Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:13:05.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The Natural History of Primate Spatial Cognition

An Organismic Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2022

By
Charles R. Menzel  and
Ken Sayers
Edited by
Bennett L. Schwartz  and
Michael J. Beran
Bennett L. Schwartz
Affiliation:
Florida International University
Michael J. Beran
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Get access

Summary

We adapt a method from mammalian comparative biology to study spatial cognition in relation to lifestyle. We compare members of the family Pitheciidae (titi monkeys, sakis, bearded sakis, and uakaris) to one another and to two cebid relatives, squirrel monkeys and owl monkeys. We review experimental studies that directly compare titis and squirrel monkeys in spatial tasks and social settings. Titis occupy small, defended home ranges and live in small groups comprising an adult male-female pair and young. In contrast, bearded sakis, uakaris, and squirrel monkeys, occupy large, undefended home ranges, move rapidly, and live in large groups. White-faced sakis illustrate an intermediate condition. Lab studies show that titis and squirrel monkeys differ in their use of visual information in travel tasks and in responsiveness to environmental novelty. Proximate sources of titis’ cautious, sedentary lifestyle include attention to contextual detail, preferences for familiar pathways and areas, behavioral inhibition, parasympathetic dominance, and adult heterosexual attachment bonds. A speculative scenario for the evolution of titis within the Pitheciidae is offered, in which spatial cognition is included as a factor. Further potential applications of this approach within the primate order are considered. We maintain that a holistic, biological, and evolutionary methodology is most likely to elucidate the underpinnings and form of complex cognition.

Keywords

titi monkeycallicebussaki monkeypitheciidaesquirrel monkeymacaquechimpanzeecomparative methodmonogamyterritoriality
Type
Chapter
Information
Primate Cognitive Studies , pp. 188 - 237
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, M. W. (1986). Contrasting approaches to spatially distributed resources by Saimiri and Callicebus. In Else, J. G. & Lee, P. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Congress of the International Primatological Society: Vol. 3. Primate ontogeny, cognition, and social behaviour (pp. 79-86). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, M. W. (1988a). Selection of food sites by Callicebus moloch and Saimiri sciureus under spatially and temporally varying food distribution. Learning and Motivation, 19, 254–268.Google Scholar
Andrews, M. W. (1988b). Spatial strategies of oriented travel in Callicebus moloch and Saimiri sciureus. Animal Learning & Behavior, 16, 429–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ankel-Simons, F. (2007). Primate anatomy: An introduction. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anzelc, A. (2009). The foraging and travel patterns of white-faced sakis in Brownsberg Nature Park, Suriname: Preliminary evidence for goal-directed foraging behavior. Master’s thesis, Kent State University.Google Scholar
Anzenberger, G., Mendoza, S. P., & Mason, W. A. (1986). Comparative studies of social behavior in Callicebus and Saimiri: Behavioral and physiological responses of established pairs to unfamiliar pairs. American Journal of Primatology, 11, 37–51.Google Scholar
Aruguete, M. S., Lyons, D. M., Mason, W. A., & Mendoza, S. P. (1998). Reactions of adult and immature squirrel monkeys to intergroup exposure. Zoo Biology, 17, 519–524.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aston-Jones, G., Rajkowski, J., & Cohen, J. (2000). Locus coeruleus and regulation of behavioral flexibility and attention. Progress in Brain Research, 126, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beale, C. M. (2007). The behavioral ecology of disturbance responses. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 20, 111–120.Google Scholar
Bicca-Marques, J. C., & Heymann, E. W. (2013). Ecology and behavior of titi monkeys (genus Callicebus). In Veiga, L. M., Barnett, A. A., Ferrari, S. F., & Norconk, M. A. (Eds.), Evolutionary biology and conservation of titis, sakis, and uakaris (pp. 196–207). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boinski, S. (1994). Affiliation patterns among male Costa Rican squirrel monkeys. Behaviour, 130, 191–209.Google Scholar
Bolen, R. H., & Green, S. M. (1997). Use of olfactory cues in foraging by owl monkeys (Aotus nancymai) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 111, 152–158.Google Scholar
