4.3 Article

Of stones and monkeys: Testing ecological constraints on stone handling, a behavioral tradition in Japanese macaques

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
卷 135, 期 2, 页码 233-244

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20726

关键词

stone availability; terrestriality; culture; Macaca fuscata

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Japanese macaques are known to manipulate stones by displaying various seemingly functionless behavioral patterns, including carrying a stone, rubbing two stones together, or gathering several stones into a pile. This form of solitary object play called stone handling (SH) is a behavioral tradition in Japanese macaques, showing striking intertroop differences in frequency and form. Here, we evaluated two ecologically based hypotheses invoked to account for these differences. We hypothesized that the occurrence and form of SH would be affected by stone availability and the degree of terrestriality. We used standardized sampling methods to assess differences in SH and terrestriality among four captive and six free-ranging troops of Japanese macaques, and determine site-specific stone availability. Although we demonstrated that SH is almost exclusively a terrestrial activity, our comparative analyses showed that the number of stones readily available and the relative amount of time spent on the ground by the macaques were not associated with the intertroop differences in the occurrence of SH. Failure to accept the terrestriality and stone availability hypotheses suggests that the performance of SH and the motivation to engage in this activity are both more diverse and more complex than the direct links to time spent on the ground or the number of stones locally available. Other environmental influences and sociodemographic factors should be jointly considered to identify the sources of variation in SH, as a beginning to better understand the constraints on the appearance and subsequent diffusion of stone-use traditions in nonhuman primates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据