon (Papio ursinus). Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 139, pp. 283-327.
Hall, K.R.L. (1964) Aggression in monkey and ape societies. In: Carthy & Ebling (Eds.), pp. 51-64.
Hall, K.R.L. (1965) Behaviour and ecology of the wild patas monkey, Erythrocebus patas, in
Hall, K.R.L. & I. DeVore (1965) Baboon social behavior. In: DeVore (Ed.), pp. 53-110.
Harcourt, A.H. (1978) Strategies of emigration and transfer by primates with particular reference to gorillas. Z. f. Tierpsychol., 48, pp. 401-20.
Harcourt, A.H. & F.B.M. de Waal (1992) Cooperation in conflict: From ants to anthropoids. In: Harcourt & de Waal (Eds.), pp. 493-510.
Harcourt, A.H. & F.B.M. de Waal (Eds.) (1992) Coalitions and
Alliances in Humans and Other Animals.
Harris, T.R. (2005) Roaring, intergroup aggression, and feeding
competition in black and white colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza) at Kanyawara, Kibale National Park, Uganda. Dept.
Harris, T.R. (2006) Between-group contest competition for food in a highly folivorous population of black and white colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza). Behav. Ecol. & Sociobiol., 65, pp. 317-29.
Harris, T.R. (2007) Testing mate, resource and infant defence functions of intergroup aggression in non-human primates: Issues and methodology. Behav., 144, pp. 1521-35.
Hassett, J.M.; E.R. Siebert & K. Wallen (2008) Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children. Hormones & Behav., 54, 3, pp. 359-64.
Hausfater, G. (1972) Intergroup behavior of free-ranging rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Folia Primatol., 18, pp. 78-107.
Hausfater, G. & S.B. Hrdy (Eds.) (1984) Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives.
Higley, J.D. (2003) Aggression. In: Maestripieri (Ed.), pp. 17-40.
Hinde, R.A. (Ed.) (1983) Primate
Social Relationships: An Integrated Approach.
Hohmann, G. & B. Fruth (1994) Structure and use of distance calls in wild bonobos (Pan paniscus). Internat. J. Primatol., 15, 5, pp. 767-82.
Holloway, R.L. (Ed.) (1974) Primate
Aggression, Territoriality, and Xenophobia: A Comparative Perspective.
Hrdy, S.B. (1974) Male-male competition and infanticide among the
langurs (Presbytis entellus) of Abu,
Hrdy, S.B. (1977) The Langurs
of Abu: Female and Male Strategies of Reproduction.
Hrdy, S.B. (1977) Infanticide as a primate reproductive strategy. Amer. Sci., 65, 1, pp. 40-49.
Hrdy, S.B. (1979) Infanticide among animals: A review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethol. & Sociobiol., 1, pp. 13-40.
Hrdy, S.B. (1981) The Woman
that Never Evolved.
Hrdy, S.B. & G. Hausfater (1984) Comparative and evolutionary perspectives on infanticide: Introduction and overview. In: Hausfater & Hrdy (Eds.), pp. xiii-xxxv.
Huntingford, F.A. & A. Turner (1987) Animal Conflict.
Ihobe, H. (1992) Observations on the meat-eating behavior of wild
bonobos (Pan paniscus) at Wamba,
Imanishi, K. &
Itani, J. (1954) The Monkeys of Takasakiyama. Ford Foundation.
Itani, J. (1966) Social organization of chimpanzees. Shizen, 21, pp. 17-30.
Itani, J. (1977) Evolution of primate social structure. J. Human Evol., 6, pp. 235-43.
Itani, J. (1980) Social structures of African great apes. J. Reprod. Fertil., Suppl. 28, pp. 33-41.
Itani, J. (1982) Intraspecific killing among non-human primates. J. Soc. & Biol. Structures, 5, 4, pp. 361-68.
Itani, J. et al. (1963) The social construction of natural troops of Japanese monkeys in Takasakiyama. Primates, 4, 3, pp. 1-42.
Jay, P.C. (1965) The common langur in northern
Jay, P.C. (Ed.) (1968) Primates:
Studies in Adaptation and Variability.
Jeffery, K.J.; K.A. Abernethy; C.E.G. Tutin; N.A. Anthony & M.W. Bruford (2007) Who killed Porthos? Genetic tracking of a gorilla death. Integrative Zool., 2, 2, pp. 111-19.
Johnson, G.R. (1995) The evolutionary origins of government and politics. In: Losco & Somit (Eds.), pp. 243-305.
Jolly, A. (1966) Lemur
Behavior: A Madagascar Field Study.
Jolly, A. (1972) The Evolution
of Primate Behavior.
Jolly, A.; R.W. Sussman; N.
Koyama & H. Rasamimanana (Eds.) (2006) Ringtailed Lemur Biology: Lemur catta in
Kappeler, P.M. & J. Silk (Eds.) (2009) Mind the Gap: Tracing the Origins of Human Universals.
Kawai, M. (1964) [The Ecology
of Japanese Monkeys].
Kawai, M. (1965) On the system of social ranks in a natural troop of Japanese monkeys on Koshima islet. In: Imanishi & Altmann (Eds.).
Kawai, M. et al. (1992) New records of within-group infanticide and cannibalism in wild chimpanzees. Primates, 33, pp. 151-62.
Kawanaka, K. (1973) Intertroop relationships among Japanese monkeys. Primates, 14, 2-3, pp. 113-59.
Kawanaka, K. (1981) Infanticide and cannibalism in chimpanzees, with
special reference to the newly observed case in the
Kawanaka, K. (1982a) A case of inter-unit-group encounter in
chimpanzees of the
Kawanaka, K. (1982b) Further studies on predation by chimpanzees of
Kelly, R.C. (2005) The evolution of lethal intergroup violence. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 43, pp. 15294-8.
Kempes, M.M.; B.O. de Castro & E.H.M. Sterck (2008) Conflict management in aggressive individuals: do they reconcile? Paper Conf. Cognitive Processes of Conciliatory Behaviour. Biological Centre Univ. Groningen, June 12th.
King, G.E. (1980) Alternative uses of primates and carnivores in the reconstruction of early hominid behavior. Ethol. & Sociobiol., 2, pp. 99-109.