Candland, D., O’Connor, K., Dresdale, L., Leshner, A., Cahill, B., & Eberhart, J. (1978). Behavior of unacquainted Saimiri troops upon encounter: A suggestive case study. Primates, 19, 643–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Careau, V., Thomas, D., Humphries, M. M., & Réale, D. (2008). Energy metabolism and animal personality. Oikos, 117, 641–653.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Harvey, P. H. (1977). Species differences in feeding and ranging behaviour in primates. In Clutton‐Brock, T. H. (Ed.), Primate ecology: Studies of feeding and ranging behaviour in lemurs, monkeys and apes (pp. 557–584). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cubicciotti, D. D., & Mason, W. A. (1975). Comparative studies of social behavior in Callicebus and Saimiri: Male–female emotional attachments. Behavioral Biology, 16, 185–197.Google Scholar
Cubicciotti, D. D., & Mason, W. A. (1978). Comparative studies of social behavior in Callicebus and Saimiri: Heterosexual jealousy behavior. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 3, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cubicciotti, D. D., Mendoza, S. P., Mason, W. A., & Sassenrath, E. N. (1986). Differences between Saimiri sciureus and Callicebus moloch in physiological responsiveness: Implications for behavior. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 100, 385–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, E. P. (2003). The use of memory in Pithecia pithecia’s foraging strategy. PhD Thesis, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Cunningham, E. P., & Janson, C. (2007). Integrating information about location and value of resources by white-faced saki monkeys (Pithecia pithecia). Animal Cognition, 10, 293–304.Google Scholar
da Costa, R. S., & Bicca-Marques, J. C. (2014). Owl monkeys (Aotus nigriceps and A. infulatus) follow routes instead of food-related cues during foraging in captivity. PLoS ONE, 9, e115188.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859/2003). On the Origin of Species: A facsimile of the first edition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Deaner, R. O., & Platt, M. L. (2003). Reflexive social attention in monkeys and humans. Current Biology, 13, 1609–1613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixson, A. F. (1983). The owl monkey (Aotus trivirgatus). In Hearn, J. P. (Ed.), Reproduction in New World primates (pp. 69–113). International Medical Publishers.Google Scholar
Dixson, A. F. (2012). Primate sexuality: Comparative studies of the prosimians, monkeys, apes, and humans. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donald, M. (2001). A mind so rare: The evolution of human consciousness. WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, A. (1970). Response to novel objects in three lower primates: Greater galago, slow loris, and owl monkey. Behaviour, 37, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, J. F. (1981). The mammalian radiations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Duque, E. (2007). Aotinae: Social monogamy in the only nocturnal anthropoid. In Campbell, C. J., Fuentes, A., MacKinnon, K. C., Panger, M., & Bearder, S. K. (Eds.), Primates in perspective (pp. 139–154). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Duque, E., Huck, M., Van Belle, S., & Di Fiore, A. (2020). The evolution of pair‐living, sexual monogamy, and cooperative infant care: Insights from research on wild owl monkeys, titis, sakis, and tamarins. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 171, 118–173.Google Scholar
Fleagle, J. G. (2013). Primate adaptation and evolution. 3rd edition. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ford, S. M. (1994). Evolution of sexual dimorphism in body weight in platyrrhines. American Journal of Primatology, 34, 221–244.Google Scholar
Fragaszy, D. M. (1978). Contrasts in feeding behavior in squirrel and titi monkeys. In Chivers, D. J. & Herbert, J. (Eds.), Recent advances in primatology. Vol. 1: Behaviour (pp. 363–367). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fragaszy, D. M. (1979). Titi and squirrel monkeys in a novel environment. In Erwin, J., Maple, T., & Mitchell, G. (Eds.), Captivity and behavior: Primates in breeding colonies, laboratories, and zoos (pp. 172–216). Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Fragaszy, D. M. (1980). Comparative studies of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri) and titi monkeys (Callicebus) in travel tasks. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 54, 1–36.Google Scholar
