Abstract: In many of the studies reviewed in this book, eavesdropping takes the
following form: a subject has the opportunity to monitor, or eavesdrop upon, an
interaction between two other animals,Aand B. The subject then uses the information
obtained through these observations to assess A`s and B`s relative dominance
or attractiveness as a mate (e.g. Mennill et al., 2002; Ch. 2). For example, Oliveira
et al. (1998) found that male fighting fish Betta splendens that had witnessed two
other males involved in an aggressive interaction subsequently responded more
strongly to the loser of that interaction than the winner. Subjects-behaviour could
not have been influenced by any inherent differences between the two males, because
subjects responded equally strongly to the winner and the loser of competitive
interactions they had not observed. Similarly, Peake et al. (2001) presented
male great tits Parus major with the opportunity to monitor an apparent competitive
interaction between two strangers by simulating a singing contest using two
loudspeakers. The relative timing of the singing bouts (as measured by the degree
of overlap between the two songs) provided information about each “contestants”
relative status. Following the singing interaction, one of the “contestants” was
introduced into the male`s territory. Males responded significantly less strongly
to singers that had apparently just “lost” the interaction (see also McGregor &
Dabelsteen, 1996; Naguib et al., 1999; Ch. 2).
What information does an individual acquire when it eavesdrops on others?
In theory, an eavesdropper could acquire information of many different sorts:
about A, about B, about the relationship between A and B, or about the place of
Animal Communication Networks, ed. Peter K. McGregor. Published by Cambridge University Press.
c.
Cambridge University Press 2005.
583
P1: JZZ/... P2: JZZ/...
0521823617c25.xml CU1917B/McGregor 0 521 582361 7 October 7, 2004 22:31
584 D. L. Cheney & R. M. Seyfarth
A`s and B`s relationship in a larger social framework. The exact information acquired
will probably reflect the particular species social structure. For example,
songbirds like great tits live in communities in which six or seven neighbours
surround each territory-holding male. Males appear to benefit from the knowledge
that certain individuals occupy specific areas (e.g. Brooks & Falls, 1975), that
competitive interactions between two different neighbours have particular outcomes,
and that these outcomes are stable over time. We would, therefore, expect
an eavesdropping great tit not only to learn that neighbour A was dominant to
neighbour B, for example, but also to form the expectation that A was likely to
defeat B in all future encounters. More speculatively, because the outcome of territorial
interactions are often site specific (reviewed by Bradbury & Vehrencamp,
1998), we would expect eavesdropping tits to learn further that A dominates B
in some areas but B dominates A in others. In contrast, the information gained
from monitoring neighbours interactions would unlikely be sufficient to allow
the eavesdropper to rank all of its neighbours in a linear dominance hierarchy,
because not all neighbouring males would come into contact with one another.
Such information would be difficult if not impossible to acquire; it might also be
of little functional value.
In contrast, species that live in large, permanent social groups have a much
greater opportunity to monitor the social interactions of many different individuals
simultaneously. Monkey species such as baboons Papio cynocephalus, for
example, typically live in groups of 80 or more individuals, which include several
matrilineal families arranged in a stable, linear dominance rank order (Silk et al.,
1999). Offspring assume ranks similar to those of their mothers, and females maintain
close bonds with their matrilineal kin throughout their lives. Cutting across
these stable long-term relationships based on rank and kinship are more transient
bonds: for example, the temporary associations formed between unrelated
females whose infants are of similar ages, and the “friendships” formed between
adult males and lactating females as an apparent adaptation against infanticide
(Palombit et al., 1997, 2001). In order to compete successfully within such groups, it
would seem advantageous for individuals to recognize who outranks whom, who
is closely bonded to whom, and who is likely to be allied to whom (Harcourt, 1988,
1992; Cheney & Seyfarth, 1990; see below). The ability to adopt a third party`s perspective
and discriminate among the social relationships that exist among others
would seem to be of great selective benefit.
In this chapter, we review evidence for eavesdropping in selected primate
species and we consider what sort of information is acquired when one individual
observes or listens in on the interactions of others. We then compare eavesdropping
by primates with eavesdropping in other animal species, focusing on both
potential differences and directions for further research

Abstract: Behavioral ecologists have devoted considerable effort to identifying the sources of variation in individual reproductive success. Much of this work has focused on the characteristics of individuals, such as their sex and rank. However, many animals live in stable social groups and the fitness of individuals depends at least in part on the outcome of their interactions with other group members. For example, in many primate species, high dominance rank enhances access to resources and reproductive success. The ability to acquire and maintain high rank often depends on the availability and effectiveness of coalitionary support. Allies may be cultivated and coalitions may be reinforced by affiliative interactions such as grooming, food sharing, and tolerance. These findings suggest that if we want to understand the selective pressures that shape the social behavior of primates, it will be profitable to broaden our focus from the characteristics of individuals to the properties of the relationships that they form with others. The goal of this paper is to discuss a set of methods that can be used to quantify the properties of social relationships.

Abstract: A growing body of evidence suggests that a wide range of animals can recognize and respond appropriately to calls produced by other species. Social learning has been implicated as a possible mechanism by which heterospecific call recognition might develop. To examine whether familiarity and/or shared vulnerability with the calling species might influence the ability of sympatric species to distinguish heterospecific alarm calls, we tested whether four ungulate species (impala: Aepyceros melampus; tsessebe: Damaliscus lunatus; zebra: Equus burchelli; wildebeest: Connochaetes taurinus) could distinguish baboon (Papio hamadryas ursinus) alarm calls from other loud baboon calls produced during intra-specific aggressive interactions (‘contest’ calls). Overall, subjects’ responses were stronger following playback of alarm calls than contest calls. Of the species tested, impala showed the strongest responses and the greatest difference in composite response scores, suggesting they were best able to differentiate call types. Compared with the other ungulate species, impala are the most frequent associates of baboons. Moreover, like baboons, they are susceptible to both lion and leopard attacks, whereas leopards rarely take the larger ungulates. Although it seems possible that high rates of association and/or shared vulnerability may influence impala’s greater ability to distinguish among baboon call types, our results point to a stronger influence of familiarity. Ours is the first study to compare such abilities among several community members with variable natural histories, and we discuss future experiments that would more systematically examine development of these skills in young ungulates.