Kinzey, W.G. & J.G. Robinson (1983) Intergroup loud calls, range size, and spacing in Callicebus torquatus. Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 60, pp. 539-44.
Kitamura, K. (1983) Pygmy chimpanzee association patterns and ranging. Primates, 24, pp. 1-12.
Kitchen, D.M. (2004) Alpha male black howler monkey responses to loud calls: Effect of numeric odds, male companion behaviour and reproductive investment. Anim. Behav., 67, pp. 125-39.
Kitchen, D.M. & J.C. Beehner (2007) Factors affecting individual participation in group-level aggression among non-human primates. Behav., 144, pp 1551-81.
Kitchen, D.M., D.L. Cheney & R.M. Seyfarth (2004) Factors mediating inter-group encounters in savannah baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus). Behav., 141, pp. 197-218).
Klein, L.L. (1974) Agonistic behavior in neotropical primates. In: Holloway (Ed.), pp. 77-122.
Knauft, B.M. (1991) Violence and sociality in human evolution. Current Anthropol., 32, 4, pp. 391-409.
Koford, C.B. (1963) Group relations in an island colony of rhesus monkeys. In: Southwick (Ed.).
Koford, C.B. (1965) Population dynamics of rhesus monkeys on Cayo Santiago. In: DeVore (Ed.), pp. 160-74.
Kondo, S.; M. Kawai & A.
Ehara (Eds.) (1975) Contemporary
Korstjens, A.H; E.C. Nijssen & R. Noë (2005) Inter-group relationships in western black-and-white colobus (Colobus polykomos polykomos). Internat. J. Primatol., 26, pp. 1267-89.
Kortlandt, A. (1965) How do chimpanzees use weapons when fighting leopards? Yearbook Amer. Philos. Soc., pp. 327-32.
Kortlandt, A. (1967) Experimentation with chimpanzees in the wild. In: D. Starck; R. Schneider & H.J. Kuhn (Eds.)
Neue Ergebnisse der Primatologie.
Kortlandt, A. (1972) New
Perspectives on Ape and Human Evolution.
Kortlandt, A. (1975) Wild chimpanzees using clubs in fighting an animated stuffed leopard. In: Nettleship et al. (Eds.).
Kortlandt, A. (1980) How might early hominids have defended themselves against large predators and food competition. J. Human Evol., 9, pp. 79-112.
Kortlandt, A. (1999) Ape models of incipient hominid lifestyles: Chimpanzee or pygmy chimpanzee (bonobo)? In: H. Ullrich (Ed.) Hominid Evolution: Lifestyles and Survival Strategies. Edition Archaea, pp. 25-43.
Kruuk, H. (1972) The Spotted
Hyaena: A Study of Predation and Social Behavior.
Kruuk, H. (1975) Hyaena.
Kummer, H. (1957) Soziales Verhalten einer Mantelpavian-Gruppe.
Kummer, H. (1968) Social Organization of Hamadryas Baboons: A Field Study.
Kummer, H. (1971) Primate Societies: Group Techniques of Ecological Adaptation.
Kummer, H. (1978) Analogs of morality
among nonhuman primates. In: G. Stent (Ed.) Morality
as a Biological Phenomenon.
Kummer, H. (1979) Intra- and intergroup relationships in primates. In: von Cranach et al. (Eds), pp. 381-84.
Kummer, H. & F. Kurt (1963) Social units of a free-living population of hamadryas baboons. Folia Primatol., 1, pp. 4-19.
Kummer, H. & F. Kurt (1965) A
comparison of social behavior in captive and wild hamadryas baboons. In: H. Vagtborg
(Ed.) The Baboon in Medical Research.
Kummer, H.; W. Götz & W. Angst (1974) Triadic differentiation: An inhibitory process protecting pair bonds in baboons. Behav., 49, pp. 62-87.
Kurland, J.A. (1973) A natural history
of kra macaques (Macaca fascicularis
Raffles, 1821) at the Kutai Reserve, Kalimantan Timur,
Kuroda, S. (1979) Grouping of the pygmy chimpanzees. Primates, 20, pp. 161-83.
Kuroda, S. (1980) Social behavior of the pygmy chimpanzees. Primates, 21, pp. 181-97.
Kuroda, S. (1982) Pygmy Chimpanzees.
Kuroda, S. (1984) Interactions over food among pygmy chimpanzees. In: Susman (Ed.), pp. 301-24.
Lasswell, H.D. (1936) Politics:
Who Gets What, When, How.
Lazaro-Perea, C. (2001) Intergroup interactions in wild common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus: Territorial defense and assessment of neighbors. Anim. Behav., 62, Pt 1, pp. 11-21.
Leighton, D.R. (1987) Gibbons: Territoriality and monogamy. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 135-45.
Littlefield, B.L. (2010) Infanticide following male takeover event in Verreaux’s sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi verreauxi). Primates, 51, 1, pp. 83-86.
Low, B.S. (1993) An evolutionary perspective on war. In: W.
Zimmerman & H.K. Jacobson (Eds.) Behavior,
Culture, and Conflict in World Politics.
Loy, J. & B. Peters (Eds.) (1991) Understanding Behavior: What Primate Studies Tell Us about Human
MacKinnon, J.R. (1971) The orang-utan in
MacKinnon, J.R. (1979) Reproductive behavior in wild orangutan populations. In: Hamburg & McCown (Eds.), pp. 257-74.
Maestripieri, D. (Ed.) (2003) Primate
Magliocca, F. & A. Gautier-Hion (2004) Inter-group encounters in Western lowland gorillas at a forest clearing. Folia Primatol., 75, pp. 379-82.
Majolo, B.; R.
Manson, J.H. & R.W. Wrangham (1991) Intergroup aggression in chimpanzees and humans. Current Anthropol., 32, 4, pp. 369-77.
Mason, W.A. (1966) Social organization of the South American monkey Callicebus moloch: A preliminary report. Tulane Studies in Zool., 13, pp. 23-28.
Mason, W.A. (1968) Use of space by Callicebus groups. In: Jay (Ed.), pp. 200-216.
Mason, W.A. & S.P. Mendoza (Eds.) (1993) Primate Social Conflict.
