Gestural communication of wild bonnet macaques in the Bandipur National Park, Southern India

Abstract

Gestures in nonhuman primate communication, especially those of apes, were thereafter defined as "discrete, mechanically ineffective, physical movements of the body" (Hobaiter and Byrne 2011a; Genty et al. 2009; Cartmill and Byrne 2010) or "communicative signals produced by body postures or the movement of body parts, including the limbs, head and /or facial muscles to achieve an intended goal" (Tomasello and Call 2007). It has also been suggested that gestures should be signals always directed to a particular recipient and be mechanically ineffective in eliciting voluntary responses from the recipient (Arbib, Liebal, and Pika 2008; Pika 2008; Schel et al. 2013). Currently, summarising from the literature, a generally accepted operational definition of "gesture" (in the great ape literature) is: a discrete, mechanically ineffective movement of body parts deployed intentionally (with the aim of eliciting a behavioural response from the recipient).Like the study of tool use in nonhuman animals, research on great ape behaviour has frequently led to the discovery of similar behaviour in other primates. A recent review of ape gestures, compiling findings from the past six decades, supports the hypothesis that gestures constitute innate signals which can be used in intentional ways to convey particular meaning in communicative contexts (Byrne et al. 2017). As gesture forms appear phylogenetically continuous among apes, it is quite possible that similar gestural communication may be encountered in non-ape primate species as well.Unfortunately, earlier investigations of gestural communication in macaques did not use the same operational definitions of "gesture", as stated above (

Facial displays in red-capped mangabeys (Cercocebus torquatus): Repertoire, social context, and potential intentionality.

“…the goal-directedness of the signal, could be checked by monitoring response-waiting from the signaler after it produced the display (Call and Tomasello 2007;Cartmill and Byrne 2010;Graham et al, 2017;Hobaiter and Byrne 2011a;Liebal et al, 2004c;Molesti et al, 2019;Pika et al, 2003;Roberts et al, 2012Roberts et al, , 2014Schel et al, under review;Tomasello et al, 1985Tomasello et al, , 1994. Moreover, goal-directedness is recognized when the signaler stops producing the signal once the presumed goal has been reached, and repeats and/or elaborates the signals in case the goal has not been met yet Byrne 2007, 2010;Genty et al, 2014;Graham et al, 2017; A u t h o r s ' p o s t -p r i n t Gupta and Sinha 2019;Hobaiter and Byrne 2011b;Hostetter et al, 2001;Leavens et al, 2005;Liebal et al, 2004bLiebal et al, , 2014bRoberts et al, 2013).…”

Red-capped mangabeys (Cercocebus torquatus) adapt their interspecific gestural communication to the recipient’s behaviour

“…Moreover, the flexibility of monkeys’ gestural communication regarding their strategy to deal with their recipient’s response has been poorly studied (but see recent reports on olive baboons 57 and bonnet macaques 58 ). Indeed, after a signal has been emitted the recipient can either respond favourably regarding the signaller’s goal, not respond at all, or respond in an incongruent way.…”

A history of primatology in India (In memory of Professor Sheo Dan Singh)

“…Geographical distance, dissimilarity in spatial features and anthropogenic factors affected turnover in primate species composition. Shreejata Gupta (Gupta 2016) (https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Shreejata_Gupta2) found that Bonnet Macaques produce flexible and intentional gestures with context J TT variability. Gestures such as those used in play decrease with age and others such as those related to aggression and affiliation appear at the adult stage.…”