Countermarking by male pygmy lorises (Nycticebus pygmaeus): Do females use odor cues to select mates with high competitive ability?

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 123-130

  Fisher, Heidi S ^a   Swaisgood, R R ^b   Fitch Snyder, H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemical communication; Competitive ability; Conservation; Countermarking; Mate choice

Indexed keywords

COMPETITIVE ABILITY; MATE CHOICE; OLFACTORY CUE; PRIMATE; SCENT MARKING; TERRITORIALITY;

ANIMALIA; LORIDAE; LORIS; NYCTICEBUS PYGMAEUS; PRIMATES;

EID: 0038683283     PISSN: 03405443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-002-0552-5     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Alterman L, Doyle GA, Izard MK (eds) (1995) Creatures of the dark: the nocturnal prosimians. Plenum Press, New York, pp 377-392
2. Blaustein AR (1981) Sexual selection and mammalian olfaction. Am Nat 117:1006-1010
3. Caryl PG (1982) Telling the truth about intentions. J Theor Biol 97:679-689
4. Charles-Dominique P (1977a) Ecology and behavior of nocturnal primates. Duckworth, London
5. Charles-Dominique P (1977b) Urine marking and territoriality in Galago alleni. A field study by radio telemetry. Z Tierpsychol 43:113-138
6. Clark AB (1982) Scent marks as social signals in Galago crassi-caudatus. II. Discrimination between individuals by scent. J Chem Ecol 8:1153-1165
7. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD (1979) The roaring of red deer and the evolution of honest advertisement. Behaviour 69:145-170
8. Dixson AF (1998) Primate sexuality: comparative studies of the prosimians, monkeys, apes, and human beings. Oxford University Press, Oxford
9. Drickamer LC (1992) Oestrus female mice discriminate dominant from subordinate males and sons of dominant and sons of subordinate males by odour cues. Anim Behav 43:868-870
10. Egrid K, Brown JL (1989) The major histocompatibility complex and female mating preference in mice. Anim Behav 38:548-550
11. Epple G, Smith AB (1985) The primates. II. A case study of the saddle-back tamarin, Saguinis fudcicollis. In: Brown RE, Macdonald DW (eds) Social odours in mammals, vol 2. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 770-803
12. Ferkin MH, Sorokin ES, Johnston RE, Lee CJ (1997) Attractiveness of scents varies with protein content of the diet in meadow voles. Anim Behav 53:133-141
13. Fisher HS (2001) The role of chemical communication in female mate choice in the pygmy loris, Nycticebus pygmaeus. MSc Thesis, University of California, San Diego
14. Fitch-Snyder H (1998) Asian prosimian North America regional studbook. Zoological Society of San Diego, San Diego
15. Fitch-Snyder H (2000) Reproductive patterns in a breeding colony of pygmy lorises (Nycticebus pygmaeus) measured by behavioral and physiological correlates of gonadal activity. MSc Thesis, San Diego State University
16. Gardner R, Morris MR (1989) The evolution of bluffing in animal contests: an ESS approach. J Theor Biol 137:235-243
17. Gosling LM (1982) A reassessment of the function of scent marking in territories. Z Tierpsychol 60:89-118
18. Gubernick DJ, Addington RL (1994) The stability of female social and mating preferences in the monogamous California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Anim Behav 47:559-567
19. Harrington JE (1977) Discrimination between males and females by scent in Lemur fulvus. Anim Behav 25:147-151
20. Heymannn EW (1998) Sex differences in olfactory communication in a primate, the moustached tamarin, Saguinus mystax (Callitrichinae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:37-45
21. Hilton-Taylor CC (2000) IUCN red list of threatened species. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland
22. Huck UW, Banks EM (1982) Male dominance status, female choice and mating success in the brown lemming (Lemmustrimucronatus). Anim Behav 30:665-675
23. Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187-211
24. Hurst JL (1990) Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty. I. Communication between males. Anim Behav 40:209-222
25. Hurst JL, Rich TJ (1999) Scent marks as competitive signals of mate quality. In: Johnston RE, Müller-Schwarze D, Sorensen P (eds) Advances in chemical communication in vertebrates. Kluwer Academic, New York, pp 209-223
26. Johns A (1986) Effects of selective logging on the behavioral ecology of West Malaysian primates. Ecology 67:684-694
27. Johnston RE, Bhorade A (1998) Perception of scent over-marks by golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus); novel mechanisms for determining which individual's mark is on top. J Comp Psychol 112:230-243
28. Johnston RE, Chiang G, Tung C (1994) The information in scent over-marks of golden hamsters. Anim Behav 48:323-330