Masters, R.D. (1975) Politics as a biological phenomenon. Soc. Sci. Info., 14, pp. 7-63.
Masters, R.D. (1983) The biological nature of the state. World Politics, 35, 2, pp. 161-93.
Masters, R.D. (1989) The
Nature of Politics.
McGrew, W.C. (1991) Chimpanzee material culture: What are its limits and why? In: Foley (Ed.) pp. 13-24.
McGrew, W.C. (1992) Chimpanzee
McGrew, W.C.; P.J. Baldwin & C.E.G. Tutin (1981) Chimpanzees in
a savanna habitat:
McGrew, W.C.; L.F. Marchant & T. Nishida (Eds) (1996) Great Ape Societies.
McGrew, W.C., C.E.G. Tutin & P.J. Baldwin (1979) New data on meat eating by wild chimpanzees. Current Anthropol., 20, 1, pp. 238-9.
McGrew, W.C.; C.E.G. Tutin; P.J. Baldwin; M.J. Sharman & A.
Whiten (1978) Primates preying upon vertebrates: New records from
McGuiness, D. (Ed) (1987) Dominance,
Aggression and War.
McGuire, M.T. (1982) Social dominance relationships in male vervet monkeys: A possible model for the study of dominance relationships in human political systems. Internat. Polit. Sci. Rev., 3, pp. 11-32.
McKenna, J.J. (1982) Primate field studies: The evolution of
behavior and its socioecology. In: J.L. Forbes & J.E. King (Eds.) Primate Behavior.
McKenna, J.J. (1983) Primate aggression and evolution: An overview of sociobiological and anthropological perspectives. Bull. Amer. Acad. Psychiat. & the Law, 11, 2, pp. 105-30.
Mech, L.D. (1977) Productivity, mortality, and population trends of
wolves in northeastern
Mellars, P. & C. Stringer (Eds.) (1989) The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the
Origins of Modern Humans. Princeton:
Michael, R.P. & J.H. Crook (Eds.) Comparative Ecology and Behaviour of Primates.
Miller, P. (1995) Crusading for chimps and humans… Jane Goodall. Nat. Geographic, 188, 6, pp. 102-28.
Mitani, J.C. & P.S. Rodman (1979) Territoriality: Relation of ranging patterns and home range size to defendability, with an analysis of territoriality among primates species. Behav. Ecol. & Sociobiol., 5, pp. 241-51.
Mitani, J.C.; D.P. Watts & S.J. Amsler (2010) Lethal intergroup aggression leads to territorial expansion in wild chimpanzees. Current Biology, 20, 12, R507-R508.
Mohnot, S.M. (1971) Some aspects of social changes and
infant-killing in the Hanuman langur Presbytis
entellus (Primates: Cercopithecidae) in western
Montagu, M.F.A. (Ed.) (1968) Man
Morris, R & D. Morris (1966) Men
Morrison, J.A. & E.W. Menzel (1972) Adaptation of a free-ranging rhesus monkey group to division and transportation. Wildlife Monogr., 31, pp. 1-78
Muller, M.N. & R.W. Wrangham (Eds.) (2009) Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans: An Evolutionary Perspective on
Male Aggression against Females.
Nagel, U. & H. Kummer (1974) Variation in cercopithecoid aggressive behavior. In: Holloway (Ed.), pp. 159-85.
Nash, L.T. (1976) Troop fission in free-ranging baboons in the Gombe Stream National Park, Tanzania. Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 44, pp. 63-78.
Nettleship, M.A.; R.D. Givens & A. Nettleship (Eds.) (1975) War, Its Causes and Correlates.
Netto, W.J. & J.A.R.A.M. van Hooff (1986) Conflict interference and the development of dominance relationships in immature Macaca fascicularis. In: Else & Lee (Eds.), pp. 291-300.
Nishida, T. (1963) Intertroop relationship of the Formosan monkey Macaca cyclopsis relocated on the Nojima Islet. Primates, 4, pp. 121-22.
Nishida, T. (1967)
Nishida, T. (1968) The social group of wild chimpanzees of the
Nishida, T, (1970) Social behaviour and relationship among wild
chimpanzees of the
Nishida, T. (1972) Preliminary information on the pygmy chimpanzees
(Pan paniscus) of the
Nishida, T. (1979) The social structure of chimpanzees of the
Nishida, T. (1980) On inter-unit-group aggression and intra-group cannibalism among wild chimpanzees. Human Ethol. Newsletter, 31, pp. 21-24.
Nishida, T. (1981) [The World
of Wild Chimpanzees].
Nishida, T. (1983) Alpha status and agonistic alliance in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii). Primates, 24, 3, pp. 318-36.
Nishida, T. (1987) Local traditions and cultural transmission. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 462-74.
Nishida, T. (Ed.) (1990) The
Chimpanzees of the
Nishida, T. (1994) Review of recent findings on Mahale chimpanzees: Implications and future research. In: Wrangham et al. (Eds.) pp. 373-96.
Nishida, T. (1996) The death of Ntologi, the unparalleled leader of M. group. Pan Africa Newsletter, 3.
Nishida, T. & M. Hiraiwa-Hasegawa (1985) Responses to a stranger mother-son pair in the wild chimpanzee: A case report. Primates, 26, 1, pp. 1-13.
Nishida, T. & M. Hiraiwa-Hasegawa (1987) Chimpanzees and bonobos: Cooperative relationships among males. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 165-77.
Nishida, T. & K. Kawanaka (1972) Inter-unit group relationships
among wild chimpanzees of the
Nishida, T. & K. Kawanaka (1985) Within-group cannibalism by adult male chimpanzees. Primates, 26, 3, pp. 274-84.
Nishida, T. & S. Uehara (1983) Natural diet of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii):
long-term record from the
Nishida, T.; S. Uehara & R. Nyundo (1979) Predatory behavior
among wild chimpanzees of the
Nishida, T., M. Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, T. Hasegawa & Y. Takahata (1985) Group extinction and female transfer in wild chimpanzees in the Mahale National Park, Tanzania. Z. f. Tierpsychol., 67, 1-4, pp. 284-301.
Nishida, T., T. Kano, J. Goodall, W.C. McGrew & M.. Nakamura (1999) Ethogram and ethnography of Mahale chimpanzees. Anthropol. Sci., 107, 2, pp. 141-88.
