The white-headed capuchin is an animal that is usually active during the day and inhabits trees (Emmons, 1997). It, however, goes down to the ground frequently than other monkeys (Morris & Bruce, 2005). It locomotes primarily through walking on all four limbs. It resides in groups, or troops, of about 40 monkeys and its ratio of male to female adult sex, is 71 on average. With unusual exceptions, females pass their whole lives with their female colleagues. Males move to new social groups many times throughout their lifetimes, moving for the first time between the first 20 months and 11 years of their age (Jack & Fedigan, 2004). Males, at times, move alone, but more frequently, they move in other males’ company who are usually their kin. Among the strange features of the white-headed capuchin kinship structure that is relative to other species of primates is the high level of relatedness within groups. These are caused by the long terms of alpha males who generate most of the children.
Kinship is an essential organizing aspect in the organization of social relationships of female-to-female. In larger groups, females preferentially relate with, groom, and offer support to their matrilineally associated female kin. They do not show a similar predilection for their fatherly half sisters that might mean they are only able to recognize kinship through the motherly line. Supremacy rank is as well an essential organizing aspect, with females more frequently grooming and relating to females closer to them in the hierarchy of dominance. Coalitionary aggressiveness is common in both males and females, and capuchins appear to have an outstanding apprehension of the coalition structure in their group. For instance, when capuchins are in a combat, they wisely recruit assistance from those who are both in a higher ranking than they are and better friends with themselves than with their rival (Perry, 1997).
Female capuchins possess linear hierarchies of dominance. Unlike in other monkeys where females socially acquire the rank just below their mothers and just above their subsequent oldest sisters, capuchins do not possess a highly predictable ranking within their motherly lines. Males are usually dominant to females. Male-male relations are tense, and association between males is characteristically expressed by playing, resting in contact, or non-impregnable sex instead of grooming (Perry S., 1998). Males work together in coalitions versus potential predatory animals, and in the group’s defence versus other males. Occasionally, coalitionary aggression of males turns into violence and males are murdered, especially if they are found wandering the forest without the company of allies. Since aggression from other males is the primary death cause, male allies are vital in self-defence when migrating and helping in usurping other groups. Emigration of males to a new group typically takes place approximately every 4 years. Therefore, the majority of males are in steady risk of having to defend themselves against other male groups (Fedigan & Jack, 2004).
Males that are migrating frequently kill young children when they take control of a group. Females group together to protect their children from males who are infanticidal, but they hardly ever succeed in rescue their infants. Since infants hinder their mothers from ovulating through frequent nursing, males manage to bring females into estrus before through murdering the children and thus ending nursing. This increases their breeding chances. Females frequently mate with their infants killers of, and gradually, they support new alpha male like the previous one. The alpha male protects females from subordinate males in the group and other groups’ infanticidal males.
Even though, they participate in territorial activities, it has recently been indicated that White-faced capuchin troops tend to be aggressive to other troops of White-faced capuchin. This is in spite of their meeting point, and the aggression is not inevitably with an intention to prohibit the other groups from a particular home range (Fragaszy, Visalberghi, & Fedigan, 2004). Groups with many males are advantaged over those with fewer males, but the locality of the confrontation within the home range also counts. Smaller groups overcome larger groups if the competition occurs at the centre area of home range of the smaller groups.
When they have a chance, capuchin monkeys pursue fur rubbing by use of tissues from animals that are soft-bodied or plants, which are strong and physically stimulating. Typically, monkeys initially influence the material for fur rubbing, for example, tear it apart or bite into it, then put a part of the material into one arm and massage it with fast movements of the arm on their whole body as well as the back, tail, legs, flank and arms. The capuchins that are white faced may possibly drool excessively throughout such rubbing sessions (Fragaszy, Visalberghi, & Fedigan, 2004). They as well twist their tails around others. Fur- rubbing may be carried out by one or more monkeys, usually the whole troop or small groups. The monkeys perform fur rubbing by use of materials like Clemantis, Citrus, Sloaneaand Piper in the wild (Baker, 1996) or onions tobacco, and vinegar in confinement (Ludes & Anderson, 1995).