Fragaszy, D. M. (1981). Comparative performance in discrimination learning tasks in two New World primates (Saimiri sciureus and Callicebus moloch). Animal Learning & Behavior, 9, 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fragaszy, D. M. (1986). Comparative studies of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and titi monkeys (Callicebus moloch): Performance on choice tasks in near space. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 100, 392–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fragaszy, D. M., & Mason, W. A. (1978). Response to novelty in Saimiri and Callicebus: Influence of social context. Primates, 19, 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fragaszy, D. M., & Mason, W. A. (1983). Comparisons of feeding behavior in captive squirrel and titi monkeys (Saimiri sciureus and Callicebus moloch). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 97, 310–326.Google Scholar
Ghiglieri, M. P. (1984). The chimpanzees of Kibale forest: A field study of ecology and social structure. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (2002). A theory of direct visual perception. In Noe, A.T. & Boston, E. (Eds.), Vision and mind: Selected readings in the philosophy of perception (pp. 77–89). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1979). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. 2nd edition. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gould, L., & Sauther, M. (2007). Lemuriformes. In Campbell, C. J., Fuentes, A., MacKinnon, K. C., Panger, M., & Bearder, S. K. (Eds.), Primates in perspective (pp. 46–72). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grand, T. I. (1977). Body weight: Its relation to tissue composition, segment distribution, and motor function. I. Interspecific comparisons. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 47, 211–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grand, T. I. (1978). Adaptations of tissue and limb segments to facilitate moving and feeding in arboreal folivores. In Montgomery, G.G. (Ed.), Ecology of arboreal folivores (pp. 231–241). Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Grand, T. I. (1990). Body composition and the evolution of the Macropodidae (Potorous, Dendrolagus, and Macropus). Anatomy and embryology, 182, 85–92.Google Scholar
Grand, T. I. (1997). How muscle mass is part of the fabric of behavioral ecology in East African bovids (Madoqua, Gazella, Damaliscus, Hippotragus). Anatomy and Embryology, 195, 375–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grand, T. I., & Barboza, P. S. (2001). Anatomy and development of the koala, Phascolarctos cinereus: An evolutionary perspective on the superfamily Vombatoidea. Anatomy and Embryology, 203, 211–223.Google Scholar
Gregory, L. T. (2011). Socioecology of the Guianan bearded saki, Chiropotes sagulatus. PhD Thesis, Kent State University, Kent.Google Scholar
Gregory, T., Mullett, A., & Norconk, M. A. (2014). Strategies for navigating large areas: A GIS spatial ecology analysis of the bearded saki monkey, Chiropotes sagulatus, in Suriname. American Journal of Primatology, 76, 586–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 673–685.Google Scholar
Hennessy, M. B., Mendoza, S. P., Mason, W. A., & Moberg, G. P. (1995). Endocrine sensitivity to novelty in squirrel monkeys and titi monkeys: Species differences in characteristic modes of responding to the environment. Physiology & Behavior, 57, 331–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, K. A. (1998). Transition from juvenile to adult stages of development in titi monkeys (Callicebus moloch). PhD Thesis, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Hostetler, C. M., Hinde, K., Maninger, N., Mendoza, S. P., Mason, W. A., Rowland, D. J., … Bales, K. L. (2017). Effects of pair bonding on dopamine D1 receptors in monogamous male titi monkeys (Callicebus cupreus). American Journal of Primatology, 79, e22612.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. Free Press.Google Scholar
Kay, R. F. (1984). On the use of anatomical features to infer foraging behavior in extinct primates. In Rodman, P. S. & Cant, J. G. H. (Eds.), Adaptations for foraging in nonhuman primates (pp. 21–53). Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, R. F., Meldrum, D. J., & Takai, M. (2013). Pitheciidae and other platyrrhine seed predators. In Veiga, L. M., Barnett, A. A., Ferrari, S. F., & Norconk, M. A. (Eds.), Evolutionary biology and conservation of titis, sakis and uacaris (pp. 3–12). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelleher, R. T., Morse, W. H., & Herd, J. A. (1972). Effects of propranolol, phentolamine and methyl atropine on cardiovascular function in the squirrel monkey during behavioral experiments. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 182, 204–217.Google Scholar
Kiesling, N. M. J., Soojin, V. Y., Xu, K., Sperone, F. G., & Wildman, D. E. (2015). The tempo and mode of New World monkey evolution and biogeography in the context of phylogenomic analysis. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 82, 386–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinzey, W. G. (1987). A primate model for human mating systems. In Kinzey, W.G. (Ed.), The evolution of human behavior: Primate models (pp. 105–114). State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Kummer, H. (1967). Dimensions of a comparative biology of primate groups. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 27, 357–366.Google Scholar