Nissen, H.W. (1931) A field study of the chimpanzee. Comp. Psychol. Monogr., 8, 1, pp. 1-105.
Noë, R.; F. de Waal & J. van Hooff (1980) Types of dominance in a chimpanzee colony. Folia Primatol., 34, pp. 90-110.
Noë, R.; J.A.R.A.M. van Hooff & P. Hammerstein
(Eds.) (2001) Economics
in Nature: Social Dilemmas, Mate Choice and Biological Markets.
Nunn, C.L. & R.O. Deaner (2004) Patterns of participation and free riding in territorial conflicts among ringtailed lemurs (Lemur catta). Behav. Ecol. & Sociobiol., 57, pp. 50-61.
Nunn, C.L. & R.J. Lewis (2001) Cooperation and collective action in animal behaviour. In: Noë, van Hooff & Hammerstein (Eds.), pp. 42-66.
Oates, J.F. (1977) The social life of the black-and-white colobus monkey, Colobus guereza. Z. f. Tierpsychol., 45, 1, pp. 1-60.
Otterbein, K.F. (1985) The Evolution of War: A Cross-Cultural Study.
Otterbein, K.F. (1997) The origins of war. Critical Rev., 11, 251-77.
Packer, C.R. (1977) Reciprocal altruism in Papio anubis. Nature, 265, pp. 441-43.
Packer, C.R. (1979) Inter-troop transfer and inbreeding avoidance in Papio anubis. Anim. Behav., 27, 1, pp. 1-36.
Packer, C.R. (1986) Male Transfer and Intertroop Relationships.
Packer, C.R. & A.E. Pusey (1982) Cooperation and competition within coalitions of male lions: Kin selection or game theory? Nature, 296, 5859, pp. 740-42.
Packer, C.R. & A.E. Pusey (1983) Adaptations of female lions to infanticide by incoming males. Amer. Naturalist, 121, 5, pp. 716-28.
Packer, C.R. & A.E. Pusey (1984) Infanticide in carnivores. In: Hausfater & Hrdy (Eds.), pp. 31-42.
Packer, C.R.; D. Scheel & A.E. Pusey (1990) Why lions form groups: Food is not enough. Amer. Naturalist, 136, pp. 1-19.
Parish, A.R. (1994) Sex and food control in the ‘uncommon chimpanzee’: How bonobo females overcome a phylogenetic legacy of male dominance. Ethol & Sociobiol., 15, 3, pp. 157-79.
Parish, A.R. (1996) Female relationships in bonobos (Pan paniscus): Evidence for bonding, cooperation, and female dominance in a male-philopatric species. Human Nature, 7,1, pp 61-96.
Parish, A.R. & F. de Waal (1999) The other ‘closest living
relative’: How bonobos (Pan paniscus)
challenge traditional assumptions about females, dominance, intra- and
intersexual interactions, and hominid evolution. In: D. LeCroy & P. Moller
(Eds.) Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Reproductive Behavior.
Payne, H.F.P.; M.J. Lawes & S.P. Henzi (2003) Competition and the exchange of grooming among female samango monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis erythrarchus). Behav., 140, pp. 453-71.
Pitcairn, T.K. (1974) Aggression in natural groups of pongids. In: Holloway (Ed.), pp. 241-72.
Plavcan, J.M.; C.P. van Schaik & P.M. Kappeler (1995) Competition, coalitions and canine size in primates. J. Human Evol., 28, pp. 245-76.
Poirier, F.E. (1968) Nilgiri langur (Presbytis johnii) territorial behavior. Primates, 9, 4, pp. 351-64.
Poirier, F.E. (1970) Nilgiri langur ecology and social behavior. In: Rosenblum (Ed.), Vol. 1, pp. 103-35.
Poirier, F.E. (1974) Colobine aggression: A review. In: Holloway (Ed.), pp. 123-58.
Pride, R.E.; D. Felantsoa; R. Randriamboavonjy & R. Randriambelona (2006) Resource defense in Lemur catta: The importance of group size. In: Jolly et al. (Eds.), pp. 208-32.
Pruetz, J.D. & P. Bertolani (2007) Savanna chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus, hunt with tools. Current Biol., 17, 5, pp. 412-17.
Puga-Gonzalez, I; H. Hildenbrandt & Ch. K. Hemelrijk (2008) Emergence of reconciliation and other affiliative patterns in primates: a minimal model. Paper Conf. Cognitive Processes of Conciliatory Behaviour. Biological Centre Univ. Groningen, June 12th.
Pusey, A.E. (1979) Intercommunity transfer of chimpanzees in
Pusey, A.E. (2001) Of genes and apes: Chimpanzee social organization and reproduction. In: De Waal (Ed.), pp. 11-37.
Pusey, A.E. & C. Packer (1987) Dispersal and philopatry. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 250-66.
Pusey, A.E.; J. Williams & J. Goodall (1997) The influence of dominance rank on the reproductive success of female chimpanzees. Sci., 277, 5327, pp. 828-31.
Rasmussen, D.R. (1981) Communities of baboon troops (Papio cynocephalus) in
Rawlins, R.G. & M. Kessler (1986) The Cayo Santiago Macaques.
Reynolds, V. (1963) An outline of the behaviour and social organisation of forest living chimpanzees. Folia Primatol., 1, 2, pp. 95-102.
Reynolds, V. (1971) Kinship and the family in monkeys, apes, and
man. In: Y. Cohen (Ed.) Man in
Adaptation: The Biosocial Background.
Reynolds, V. (2005) The
Chimpanzees of the
Reynolds, V. & F. Reynolds (1965) Chimpanzees of the
Ripley, S. (1967) Intertroop encounters among
Robbins, M.M. (2010) Intergroup interactions in the Great Apes. Presentation workshop Aggression and Peacemaking in an Evolutionary Context, Lorentz Center Leiden, Oct. 18-22.
Robbins, M.M. & S.C. Sawyer (2007) Intergroup encounters in
mountain gorillas of
Robbins, M.M.; P. Sicotte & K.J. Stewart (2001) Mountain Gorillas: Three Decades of Research
Robinson, J.G. (1979) Vocal regulation of use of space by groups of titi monkeys Callicebus moloch. Z. f. Tierpsychol., 381-405.