Rubbing fur is in general, linked to medicinal roles in capuchin monkeys since it seems to keeps away ectoparasites and ameliorates general condition of the skin. A number of evidences show support of this opinion. For instance, there was an observation that untamed crowds of capuchin monkeys that are white-faced demonstrate considerably more sessions of fur rubbing throughout the wet period when humidity and high heat may raise the bacterial infections risk. Additionally, the plants chosen for rubbing fur have secondary substances with anti-inflammatory, antiseptic and insecticidal features (Huffman, 1997). Several other species of primates have as well been discovered to pursue rubbing fur, counting spider monkeys (Campbell, 2000) and owl monkeys (Zito, Evans, & Weldon, 2003). The spider monkeys indicated many differences to capuchins. There was a report that no rise in sessions of fur rubbing in the wet season, a limited body area rubbing and a raised likelihood of rubbing fur in male monkeys (Campbell, 2000). It further suggested that rubbing fur might have a smell marking instead of a medicinal role in spider monkeys.
Many alternative roles of rubbing fur have been proposed, which include organization of scent of a group, strengthening of social unit or social grooming enhancement (Baker, 1996; Huffman, 1997). Certainly, rubbing fur seems to be enhanced socially in capuchins that are white-faced (Meunier, Petit, & Deneubourg, 2007), and social facets are frequently accentuated in experimental reports. For instance, capuchins that are white-faced with no material for rubbing fur flock around those monkeys, which has the material for rubbing fur and rubbed their bodies on their counterparts with the material on their fur. This results in an accumulation of wet, salivating monkeys, wriggling and rolling around and over one another. It is most likely that the social interactions and tolerance underlying in these shows, strengthen social units and might result in a rise in positive relations between members of the group. In a comparison between the behaviour of rubbing fur in tufted and white-faced capuchins in confinement, it was discovered that white-faced capuchins’ fur-rubbing conduct was more communally adjusted than that of the tufted capuchins. This study hypothesized that rubbing fur may facilitate social unity in capuchins that are white faced and not in the tufted monkeys (Leca, Gunst, & Petit, 2007).
In an experiment to investigate the social role of fur rubbing in Capuchin Monkeys, study animals included sub adult animals, tufted capuchin monkeys, as well as adult animals. On top of these, juveniles and infants were also included but were not regarded as central subjects, although they were part of the propinquity measures for central animals. Every study animal was kept in an open-air field augmented with ladders, swings and perches. There was no deprivation of food and supplements of seeds, nuts and fresh fruits were provided every day. Monkey biscuits and water were provided ad libitum.
Monkeys were monitored one time a day and five times in a week. By Use of main animal sampling, data was collected on each monkey in six sessions, thrice in the apple condition and thrice, in the onion condition. In sessions of onion, a single yellow onion was cut four times and split into single layers to make 30 pieces that were put in a prominent stand inside the enclosure. During the sessions of apple, there was cutting of the apple into four pieces and chopping it in order to look like the pieces of onion, and was put in the same stand. In every session, an arbitrarily chosen animal was monitored for 45 min after the supply of onion or apple pieces. By use of the Pocket Observer, other animals’ proximity, the intervals of affiliative behaviours were continuously recorded and, because of their comparative short periods, the occurrence of focal animals’ aggressive acts was engaged. The interactions time of focal animals with pieces of apple and onion, were recorded, and the time of any rubbing of fur. The experiment was sanctioned by the relevant agency.
Monkeys showed interaction in different manners with apples and onions. There was strong control of apples by the female and alpha male, who collected armfuls of pieces of apple and then pulled away to a far platform to eat these pieces. Some monkeys did not obtain pieces of apple during the experiment. Besides finishing the apple for a short time, there was no manipulation of the apple by monkeys, but they ate it immediately, to make the standard apple interactions’ duration 1 min 27 sec. Apple pieces interactions were mainly limited to the first period observation. On the contrary, the female and alpha male would take just one or two pieces of onion and without delay begin manipulating, consuming as well as rubbing fur on a similar stand. Monkeys frequently tore larger pieces of onion apart and dropped smaller pieces that were then gathered up by others. Every monkey got pieces of onion at least one time during the experiment. Additionally, by use of onions for rubbing fur, monkeys as well consumed the onion, or controlled it by busting it apart, biting into it or whiffing it but spewing it out once more.