29. Johnston RE, Munver R, Tung C (1995) Scent counter marks: selective memory for the top scent by golden hamsters. Anim Behav 49:1435-1442
30. Johnston RE, Sorokin ES, Ferkin MH (1997a) Female voles discriminate males' over-marks and prefer top-scent males. Anim Behav 54:679-690
31. Johnston RE, Sorokin ES, Ferkin MH (1997b) Scent countermarking by male meadow voles: females prefer the top-scent male. Ethology 103:443-453
32. Jones RB, Nowell NW (1973) Aversive and aggression-promoting properties of urine from dominant and subordinate male mice. Anim Behav 21:207-210
33. Jurke MH, Czekala NM, Fitch-Snyder H (1997) Non-invasive detection and monitoring of estrus, pregnancy and the postpartum period in pygmy loris (Nycticebus pygmaeus) using fecal estrogen metabolites. Am J Prim 41:103-115
34. Kappeler PM (1998) To whom it may concern: the transmission and function of chemical signals in Lemur catta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:411-421
35. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1984) Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. Am Nat 124:309-323
36. Martin P, Bateson P (1993) Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
37. Meshik V, Gryzinskaya B (1993) Behavioral adaptations during pair formation in two species of prosimian. Primate Reprod 37:57-67
38. Novotny M, Harvey S, Jemilio B (1990) Chemistry of male dominance in the house mouse Mus domesticus. Experientia 46:109-113
39. Penn D, Potts WK (1998) Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trend Ecol Evol 13:391-396
40. Perret M (1995) Chemocommunication in the reproductive behavior of mouse lemurs. In: Alterman L, Doyle GA, Izard MK (eds) Creatures of the dark: the nocturnal prosimians. Plenum Press, New York, pp 377-392
41. Potts WK, Manning CJ, Wakeland EK (1991) Mating patterns in seminatural populations influenced by MHC genotype. Nature 352:619-621
42. Ramírez CC, Fuentes-Contreras E, Rodríguez LC, Niemeyer HM (2000) Pseudoreplication and its frequency in olfactometric laboratory studies. J Chem Ecol 26:1423-1431
43. Regnier FE, Goodwin M (1977) On the chemical and environmental modulation of pheromone release from vertebrate scent marks. In: Müller-Schwarze D, Mozell MM (eds) Chemical signals in vertebrates, vol 1. Plenum Press, New York, pp 115-133
44. Rich TJ, Hurst JL (1998) Scent marks as reliable signals of the competitive abilities of mates. Anim Behav 56:727-735
45. Rich TJ, Hurst JL (1999) The competing countermarks hypothesis: reliable assessment of competitive ability by potential mates. Anim Behav 58:1027-1037
46. Ryan KK, Altmann J (2001) Selection for mate choice based primarily on mate compatibility in the oldfield mouse, Peromyscus polionotus rhoadsi. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:436-440
47. Schilling A (1979) Olfactory communication in prosimians. In: Doyle GA, Martin RD (eds) The study of prosimian behavior. Academic Press, New York, pp. 461-542
48. Schulte BA, Rasmussen LEL (1999) Signal-receiver interplay in the communication of male condition by Asian elephants. Anim Behav 57:1265-1274
49. Siegel SS, Castellan NJ (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, Boston, Mass
50. Smith TE, Abbott DH (1998) Behavioral discrimination between circumgenital odor from peri-ovulatory dominant and anovulatory female common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Am J Prim 46:265-284
51. Swaisgood RR, Lindburg DG, Zhou X (1999) Giant pandas discriminate individual differences in conspecific scent. Anim Behav 57:1045-1053
52. Swaisgood RR, Lindburg DG, Zhou X, Owen MA (2000) The effects of sex, reproductive condition and context on discrimination of conspecific odours by giant pandas. Anim Behav 60:227-237
53. Swaisgood RR, Lindburg DG, White AM, Zhou X, Zhang H (2002a) Chemical communication in giant pandas: experimentation and application. In: Lindburg DG, Baronga K (eds) Giant pandas: conservation priorities for the 21st century. University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif (in press)
54. Swaisgood RR, Lindburg DG, Zhang H (2002b) Discrimination of oestrous status in giant pandas via chemical cues in urine. J Zool Lond (in press)
55. White AM, Swaisgood RR, Zhang H (2002) The highs and lows of chemical communication in giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca): effect of scent deposition height on signal discrimination. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:519-529
56. White PJ, Fischer RB, Meunier GF (1984) The ability of females to predict male status via urinary odors. Horm Behav 18:491-494
57. Ziegler TE, Epple G, Snowdon CT, Porter TA, Belcher AM, Kuderling I (1993) Detection of the chemical signals of ovulation in the cotton-top tamarin (Saguinus oedipus). Anim Behav 45:313-322