Robinson, J.G. (1981) Vocal regulation of inter- and intragroup spacing during boundary encounters in the titi monkey, Callicebus moloch. Primates, 22, pp. 161-72.
Robinson, J.G. (1988) Groups size in wedge-capped capuchin monkeys Cebus olivaceus, and the reproductive success of males and females. Behav. Ecol. & Sociobiol., 23, pp. 187-97.
Robinson, J.G.; P.C. Wright & W.G. Kinzey (1986) Monogamous cebids and their relatives: Intergroup calls and spacing. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 44-53.
Roscoe, P.B. (2007) Intelligence, coalitional killing, and the antecedents of war. Amer. Anthropol., 109, 3, pp. 485-95.
Rosenblatt, J.S.; R.A. Hinde, E. Shaw & C.G. Beer (1976) Advances in the Study of Behavior. Vol.
Rowell, T.E. (1966) Forest living baboons in
Rowell, T.E. (1972) The Social Behaviour of Monkeys. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Rowell, T.E. (1973) Social organization of wild talapoin monkeys. Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 38, pp. 593-98.
Rowell, T.E. (1988) Beyond the one-male group. Behav., 104, 3-4, pp. 189-201.
Rowell, T.E., C. Wilson & M. Cords (1991) Reciprocity and partner preference in grooming of female blue monkeys. Internat. J. Primatol., 12, 4, pp. 319-36.
Rudran, R. (1973) Adult male replacement in one-male troops of purple-faced langurs (Presbytis senex senex) and its effect on population structure. Folia Primatol., 19, pp. 166-92.
Rudran, R. (1978) Socioecology of the blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis stuhlmanni) of the Kibale Forest, Uganda. Smithsonian Contr. to Zool., 249.
Runciman, W.G.; J. Maynard Smith & R.E.M. Dunbar (Eds.) Evolution
of Social Behaviour Patterns in Primates and
Russell, C. & W.M.S. Russell
(1968) Violence, Monkeys and
Saayman, G.S. (1971) Aggressive behaviour in free-ranging chacma baboons (Papio ursinus). J. Behav. Sci., 1, 3, pp. 77-83.
Sackett, G.P. (1967) Some effects of social and sensory deprivation during rearing on behavioral development in monkeys. Revista Interamericana de Psicologia., 1, 1, pp. 55-80.
Saito, C. et al. (1998) Aggressive intergroup encounters in two populations of Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Primates, 39, 3, pp. 302-12.
Sanderson, I.T. (1955) Living Mammals of the World.
Sauther, M.L.; R.W. Sussman & L. Gould (1999) The socioecology of the ringtailed lemur: Thirty-five years of research. Evol. Anthropol., pp. 120-32.
Schaller, G.B. (1963) The
Mountain Gorilla: Ecology and Behavior.
Schaller, G.B. (1964) The Year
of the Gorilla.
Schaller, G.B. (1965) The behavior of the mountain gorilla. In: DeVore (Ed.), pp. 324-67.
Schenkel, R. & L.
Schenkel-Hilliger (1967) On the sociobiology of free-ranging colobus (Colobus guereza caudatus Thomas 1885).
In: D. Starck et al. (Eds.) Progress in
Schubert, G. (1983) Evolutionary politics. Western Polit. Quart., 36, 2, pp. 175-93.
Schubert, G. (1986/1991) Primate politics. Soc. Sci. Info, 25, pp. 647-80; also in Schubert & Masters (Eds.).
Schubert, G. (1989) Evolutionary Politics.
Schubert, G. & R. Masters (Eds.)
(1991) Primate Politics.
Schubert, G. & A.O. Somit (Eds.)
(1982) The Biology of Primate
Sociopolitical Behavior. DeKalb: Northern
Schuster, R.H. (1978) Ethological
theories of aggression. In: I.L. Kutash et al. (Eds.)
Violence: Perspectives on Murder and
Scott, J.P. (1969) Biological basis of
human warfare: An interdisciplinary problem. In: M. Sherif & C.W. Sherif
(Eds.) Social Psychology.
Shea, B.T. (1983) Paedomorphosis and neoteny in the pygmy chimpanzee. Sci., 22, 2, 521-22.
Sherrow, H.M. & S.J. Amsler (2007)
New intercommunity infanticides by the chimpanzees of Ngogo,
Sicotte, P. (1993) Inter-group encounters and female transfer in mountain gorillas: Influence of group composition on male behavior. Amer. J. Primatol., 30, 1, pp. 21-36.
Silk, J.B. (1987) Social behavior in evolutionary perspective. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 318-29.
Silk, J.B. (1997) The function of peaceful post-conflict contacts among primates. Primates, 38, pp. 265-79.
Silk, J.B. (1998) Adaptive perspectives on conflict remediation in monkeys, apes, and humans. Human Nature, 9, 4, pp. 341-68.
Silk, J.B. (2002a) The form and function of reconciliation in primates. Ann. Rev. Anthropol., 312, pp. 21-44.
Silk, J.B. (2002b) Kin selection in primate groups. Internat. J. Primatol., 23, 4, pp. 849-75.
Silk, J.B. & R. Boyd (1983) Cooperation, competition, and mate choice in matrilineal macaque groups. In: Wasser (Ed.), pp. 316-49.
Silverberg, J. & J.P. Gray (Eds.) (1992) Aggression and Peacefulness in Humans and
Slurink, P. (2002) Why Some Apes Became Humans: Competition,
Consciousness and Culture.
Smith, D.L. (2007) The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and
the Origins of War.
Smuts, B.B. (1985) Sex and Friendship in Baboons.
Smuts, B.B. (1987) Sexual competition and mate choice. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 385-99.
Smuts, B.B. & R.W. Smuts (1993) Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: Evidence and theoretical implications. Advances Study Behav., 22, pp. 1-63.
Smuts, B.B.; D.L. Cheney; R.M.
Seyfarth; R.W. Wrangham & T.T. Struhsaker (Eds.) (1987) Primate Societies.
Somit, A.O. (1972) Biopolitics. Brit. J. Polit. Sci., 2, pp. 209-38.