The non-rubbing fur uses were carried out for an average of 4 min 42. Some fur-Rubbing monkeys pursued in fur rubbing throughout their three sessions of onion. Others indicated fur-rubbing behaviour in just one or two sessions of onion. Sessions that had no fur rubbing were thrown-away from the analysis. All adult female monkeys did not show fur rubbing in spite of controlling and consuming onion pieces. Among the monkeys that showed fur rubbing, the standard fur rubbing duration was 4 min 33 sec. The majority of fur rubbing happened throughout the first period of observation. Other monkeys showed fur rubbing in the second period of observation, and just one monkey in the third period.
Repeated ANOVAs measures together with the period of observation and within-subject condition factors disclosed that the condition interaction period was important for the time that monkeys used up unaccompanied (F(2, 28)54.0,P50.03) and in big troops (F(2, 28)55.9,P50.007), other than in little troops (F(2, 28)51.68, P40.05). Comparisons of post hoc showed that monkeys used up extra time in big troops in the condition of onion as equated to the condition of apple in the first period of observation (t(14)52.67, P50.018), and not in afterward periods of observation (P40.05 for the third and second periods of observation). Simultaneously, monkeys used up equal time unaccompanied in the two conditions, in the second and first periods of observation (bothP40.05), with more time unaccompanied in the condition of onion in the third period of observation (t(14)52.11,P50.054; Fig. 1).
Figure 1 Average durations used unaccompanied
In order to determine if the patterns of proximity of the initial period of observation could be assigned to rubbing fur, data for the first period of observation were analyzed in the condition of onion. Omitting the monkeys that never showed fur rubbing, the proportion of time taken by every monkey in large troops, small troops and unaccompanied when rubbing fur or when controlling the onion without rubbing fur. Paired t-tests sample indicated that monkeys used considerably more time in little troops and considerably less time unaccompanied while rubbing fur t(11)53.3, P50.007 and t(11)53.49,P50.005, respectively. There was no disparity for time used in big troops (t (11)51.15, P40.05; Fig. 2).
Figure 2 Average time percentages used unaccompanied,
Repeated ANOVA measures together with the period of observation and within-subject condition factors disclosed a significant major condition effect (F (1, 14)54.9, P50.044), but had no effect on the period of observation (F (2, 28)52.8, P40.05) witout interaction (F (2, 28)50.17, P40.05). As indicated in Figure 3a, aggression levels were significantly raised all through the condition of onion.
Affiliative interactions indicated a major condition effect (F (1, 14)515.67, P50.001) and for the period of observation (F (2, 28)510.11, Po0.001), but showed no interaction (F (2, 28)50.41, P40.05). Affiliative interactions were lowered throughout the first period of observation and raised steadily throughout succeeding periods of observation for both apple and onion conditions. There were, however, considerably shorter affiliative interactions in the condition of onion (Fig. 3b).
Figure 3a Average frequency per individual of aggressive behaviours and average duration per individual of affiliative behaviours
Figure 3b Average frequency per individual of aggressive behaviours across observation periods.
Rubbing fur, with no manipulation of an onion, raised proximity between tufted capuchins during the experiment. This outcome, however, was merely ephemeral. In succeeding periods of observation, monkeys utilized less proximity time, in the condition of onion than in the condition of apple. Together, aggression levels were raised and affiliation levels were inhibited in and after onion interactions as compared to apple interactions.
These outcomes may appear surprising as a number of other studies stressed the apparently positive social relations in fur-rubbing sessions. It has to be remarked, however, that the experiments’ subjects were capuchin monkeys that were white-faced, either in the untamed environment (Baker, 1996) or confinement (Meunier, Petit, & Deneubourg, 2007). In another experiment, there was a hypothesis that the capuchins that are white-faced which are more tolerant socially may get social advantages from rubbing fur, while the tufted capuchins that are dominance-based may not. This experiment agrees with this theory in that rubbing fur, in the tufted capuchins, was not linked to increased group unity. Instead, rubbing fur under the condition of onion was linked to significant reductions in cohesion of the group. It is apparent that this is definitely the instance for proximity measures, at least in the first period of observation during which monkeys were more societal when rubbing fur than when in manipulation of onions. Probably, fur rubbing is behaviour that is attractive since it may be easier to forage material from rubbing fur than from non-rubbing fur monkeys.
