On folivory, competition, and intelligence: generalisms, overgeneralizations, and models of primate evolution

Considerations of primate behavioral evolution often proceed by assuming the ecological and competitive milieus of particular taxa via their relative exploitation of gross food types, such as fruits versus leaves. Although this fruit/leaf dichotomy has been repeatedly criticized, it continues to be implicitly invoked in discussions of primate socioecology and female social relationships and is explicitly invoked in models of brain evolution. An expanding literature suggests that such views have severely limited our knowledge of the social and ecological complexities of primate folivory. This paper examines the behavior of primate folivore-frugivores, with particular emphasis on gray langurs (traditionally, Semnopithecus entellus) within the broader context of evolutionary ecology. Although possessing morphological characteristics that have been associated with folivory and constrained activity patterns, gray langurs are known for remarkable plasticity in ecology and behavior. Their diets are generally quite broad and can be discussed in relation to Liem's Paradox, the odd coupling of anatomical feeding specializations with a generalist foraging strategy. Gray langurs, not coincidentally, inhabit arguably the widest range of habitats for a nonhuman primate, including high elevations in the Himalayas. They provide an excellent focal point for examining the assumptions and predictions of behavioral, socioecological, and cognitive evolutionary models. Contrary to the classical descriptions of the primate folivore, Himalayan and other gray langurs-and, in actuality, many leaf-eating primates-range widely, engage in resource competition (both of which have previously been noted for primate folivores), and solve ecological problems rivaling those of more frugivorous primates (which has rarely been argued for primate folivores). It is maintained that questions of primate folivore adaptation, temperate primate adaptation, and primate evolution more generally cannot be answered by the frequent approach of broad characterizations, categorization models, crude variables, weakly correlative evidence, and subjective definitions. As a corollary, many current avenues of study are inadequate for explaining primate adaptation. A true understanding of primate ecology can only be achieved through the use of mainstream evolutionary ecology and thorough linkage of both proximate and ultimate mechanisms.