Somit, A.O. (Ed.) (1976) Biology and Politics: Recent Explorations.
Somit, A.O. (1990) Humans, chimps, and bonobos; The biological bases of aggression, war, and peacemaking. J. Conflict Resolution, 34, 3, pp. 553-82.
Somit, A.O. & J.A. Losco (Eds)
(1995) Research in Biopolitics. Vol. 3: Human Nature and Politics.
Somit, A.O. &
Somit, A.O. & S.A. Peterson (1995) Darwinism, dominance, and democracy. In: Somit & Losco (Eds.), pp. 19-34.
Somit, A.O. &
Somit, A.O. & S.A. Peterson (1998) Biopolitics after three decades: A balance sheet. Brit. J. Politi. Sci., 28, Pt 3, pp. 559-71.
Southwick, C.H. (1962) Patterns of intergroup social behaviour in primates, with special reference to rhesus and howler monkeys. Annals, 102, pp. 436-54.
Southwick, C.H. (Ed.) (1963) Primate Social Behavior.
Southwick, C.H. (1967) An experimental study of intragroup agonistic behavior in rhesus monkeys. Behav., 28, 1-2, pp. 182-209.
Southwick, C.H. (1969) Aggressive behaviour
of rhesus monkeys in natural and captive groups. In: S. Garattini & E.B.
Sigg (Eds.) Aggressive Behaviour.
Southwick, C.H. (Ed.) (1970) Animal Aggression.
Southwick, C.H. (1972) Aggression among Nonhuman Primates. Addison-Wesley Modules in Anthropology, 23.
Southwick, C.H.; M.A. Beg & M.R.
Siddiqi (1965) Rhesus monkeys in
Southwick, C.H.; M.F. Siddiqi; M.Y.
Farooqui & B.C. Pal (1974) Xenophobia among free-ranging rhesus groups in
Southwick, C.H.; M.F. Siddiqi; M.Y.
Farooqui & B.C. Pal (1976) Effects of artificial feeding on aggressive
behaviour of rhesus monkeys in
Standon V. & R.A. Foley (Eds.) (1989) Comparative Socioecology.
Stanford, C.B. (1991) Social dynamics of intergroup encounters in the capped langur (Presbytis pileata). Amer. J. Primatol., 25, 1, pp. 35-47.
Stanford, C.B. (1998) Chimpanzee
and Red Colobus: The Ecology of Predator and Prey.
Stanford, C.B. (1999) The
Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior. Princeton:
Stanford (2001) The ape’s gift: meat-eating, meat-sharing, and human evolution. In: De Waal (Ed.), pp. 97-118.
Starin, E.D. (1994) Philopatry and affiliation among red colobus. Behav., 130, 3-4, pp. 253-70.
Steenbeek, R. (1999) Tenure related changes in wild Thomas’s langurs. 1: between-group interactions. Behav., 136, 5, pp. 595-625.
Steenbeek, R.; R.C. Piek, M. van Buul & J.A.R.A.M. van Hooff (2000) Vigilance in wild Thomas’s langurs (Presbytis thomasi): The importance of infanticide risk. Behav. Ecol & Sociobiol., 45, pp. 137-50.
Stephenson, G.R. (1975) Social
structure of mating activity in Japanese macaques. In: S. Kondo, Kawai &
Ehara (Eds.) Symposia of 5th
Strier, K.B. (1992) Causes and consequences of nonaggression in the woolly spider monkey, or muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides). In: Silverberg & Gray (Eds.), pp. 100-116.
Strier, K.B. (2001) Beyond the apes: Reasons to consider the entire primate order. In: De Waal (Ed.), pp. 71-94).
Strier, K.B.; T.E. Ziegler & D.J. Wittwer (1999) Seasonal and social correlates of fecal testosterone and cortisol levels in wild male muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Hormones & Behav., 35, 2, pp. 135-34.
Struhsaker, T.T. (1967a) Behavior of
vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops).
Struhsaker, T.T. (1967b) Social structure among vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops). Behav., 29, pp. 6-121.
Struhsaker, T.T. (1969) Behavior of vervet monkeys and other cercopithecines. Sci., 156, pp. 1197-1203.
Struhsaker, T.T. (1975) Behavior and Ecology of Red Colobus Monkeys.
Struhsaker, T.T. (1978) Infanticide and social organization in the redtail monkey (Cercopithecus ascanius schmidti) in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. In: Chivers & Herbert (Eds.), p. 591.
Struhsaker, T.T. (1980) Comparison of the behaviour and ecology of red colobus and redtail monkeys in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. Afr. J. Ecol., 18, pp. 33-51.
Struhsaker, T.T. (1988) Group fission
in redtail monkeys (Cercopithecus
ascanius) in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. In: A. Gautier-Hion et al. (Eds.) A Primate Radiation: Evolutionary Biology of
the African Guenons.
Struhsaker, T.T. & J.S. Gartlan
(1970) Observations on the behaviour and ecology of the patas monkey (Erythrocebus patas) in the Wazas
Struhsaker, T.T. & L. Leland-Struhsaker (1979) Socioecology of five sympatric monkey species in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. In: Rosenblatt et al. (Eds.), pp. 159-228.
Struhsaker, T.T. & L. Leland-Struhsaker (1987) Colobines: Infanticide by adult males: In Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 83-97.
Strum, S.C. (1975) Life with the Pumphouse Gang: New insights into baboon behavior. Nat. Geogr. Mag., 147, pp. 673-91.
Strum, S.C. (1981) Processes and
products of change: Baboon predatory behavior at
Strum, S.C. (1987) Almost Human: A Journey into the World of
Sugiura, H. et al. (2000) Variation in intergroup encounters in two populations of Japanese macaques. Internat. J. Primatol., 21, 3, pp. 519-35.
Sugiyama, Y. (1960) On the division of a natural troop of Japanese monkeys at Takasakiyama. Primates, 2, 2, pp. 109-48.
Sugiyama, Y. (1967) Social organization in Hanuman langurs. In: Altmann (Ed.), pp. 221-36.
Sugiyama, Y. (1969) Social behaviour of the chimpanzees in the Budongo Forest, Uganda. Primates, 10, pp. 197-225.
