No abstract

Faces are salient stimuli for primates that rely predominantly on visual cues for recognizing conspecifics and maintaining social relationships. While previous studies have shown similar face discrimination processes in chimpanzees and humans, data from monkeys are unclear. Therefore, three studies examined face processing in rhesus monkeys using the face inversion effect, a fractured face task, and an individual recognition task. Unlike chimpanzees and humans, the monkeys showed a general face inversion effect reflected by significantly better performance on upright compared to inverted faces (conspecifics, human and chimpanzees faces) regardless of the subjects’ expertise with those categories. Fracturing faces alters first- and second-order configural manipulations whereas previous studies in chimpanzees showed selective deficits for second-order configural manipulations. Finally, when required to individuate conspecific’s faces, i.e., matching two different photographs of the same conspecific, monkeys showed poor discrimination and repeated training. These results support evolutionary differences between rhesus monkeys and Hominoids in the importance of configural cues and their ability to individuate conspecifics’ faces, suggesting a lack of face expertise in rhesus monkeys.

Culturally supported accumulation (or ratcheting) of technological complexity is widely seen as characterizing hominin technology relative to that of the extant great apes, and thus as representing a threshold in cultural evolution. To explain this divide, we modeled the process of cultural accumulation of technology, which we defined as adding new actions to existing ones to create new functional combinations, based on a model for great ape tool use. The model shows that intraspecific and interspecific variation in the presence of simple and cumulative technology among extant orangutans and chimpanzees is largely due to variation in sociability, and hence opportunities for social learning. The model also suggests that the adoption of extensive allomaternal care (cooperative breeding) in early Pleistocene Homo, which led to an increase in sociability and to teaching, and hence increased efficiency of social learning, was enough to facilitate technological ratcheting. Hence, socioecological changes, rather than advances in cognitive abilities, can account for the cumulative cultural changes seen until the origin of the Acheulean. The consequent increase in the reliance on technology could have served as the pacemaker for increased cognitive abilities. Our results also suggest that a more important watershed in cultural evolution was the rise of donated culture (technology or concepts), in which technology or concepts was transferred to naïve individuals, allowing them to skip many learning steps, and specialization arose, which allowed individuals to learn only a subset of the population's skills.

Female copulation calls are mating-associated vocalizations that occur in some species of Old World monkeys and apes. We argue that copulation calls have two immediate functions: to encourage mating attempts by other males and to increase mate guarding by the consort male. We hypothesize that female copulation calls have evolved under the selective pressures of risk of infanticide and sperm competition. When male mate guarding is effective, copulation calls allow females to concentrate paternity in dominant males and benefit from their protection against the risk of infanticide. When mate guarding is ineffective, copulation calls may bring genetic benefits to females through facilitation of sperm competition. We present a quantitative model in which interspecific variation in females' promiscuity predicts their tendency to use copulation calls in conjunction with mating. The model predicts that in species with little female promiscuity copulation calls should be rare and exhibited only in association with mating with dominant males. In species in which females are highly promiscuous, copulation calls should be frequent and unrelated to male dominance rank. The limited data available to test the model support its main predictions as well as the predicted relation between copulation calls and male dominance rank.