Mandl, I., Holderied, M., & Schwitzer, C. (2019). Spatiotemporal distribution of individuals as an indicator for the social system of Lepilemur sahamalaza. American Journal of Primatology, 81, e22984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, W. A. (1966). Social organization of the South American monkey Callicebus moloch: A preliminary report. Tulane Studies in Zoology, 13, 23–28.Google Scholar
Mason, W. A. (1968). Use of space by Callicebus groups. In Jay, P. C. (Ed.), Primates: Studies in adaptation and variability (pp. 200–216). Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Mason, W. A. (1970). Information processing and experiential deprivation: A biologic perspective. In Young, F. A. & Lindsley, D. B. (Eds.), Early experience and visual information processing in perceptual and reading disorders (pp. 302–323). National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Mason, W. A. (1971). Motivational factors in psychosocial development. In Arnold, W. J. & Page, M. M. (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 33–67). University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Mason, W. A. (1979). Ontogeny of social behavior. In Marler, P. & Vandenbergh, J. G. (Eds.), Handbook of behavioral neurobiology, Volume 3, social behavior and communication (pp. 1–28). Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Mason, W. A. (1980). Minding our business. American Psychologist, 35, 964–967.Google Scholar
Mason, W.A. (2002). The natural history of primate behavioral development: An organismic perspective. In Lewkowicz, D.J. & Lickliter, R. (Eds), Conceptions of development: Lessons from the laboratory (pp. 105–134). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Mason, W. A., & Mendoza, S. P. (1998). Generic aspects of primate attachments: Parents, offspring and mates. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 765–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsumura, S. (1999). The evolution of “egalitarian” and “despotic” social systems among macaques. Primates, 40, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayeaux, D. J., & Mason, W. A. (1998). Development of responsiveness to novel objects in the titi monkey, Callicebus moloch. Primates, 39, 419–431.Google Scholar
Mayeaux, D. J., Mason, W. A., & Mendoza, S. P. (2002). Developmental changes in responsiveness to parents and unfamiliar adults in a monogamous monkey (Callicebus moloch). American Journal of Primatology, 58, 71–89.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1976). Evolution and the diversity of life. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McNelis, N. L., & Boatright-Horowitz, S. L. (1998). Social monitoring in a primate group: The relationship between visual attention and hierarchical ranks. Animal Cognition, 1, 65–69.Google Scholar
Meindl, R. S., Chaney, M. E., & Lovejoy, C. O. (2018). Early hominids may have been weed species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 1244–1249.Google Scholar
Mendoza, S. P. (1991a). Behavioural and physiological indices of social relationships: Comparative studies of New World monkeys. In Primate Responses to Environmental Change (pp. 311–335). Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendoza, S. P. (1991b). Sociophysiology of well-being in nonhuman primates. Laboratory Animal Science, 41, 344–349.Google ScholarPubMed
Mendoza, S. P. (2017). Social Stress: Concepts, assumptions, and animal models. In Pfaff, D. W. & Joëls, M. (Eds.), Hormones, brain, and behavior, Volume 1. 3rd edition (pp. 261–283). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mendoza, S. P., & Mason, W. A. (1986a). Contrasting responses to intruders and to involuntary separation by monogamous and polygynous New World monkeys. Physiology & behavior, 38(6), 795–801.Google Scholar
Mendoza, S.P., & Mason, W.A. (1986b). Parental division of labour and differentiation of attachments in a monogamous primate (Callicebus moloch). Animal Behaviour, 34, 1336–1347.Google Scholar
Mendoza, S. P., & Mason, W. A. (1997). Autonomic balance in Saimiri sciureus and Callicebus moloch: Relation to life-style. Folia Primatologica, 68, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mendoza, S. P., & Moberg, G. P. (1985). Species differences in adrenocortical activity of New World primates: Response to dexamethasone suppression. American Journal of Primatology, 8, 215–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mendoza, S. P., Reeder, D. M., & Mason, W. A. (2002). Nature of proximate mechanisms underlying primate social systems: Simplicity and redundancy. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 11, 112–116.Google Scholar