Sugiyama, Y. (1971) Characteristics of the social life of bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata). Primates, 12, 3-4, pp. 247-66.
Sugiyama, Y. (1976) Life history of male Japanese monkeys. In: Rosenblatt et al. (Eds.), pp. 255-84.
Sugiyama, Y. (1981a) [The Society of Wild Chimpanzees].
Sugiyama, Y. (1981b) Observations on
the population dynamics and behavior of wild chimpanzees at
Sugiyama, Y.; K. Yoshiba & M.D. Parthasarathy (1965) Home range, mating season, male group, and intertroop relations in Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus). Primates, 6, 1, pp. 73-106.
Suomi, S.J. (1978) Maternal behavior by socially incompetent monkeys: Neglect and abuse of offspring. J. Pediat. Psychol., 3, 1, pp. 28-34.
Surbeck, M. & G. Hohmann (2008)
Primate hunting by bonobos at Luikotale,
Surbeck, M.; A. Fowler, C. Deimel & G. Hohmann (2009) Evidence for the consumption of arboreal, diurnal primates by bonobos (Pan paniscus). Amer. J. Primatol., 71, 2, pp. 171-74.
Susman, R.L. (Ed.) (1984) The Pygmy Chimpanzee: Evolutionary Biology
Sussman, R.W. & A. Richard (1974) The role of aggression among diurnal prosimians. In: Holloway (Ed.), pp. 49-76.
Suzuki, A. (1971) Carnivority and cannibalism observed among forest-living chimpanzees. J. Anthropol. Soc. Nippon, 79, pp. 30-48.
Tartabini, A & M.L. Genta (Eds.)
(1988) Perspectives in the Study of
Tenaza, R.R. (1975) Territory and
monogamy among Kloss’ gibbons (Hylobates
Thayer, B.A. (2004)
Thierry, B. (2000) Covariation of conflict management patterns across macaque species. In: Aureli & de Waal (Eds.), pp. 106-128.
Thierry, B. (2008) How adaptation trades off against robustness in macaque reconciliation. Paper Conf. Cognitive Processes of Conciliatory Behaviour. Biological Centre Univ. Groningen, June 12th.
Thierry, B.; A.N. Iwaniuk & S.M. Pellis (2000) The influence of phylogeny on the social behaviour of macaques (Primates: Cercopithecidae, genus Macaca). Ethol., 106, pp. 713-728.
Trudeau, M.B.; E. Bergmann-Riss & D.A. Hamburg (1981) Towards an evolutionary perspective on aggressive behavior: The chimpanzee evidence. In: Hamburg & Trudeau (Eds.), pp. 27-40.
Tutin, C.E.G. (1975) Sexual Behaviour and Mating Patterns in a Community of Wild Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii). PhD., Univ. Edinburgh.
Tutin, C.E.G. (1979) Mating patterns and reproductive strategies in a community of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii). Behav. Ecol. & Sociobiol., 6, pp. 29-38.
Tutin, C.E.G.; W.C. McGrew & P.J. Baldwin (1983) Social
organization of savanna-dwelling chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus, at
Tuttle, R.H.(Ed.) (1975) Socioecology
and Psychology of Primates.
Tuttle, R.H. et al. (Eds.) (2001) All Apes Great and Small. Vol. 1: African Apes.
Van der Dennen, J.M.G. (Ed.) (1992) The Nature of the
Sexes: The Sociobiology of Sex Differences and the ‘
Van der Dennen, J.M.G. (1995) The Origin of War: The Evolution of a Male-Coalitional Reproductive Strategy. Groningen: Origin Press.
Van der Dennen, J.M.G. & V. Falger (Eds.) (1990) Sociobiology and
Conflict: Evolutionary Perspectives on Competition, Cooperation, Violence and
Van der Dennen, J.M.G.; D. Smillie & D.R. Wilson (Eds.) (1999) The Darwinian Heritage and Sociobiology. Westport CT: Greenwood Press.
Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M. (1973a) The Arnhem Zoo chimpanzee consortium. Internat. Zoo Yearbook, 13, pp. 195-205.
Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M. (1973b) Sociale relaties bij dieren. In: Ethologie, de biologie van gedrag. Wageningen: Pudoc, pp. 223-56.
Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M (1974) A structural analysis of the social behaviour of a semi-captive group of chimpanzees (P. troglodytes). In: Von Cranach & Vine (Eds.), pp. 75-162.
Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M. (1988) Sociality in primates: A compromise of ecological and social adaptation strategies. In: Tartabini & Genta (Eds.), pp. 9-23.
Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M. (1990a) Intergroup competition and conflict in animals and man. In: van der Dennen & Falger (Eds.), pp. 23-54.
Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M. (1990b) Groepsagressie en oorlog, een vergelijkend oeco-ethologische benadering. In: van Hooff et al. (Eds.), pp. 21-75.
Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M. & F.B.M. de Waal (1975) Aspects of an ethological analysis of polyadic agonistic interactions in a captive group of Macaca fascicularis. In: Kondo, Kawai & Ehara (Eds.), pp. 269-74.
Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M. & C.P. van Schaik (1992) Cooperation in competition: The ecology of primate bonds. In: Harcourt & de Waal (Eds.), pp. 357-90.
Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M., G. Benthem van den Bergh & J.M. Rabbie (Eds.) (1990) Oorlog; multidisciplinaire beschouwingen. Hoogezand: Stuberg.
Van Schaik, C.P. (1983) Why are diurnal primates living in groups? Behav., 87, pp. 120-44.
Van Schaik, C.P. (1985) The Socio-Ecology of Sumatran Long-Tailed
Macaques: Costs and Benefits of Group Living. PhD., Univ.
Van Schaik, C.P. (1986) The hidden costs of sociality: Intra-group variation in feeding strategies in Sumatran long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Behav., 99, pp. 296-315.
Van Schaik, C.P. (1989) The ecology of social relationships amongst female primates. In: Standon & Foley (Eds.), pp. 195-217.
Van Schaik, C.P. (1996) Social evolution in primates: The role of ecological factors and male behaviour. In: Runciman, Maynard Smith & Dunbar (Eds.), pp. 9-31.
Van Schaik, C.P. (2002) Primates: Primate societies and social life.
In: M. Pagel (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Evolution.
