Kinship and Different Dominance Styles in Groups of Three Species of the Genus Macaca (M. arctoides, M. mulatta, M. fascicularis)

Abstract

Single groups with small matrilines of 3 species of the genus Macaca (M. arctoides, M. mulatta, M. fascicularis) were investigated. The aim of the study was to find out how affiliative preferences towards close kin correlate with the distribution of aggression and support in agonistic encounters among individuals, and whether such tendencies differ between species with different dominance styles. It was found that aggression between kin was less frequent than between non-kin in all 3 groups. Kinship was not a decisive factor in the choice of partners for close spatial proximity in any of the 3 species. Animals preferred to groom relatives significantly more frequently only in the M. mulatta group. A kin effect was clearly expressed in the choice of objects of support in aggressive conflicts in M. mulatta and M. fascicularis, whereas in M. arctoides such an effect was absent. In the M. mulatta and M. arctoides groups, animals preferred to support victims, while in the M. fascicularis group aggressors were preferentially supported. Our data supported conclusions about differences in the number of social parameters in species with different dominance styles. In species with relaxed social hierarchies (M. arctoides), there is a strong tendency towards cohesive relations with all social categories, while in groups with rigid hierarchies (M. mulatta; M. fascicularis) cohesive tendencies are largely concentrated in the direction of related individuals.

Unity in diversity: Lessons from macaque societies

“…61,64 The degree of kin-bias in social relationships covaries with patterns of aggression and dominance. The degree to which females prefer maternal relatives for contact, social grooming, and coalition is less pronounced in the third than in the first two grades 34,53,55,65,66 and kin-bias is still weaker in Sulawesi macaques (grade 4). 52,67,68 The socialization process also contributes to the species social style.…”

“…In the latter two species, conflicts are unidirectional, high-intensity aggression is common, and reconciliations are not frequent. 32,[53][54][55][56][57][58] Quantitative analyses have shown quite different patterns of aggression and response to aggression in Sulawesi macaques (Tonkean, crested, and moor macaques). A majority of their conflicts are bidirectional, and most aggressive acts induce protest or retaliation.…”

The endemic seven: Four decades of research on the Sulawesi macaques

“…Within the genus Macaca, variation in male-male relationships appears to be primarily related to dominance style. Males tend to show antagonistic relationships in despotic species such as rhesus, Japanese, Long tailed macaques [85][86][87] and affiliative relationships in more tolerant species, such as Bonnet, Stump, Tibetan, and Barbary macaques. [88][89][90][91][92][93][94] However, among the tolerant Sulawesi macaque taxa, possible variation might also exist; intermale tolerance has been observed in Moor macaques 36 and Tonkean macaques, 95 while in M. nigra adult male interactions have been found to be characteristically aggressive, with males forming a linear and transitive dominance hierarchy.…”

Conflict and reconciliation in two groups of crab-eating monkeys differing in social status by birth

“…Their behaviour was largely individualistic. Only closely related females entered into alliances (in keeping with the view that kin selection was an important factor in the evolution of macaque communities, see KAPLAN et al, 1987;BUTOVSKAYA, 1993), and conflicts occurred primarily between single individuals. After the clashes the opponents were not inclined to reconcile and did not need the company of other animals.…”

“…The most detailed data have been obtained for support and cooperation in several species of macaques (DE WAAL, 1977;KAPLAN, 1978;BUTOVSKAYA • LADYGINA, 1989;SILK, 1992). Over the last decade, the principal focus was made on the comparative analysis of conflict in closely related species, with a view to examine how this phenomenon is affected by dominance/submission and kinship (THIERRY, 1985;EHARDT, 1988;BUTOVSKAYA, 1993). Patterns of conflicts and reconciliation have been used along with other criteria for differentiating species with various dominance styles.…”