Menzel, C. R. (1986a). An experimental study of territory maintenance in captive titi monkeys (Callicebus moloch). In Else, J. G. & Lee, P. C. (Eds.), Primate ecology and conservation (pp. 133–143). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Menzel, C. R. (1986b). Structural aspects of arboreality in titi monkeys (Callicebus moloch). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 70, 167–176.Google Scholar
Menzel, C. R. (1991). Cognitive aspects of foraging in Japanese monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 41(3), 397–402.Google Scholar
Menzel, C. R. (1993). Coordination and conflict in Callicebus social groups. In Mason, W. A. & Mendoza, S. P. (Eds.), Primate social conflict (pp. 253–290). State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Menzel, C. R. (1996). Structure-guided foraging in long-tailed macaques. American Journal of Primatology, 38, 117–132.Google Scholar
Menzel, C. R. (1999). Unprompted recall and reporting of hidden objects by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) after extended delays. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 113, 426–434.Google Scholar
Menzel, C. R., & Beck, B. B. (2000). Homing and detour behavior in golden lion tamarin social groups. In Boinski, S. & Garber, P. A. (Eds.), On the move: How and why animals travel in groups (pp. 299–326). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Menzel, E. W. (1974). A group of young chimpanzees in a one-acre field. In Schrier, A. M. & Stollnitz, F. (Eds.), Behavior of nonhuman primates, Vol. 5 (pp. 83–153). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mitani, J. C., & Rodman, P. S. (1979). Territoriality: The relation of ranging pattern and home range size to defendability, with an analysis of territoriality among primate species. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 5, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montilla, S. O., Mopán-Chilito, A.M., Murcia, L.N.S., Triana, J.D.M., Ruiz, O.M.C., Montoya-Cepeda, J., Gutierrez-Barreto, D.A., Holguín-Vivas, J.A., Agámez, C.J., & Pérez-Grisales, L.J. (2021). Activity patterns, diet and home range of night monkeys (Aotus griseimembra and Aotus lemurinus) in tropical lowland and mountain forests of central Colombia. International Journal of Primatology, 42, 130–153.Google Scholar
Norconk, M. A. (2007). Sakis, uakaris, and titi monkeys: behavioral diversity in a radiation of primate seed predators. In Campbell, C. J., Fuentes, A., MacKinnon, K. C., Panger, M., & Bearder, S. K. (Eds.), Primates in perspective (pp. 123–138). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norconk, M. A. (2020). Historical antecedents and recent innovations in pitheciid (titi, saki, and uakari) feeding ecology. American Journal of Primatology, e23177.Google Scholar
Norconk, M. A., & Veres, M. (2011). Physical properties of fruit and seeds ingested by primate seed predators with emphasis on sakis and bearded sakis. The Anatomical Record, 294, 2092–2111.Google Scholar
Palacios, E., Rodríguez, A., & Defler, T. R. (1997). Diet of a group of Callicebus torquatus lugens (Humboldt, 1812) during the annual resource bottleneck in Amazonian Colombia. International Journal of Primatology, 18, 503–522.Google Scholar
Phillips, M. J., & Mason, W. A. (1976). Comparative studies of social behavior in Callicebus and Saimiri: Social looking in male–female pairs. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 55–56.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1978). Behavior and evolution. Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, T., Ferrari, S. F., & Lopes, M. A. (2013). Activity budget, diet, and use of space by two groups of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) in eastern Amazonia. Primates, 54, 301–308.Google Scholar
Porges, S. W. (1995). Orienting in a defensive world: Mammalian modifications of our evolutionary heritage. A polyvagal theory. Psychophysiology, 32, 301–318.Google Scholar
Porges, S. W. (1997). Emotion: An evolutionary by-product of the neural regulation of the autonomic nervous system. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 807, 62–77.Google Scholar
Porges, S. W. (2009). The polyvagal theory: New insights into adaptive reactions of the autonomic nervous system. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 76, S86–S90.Google Scholar
Potts, R. (2004). Paleoenvironmental basis of cognitive evolution in great apes. American Journal of Primatology, 62, 209–228.Google Scholar
Pöysä, H. (1992). Group foraging in patchy environments: The importance of coarse-level local enhancement. Ornis Scandinavica, 23, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putney, R. T. (1985). Do willful apes know what they are aiming at? The Psychological Record, 39, 49–62.Google Scholar