Van Schaik, C.P. & J.A.R.A.M. van Hooff (1983) On the ultimate causes of primate social systems. Behav., 85, pp. 91-117.
Van Schaik, C.P & C.H. Janson (Eds.) (2000) Infanticide by Males and its Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Vervaecke, H. (2002) Bonobo’s: schalkse apen met menselijke trekjes. Leuven: Davidfonds.
Vessey, S.H. (1968) Interactions between free-ranging groups of rhesus monkeys. Folia Primatol., 8, pp. 228-39.
Vessey, S.H. (1971) Free-ranging rhesus monkeys: Behavioral effects of removal, separation, and reintroduction of group members. Behav., 40, pp. 216-27.
Vogel, C. (1975) Intergroup relations of Presbytis entellus in the Kumaon Hills and in Rajasthan (
Vogel, C. (1989) Vom Töten zum Mord; das wirkliche Böse in der Evolutionsgeschichte. München: Carl Hanser Verlag.
Von Cranach, M.L. & I. Vine (Eds.) (1974) Social Communication
Von Cranach, M.L.; K. Foppa;
Walters, J.R. & R.M. Seyfarth (1987) Conflict and cooperation. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 306-17.
Waser, P.M. (1974) Intergroup Interactions in a Forest Monkey: The
Mangabey Cercocebus albigena. PhD.,
Waser, P.M. (1976) Cercocebus albigena: site attachment, avoidance, and intergroup spacing. Amer. Naturalist, 110, pp. 911-35.
Waser, P.M. (1987) Interactions among primate species. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 210-26.
Waser, P.M. & R.H. Wiley (1979) Mechanisms and evolution of
spacing in animals. In: P. Marler
& J.G. Vandenbergh (Eds.) Handbook of
Behavioral Neurobiology. Vol. 3.
Washburn, S.L. & I. DeVore (1961) The social life of baboons. Sci. Amer., 204, pp. 62-71.
Washburn, S.L. & D.A. Hamburg (1968) Aggressive behavior in
Wasser, S.K. (Ed.) (1983) Social
Behavior of Female Vertebrates.
Watts, D.P. & J.C. Mitani (2000) Infanticide and cannibalism by
male chimpanzees at Ngogo,
Watts, D.P.; J.C. Mitani & H.M. Sherrow (2002) New cases of
inter-community infanticide by male chimpanzees at Ngogo,
Watts, D.P; M. Muller; S,J. Amsler; G. Mbabazi & J.C. Mitani (2006) Lethal intergroup aggression by chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Amer. J. Primatol., 68, 2, pp. 161-80.
Willhoite, F.H. (1976) Primates and political authority: A biobehavioral perspective. Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev., 70, Dec., pp. 1110-26.
Williams, J.M. (2000) Female Strategies and the Reasons for
Territoriality in Chimpanzees: Lessons from Three Decades of Research at Gombe.
Williams, J.M.; G. Oehlert & A.E. Pusey (2004) Who do male chimpanzees defend a group range? Reassessing male territoriality. Anim. Behav., 68, pp. 523-32.
Williams, J.M. et al. (2008) Causes of death in the Kasakela
Wilson, M.L. & R.W. Wrangham (2003) Intergroup relations in chimpanzees. Ann. Rev. Anthropol., 32, pp. 363-92.
Wolf, K.E & J.G. Fleagle (1984) Adult male replacement in a
group of silvered leaf monkeys (Presbytis
Wolf, K.E. & S.R. Schulman (1984) Male response to ‘stranger’ females as a function of reproductive value among chimpanzees. Amer. Naturalist, 123, pp. 163-74.
Wrangham, R.W. (1975) The Behavioural Ecology of Chimpanzees in
Wrangham, R.W. (1977) Feeding behaviour of chimpanzees in
Wrangham, R.W. (1979) On the evolution of ape social systems. Soc. Sci. Info., 18, pp. 355-86.
Wrangham, R.W. (1980) An ecological model of female-bonded primate groups. Behav., 75, 3-4, pp. 262-300.
Wrangham, R.W. (1985) War in evolutionary perspective. In: D. Pines
(Ed.) Emerging Syntheses in Science.
Wrangham, R.W. (1987) Evolution of social structure. In: Smuts et al. (Eds.), pp. 282-96.
Wrangham, R.W. (1996) The sexual behaviour of chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest living relatives: multiple matings and multiple meanings. Global Bioethics, 9, pp. 1-4.
Wrangham, R.W. (1999) Evolution of coalitionary killing. Yearbook Phys. Anthropol., 42, pp. 1-30.
Wrangham, RW. (2006) Why apes and humans kill. In: M. Jones &
A.C. Fabian (Eds.) Conflict: The 2005
Wrangham, R.W. & D. Peterson (1996) Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence.
Wrangham, R.W. & D. Pilbeam (2001) African apes as time machines. In: Tuttle et al., (Eds.), pp. 5-17.
Wrangham, R.W. & D.I. Rubenstein (1986) Social evolution in
birds and mammals. In: D.I Rubenstein & R.W. Wrangham (Eds.) Ecological Aspects of Social
Evolution: Birds and Mammals. Princeton:
Wrangham, R.W. & B.B. Smuts (1980) Sex differences in
behavioural ecology of chimpanzees in
Wrangham, R.W.; M.L. Wilson & M.N. Muller (2006) Comparative rates of violence in chimpanzees and humans. Primates, 47, pp. 14-16.
Wrangham, R.W.; W.C. McGrew; F.B.M. de Waal & P.G. Heltne (Eds.)
(1994) Chimpanzee Cultures.
Wright, P.C. (1978) Home range, activity pattern, and agonistic
encounters of a group of night monkeys (Aotus
Yeager, C.P. & R.C. Kirkpatrick (1998) Asian colobine social structure: Ecological and evolutionary constraints. Primates, 39, 2, pp. 147-55.
Yerkes, R.M. & A.W. Yerkes (1929) The Great Apes: A Study of Anthropoid Life.
Young, D. (1991) Origins of
the Sacred: The Ecstasies of Love and War.
Zhao, Q.K. (1997) Intergroup interactions in Tibetan macaques at
Zuckerman, S. (1932) The
Social Life of Monkeys and Apes.