For proximity following fur-rubbing sessions and affiliative and aggressive interactions, the circumstance is less obvious. Even though, the absence or the presence of rubbing fur behaviour was one disparity between conditions, additional aspects had to be regarded. For instance, monkeys interacted in a different way with apples and onions. There was strong domination of apples by the alpha male and female, and a number of monkeys never obtained pieces of apple. All monkeys acquired access to pieces of onion. These different kinds of intragroup rivalry apart from rubbing fur may have led to the viewed aggression, proximity and affiliation differences. Potentially, onions resulted in more exhilaration among members of the group and caused. Fur rubbing with strong material may obstruct such olfactory cues, and so result in interruptions of regulated social interactions. Olfactory signals utilized by subordinate monkeys to show submission may be overwhelmed by the strong smell of fur rub material and, in addition to higher levels of intragroup rivalry for materials, might have drawn higher aggression levels from dominant monkeys.
There was significant exhilaration in the two conditions as proved by frequent calls for food. Baker (1996) employed the phrase almost frenzied to depict the conduct of rubbing fur in capuchins that are white-faced that may be taken as increased exhilaration during sessions of rubbing fur. However, there was no observation of any rubbing fur or other conduct during the experiment that would value this description. Moreover, these confined monkeys did not have any outside parasites or other conditions of fur that may have caused bias in the respective items’ value.
In conclusion, these outcomes propose that fur rubbing does not raise affiliative interactions among tufted capuchins. Alternatively, fur rubbing was linked to a rise in interactions that are aggressive.
Baker, M. (1996). Fur rubbing: use of medicinal plants by capuchin monkeys (Cebus capucinus). Am J Primatol, 38, 263–270.
Campbell, C. J. (2000). Fur rubbing behavior in free-ranging black-handed spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) in Panama. Am J Primatol, 51, 205–208.
Emmons, L. (1997). Neotropical Rainforest Mammals A Field Guide (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fedigan, L., & Jack, K. (2004). The Demographic and Reproductive Context of Male Replacements in Cebus Capucinus. Behaviour, 141, 755–775.
Fragaszy, D., Visalberghi, E., & Fedigan, L. (2004). “Behavioral Ecology”. The Complete Capuchin. Cambridge University Press.
Fragaszy, D., Visalberghi, E., & Fedigan, L. M. (2004). The complete capuchin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huffman, M. A. (1997). Current evidence of self-medication in primates: a multidisciplinary perspective. Yearb Phys Anthropol, 40, 171–200.
Jack, K., & Fedigan, L. (2004). Male dispersal patterns in white-faced capuchins, Cebus capucinus Part 1: patterns and causes of natal emigration. Animal Behaviour, 67, 761–769.
Leca, J. B., Gunst, N., & Petit, O. (2007). Social aspects of fur-rubbing in Cebus capucinusand C. apella.l. Int J Primato, 28, 801–817.
Ludes, E., & Anderson, J. R. (1995). ‘Peat-bathing’ in captive white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capucinus). Folia Primatol, 65, 38–42.
Meunier, H., Petit, O., & Deneubourg, J. L. (2007). Social facilitation of fur rubbing behavior in white-faced capuchins. Am J Primatol, 69, 1–14.
Meunier, H., Petit, O., & Deneubourg, J. L. (2007). Social facilitation of fur rubbing behavior in white-faced capuchins. Am J Primatol, 69, 1–14.
Morris, D., & Bruce, D. (2005). Primate Ethology. Aldine Transaction.
Perry, S. (1997). Male-female social relationships in wild white-faced capuchin monkeys, Cebus capucinus. Behaviour, 134, 477–510.
Perry, S. (1998). Male-male social relationships in wild white-faced capuchins, Cebus capucinus. Behaviour, 135, 1–34.
Zito, M., Evans, S., & Weldon, P. J. (2003). Owl monkey (Aotusspp.) self-anoint with plants and millipedes. Folia Primatol, 74, 159–161.