Putney, R. T. (2007). Willful apes revisited: The concept of prospective control. In Washburn, D. A. (Ed.), Primate perspectives on behavior and cognition (pp. 207–219). American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raghanti, M. A., Edler, M. K., Stephenson, A. R., Munger, E. L., Jacobs, B., Hof, P. R., Sherwood, C. C., Holloway, R. L., & Lovejoy, C. O. (2018). A neurochemical hypothesis for the origin of hominids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, E1108–E1116.Google Scholar
Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, W. A., Mitchell, S., & Phelps, M. T. (1993). Foraging in laboratory trees: Spatial memory in squirrel monkeys. In Zentall, T. R. (Ed.), Animal cognition: A tribute to Donald A. Riley (pp. 131–151). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. G. (1979). Vocal regulation of use of space by groups of titi monkeys Callicebus moloch. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 5, 1–15.Google Scholar
Romanes, G. J. (1883). Mental evolution in animals with a posthumous essay on instinct by Charles Darwin. Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, A. L. (1992). Evolution of feeding niches in New World monkeys. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 88, 525–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothwell, E. S., Carp, S. B., Savidge, L. E., Mendoza, S. P., & Bales, K. L. (2020). Relationship tenure differentially influences pair‐bond behavior in male and female socially monogamous titi monkeys (Callicebus cupreus). American Journal of Primatology, 82, e23181.Google Scholar
Rotundo, M., Fernandez-Duque, E., & Dixson, A. F. (2005). Infant development and parental care in free-ranging Aotus azarai azarai in Argentina. International Journal of Primatology, 26, 1459–1473.Google Scholar
Rowe, N. (1996). The pictorial guide to the living primates. Pogonias Press.Google Scholar
Sayers, K. (2017). Folivory. In Fuentes, A. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of primatology (pp. 414–418). Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sayers, K., & Lovejoy, C. O. (2014). Blood, bulbs, and bunodonts: On evolutionary ecology and the diets of Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and early Homo. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 89, 319–357.Google Scholar
Sayers, K., & Menzel, C. R. (2012). Memory and foraging theory: Chimpanzee utilization of optimality heuristics in the rank-order recovery of hidden foods. Animal Behaviour, 84, 795–803.Google Scholar
Teixeira, A. L. D. S., da Silva, W. B., Oliveira, K. G., Correa, I. C., Gonzaga, C. N., & Almosny, N. R. P. (2021). Biochemistry, Doppler echocardiography, and electrocardiography evaluation in captive owl monkeys (Aotus sp). Journal of Medical Primatology, 50, 89–98.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. L. (2016). To pair or not to pair: Sources of social variability with white‐faced saki monkeys (Pithecia pithecia) as a case study. American Journal of Primatology, 78, 561–572.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. L., & Norconk, M. A. (2011). Within‐group social bonds in white‐faced saki monkeys (Pithecia pithecia) display male–female pair preference. American Journal of Primatology, 73, 1051–1061.Google Scholar
Valeggia, C. R. (1996). Social influences on the development of sexual physiology and behavior in titi monkey females (Callicebus moloch). PhD Thesis, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Visalberghi, E., & Mason, W. A. (1983). Determinants of problem-solving success in Saimiri and Callicebus. Primates, 24, 385–396.Google Scholar
Vogel, S. (1988). Life’s devices. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wainwright, S. A. (1988). Axis and circumference: The cylindrical shape of plants and animals. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Whiten, A., & van de Waal, E. (2018). The pervasive role of social learning in primate lifetime development. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 72, 1–16.Google Scholar
Wolovich, C. K., & Evans, S. (2007). Sociosexual behavior and chemical communication of Aotus nancymaae. International Journal of Primatology, 28, 1299–1313.Google Scholar
Wolovich, C. K., Evans, S., & Green, S. M. (2010). Mated pairs of owl monkeys (Aotus nancymaae) exhibit sex differences in response to unfamiliar male and female conspecifics. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 942–950.Google Scholar
Wright, P. C. (1994). The behavior and ecology of the owl monkey. In Baer, J. F., Weller, R. E., & Kakoma, I. (Eds.), Aotus: The owl monkey (pp. 97–112). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zimbler-DeLorenzo, H. S. & Stone, A. I. (2011). Integration of field and captive studies for understanding the behavioral ecology of the squirrel monkey (Saimiri sp.). American Journal of Primatology, 73, 607–622.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×