Abstract: Agonistic intervention behavior was observed in captive groups of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and stumptail monkeys (M. arctoides). Reciprocity correlations of interventions were determined while removing from the data the effects of several symmetrical relationship characteristics, that is, matrillineal kinship, proximity relations, and same-sex combination. It was considered likely that if significant reciprocity persisted after controlling for these characteristics, the reciprocity was based on cognitive mechanisms. Statistical significance was tested by means of recently developed matrix permutation procedures. All three species exhibited significant reciprocity with regard to beneficial interventions, even after controlling for symmetrical traits. Harmful interventions were, however, reciprocal among chimpanzees only. This species showed a “revenge system”, that is, if A often intervened against B, B did the same to A. In contrast, both macaque species showed significantly inversed reciprocity in their harmful interventions: if A often intervened against B, B rarely intervened against A. Further analysis indicates that the strict hierarchy of macaques prevents them from achieving complete reciprocity. Compared to chimpanzees, macaques rarely intervene against higher ranking group members. The observed contrast can be partially explained on the basis of differences in available space, as indicated by a comparison of indoor and outdoor living conditions for the chimpanzee colony. Yet, even when such spatial factors are taken into account, substantial behavior differences between chimpanzees and macaques remain.

Abstract: Feral horses live in social systems similar to those of some species in which infant killing has been reported (e.g. lions), but such behaviour has been reported neither in horses nor in any other ungulate. The results of interviews with owners of free-ranging horses (Camargue breed) are given which show that, though rare, infant killing occurs in this breed, and that it seems to be confined to male foals. It is argued that the observed behaviour cannot simply be considered as pathological, and that close attention should be paid to the possibility that it occurs in wild and feral equids.

Abstract: Grooming might be a resource that is offered in exchange for some benefit (e.g. access to a feeding site or coalitionary support) or it might be a mechanism for building and servicing social relationships, whose function, in turn, is to facilitate the exchange of resources and services. Bi-directional (or simultaneous mutual) grooming is unusually common among chimpanzees (though rare in other primates) and we suggest that this might be because it is an especially strong indicator of social bonding. Because the bonding role of bi-directional grooming offers substantially different predictions from the interpretation offered by the models based on reciprocal altruism (RA), we use a critical tests methodology (i.e. tests that unequivocally support one hypothesis at the expense of the other) to differentiate between the bonding and RA hypotheses. We use data on the dynamics of grooming interactions from a captive group of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) to show that dominant individuals tolerated the individuals with whom they performed bi-directional grooming more than they did those who typically provided them unidirectional grooming. Dominants rejected and terminated grooming sessions more often with the individuals who provided them with mostly unidirectional grooming than with those with whom they groomed bi-directionally. In addition, animals engaged in bi-directional grooming more often with both relatives and those with whom they were often in proximity. These results support the bonding model of mutually reciprocated grooming at the expense of the RA model, and suggest that, at least in chimpanzees, simultaneous mutual grooming may play a particularly important role in social bonding.

Abstract: nterest in personality is growing in a wide range of disciplines, but only in a few systems it is possible to assess the survival value of personality. Field studies looking at the relationship between personality and survival value early in life are greatly hampered by the fact that personality can at present only be assessed after individuals become independent from their parents. In passerines, for example, this is often after a period of intensive selection for the survival on fledglings. The main aim of this study is therefore to develop a method to measure personality before this period of selection. For this purpose, we developed the handling stress (HS) test. We measured HS in 14-d-old great tit nestlings by counting the number of breast movements (breath rate) in four subsequent 15-s bouts for 1 min; before and after they were socially isolated from their siblings for 15 min. To calculate the repeatability of HS, we repeated the test 6 mo later. To assess the relationship between HS and exploratory behaviour, we correlated the outcome of both tests. We ran tests both on birds of lines selected for extreme personality and on wild birds from a natural population. We found that birds selected for fast exploration reacted more to HS compared with birds selected for slow exploration and that HS was repeatable in different life phases. We confirmed this by finding an increase in the HS with increasing exploratory scores in wild birds. These results show that we can use the HS test as a measurement of personality, making it a potential tool for studying the relationship between personality and survival value early in life.