MPIG 2013 Poster

Here's my poster for MPIG 2013.

ABSTRACT:

Gestural communication is thought to be a precursor to the origin of human language. Since human language is lateralized between brain hemispheres, is there also a lateralization in gestural communication in nonhuman primates?

This preliminary study sought to elucidate whether the hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas) troop at the Prospect Park Zoo in Brooklyn, New York exhibits hand preference in gestural communication. Two types of gestural communication were examined: hand slapping and muzzle wiping. An all occurrence sampling method was completed in 3 weeks with a total of 24 hours of observation and data collection. The Handedness Index (HI) for each individual (N=7) was calculated for both hand slapping and muzzle wiping.

This study revealed that most P. hamadryas individuals at the Prospect Park Zoo exhibit a right hand preference for hand slapping, but exhibit no hand preference for muzzle wiping. These results are consistent with previous studies on another baboon species, olive baboons (Papio anubis) (Vauclair et al., 2005; Meguerditchian & Vauclair, 2006; Meguerditchian & Vauclair, 2009). Results from this preliminary study can contribute to the study of nonhuman primate handedness, as well as the evolution of language.

Nonhuman Primate Handedness: Is there is a population-level preference?

Do you write with your left hand or right hand? When ask to open a jar, do you use your left or right hand? A handful of "tasks" can be used to determine your hand preference. Just because someone uses their right hand to write doesn't automatically makes them a right-handed person; some cultures frown upon left hand use and taught left-handed children to write with their right hand.

Humans are usually righties (right-handed), preferring to use their right hands for most manual tasks. Most, I said, because there are instances where reaching over with the closest hand would suffice. About 70% to 90% of the world population is right-handed. Then you have the lefties (left-handed) who basically are going to hell because they are the devil's minion (no, not really LOL!). Sprinkled among them are the ambidextrous, those that use their left and right hand with no preference. But is this true in nonhuman primates? Ever wonder if other primates have hand preference like we do?

Handedness is due to the lateralization of the brain hemispheres (Knecht et al., 2000). Individuals that are right-handed have a more dominant left brain hemisphere, while those that are left-handed have a more dominant right brain hemisphere. In most humans (Homo sapiens), the left brain hemisphere is more dominant, thus the majority of the human population is right-handed (Knecht et al., 2000). The human left brain hemisphere is also involved in language and is where Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area are located (Knecht et al., 2000). Broca’s area is involved in speech production while Wernicke’s area is involved in language comprehension. Lateralization results in a preference for handedness in humans (Knecht et al., 2000). That is, an individual is left-handed or right-handed due to brain lateralization, while ambidextrous individuals are not lateralized at all.

A meta analysis by McGrew and Marchant (1997) on hand laterality in nonhuman primates concluded that nonhuman primates do not show patterns of hand preference. Instead, the authors claim that even though individuals might be lateralized and have a preference for either left or right hand, there is no evidence that hand preference exists in population-level. The only nonhuman primates that have a population bias in handedness are chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) but are from captive populations (McGrew & Marchant, 1997). The authors claim that patterns of handedness in nonhuman primates cannot be used as a theoretical framework for the evolution of handedness and brain lateralization in humans because only few primates display handedness and most are from captive settings (McGrew & Marchant, 1997).

However, Hopkins (1999) argued that the criteria used by McGrew and Marchant (1997) to measure individual and population-level handedness were inaccurate, therefore oversimplifying the results. Instead, Hopkins (1999) offered new methodologies and a theoretical framework to interpret population-level nonhuman primate handedness. While McGrew and Marchant (1997) claimed that population-level hand preference is absent in nonhuman primates, Hopkins (1999) argued that McGrew and Marchant (1997) had left out a few significant studies in their meta analysis which showed population-level handedness. These studies have shown that population-level hand preference can be found in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), bonobos (Pan paniscus), and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) (Aruguete et al., 1992; Colell et al., 1995; Hopkins, 1995 ; Hopkins and de Waal, 1995; Hopkins et al., 1993; Shafer, 1997). Similar studies on prosimians (Ward et al., 1990; Ward et al., 1993), New World Monkeys (Diamond & McGrew, 1994; Westergaard & Suomi, 1993) Old World Monkeys (Fagot et al., 1991; Vauclair et al., 2005; Meguerditchian & Vauclair, 2006; Meguerditchian & Vauclair, 2009), and great apes (Hopkins & Morris, 1993) have also shown patterns of population-level hand preference. 

A study by Vauclair et al (2005) found that olive baboons (Papio anubis) have a population-level preference for right handedness when performing bimanual tasks but no significant preference in handedness when performing unimanual tasks. Later, Meguerditchian & Vauclair (2006) found that olive baboons (P. anubis) have a preference for right handedness when communicating. Specifically, olive baboons use their right hands to hand slap when presented with agonistic stimuli by experimenters. Subsequent study on communicative gestures and non-communicative actions in olive baboons suggests that preference for right handedness may be due to the left brain hemisphere dominance, and that lateralization may have favored right handedness in communicative gestures as opposed to pure motor functions in unimanual tasks (Meguerditchian & Vauclair, 2009).

Picture of an adult Olive baboon performing the TUBE task. (Vauclair et al., 2005)

Although there were a few studies on hand preference in Old World monkeys, only rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) (Fagot et al., 1991) and olive baboons (Papio anubis) (Vauclair et al., 2005; Meguerditchian & Vauclair, 2006; Meguerditchian & Vauclair, 2009) were tested for hand preference. So far, no hand preference study has been published on hamadryas baboons (Papio hamadryas) to elucidate whether these baboons exhibit population-level handedness.


BLOGGER'S NOTE: I will be presenting a poster on hamadryas baboon hand preference in gestural communications at the Midwest Primate Interest Group (MPIG) 2013. Please read my next post for a PDF version of the poster.

REFERENCES:

Aruguete, M. S., Ely, E. A., and King, J. 1992. Laterality in spontaneous motor activity of chimpanzees and squirrel monkeys. Am. J. Primatol. 27: 177-188.

Colell, M., Segarra, M. D., and Pi, J. S. 1995. Manual laterality in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in complex tasks. J. Comp. Psychol. 109: 298-307.

Diamond, A.C., & McGrew, W.C. 1994. True handedness in the cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Primates 35: 69-77.

Fagot, J., Drea, C.M., & Wallen, K. 1991. Asymmetrical hand use in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) in tactually and visually regulated tasks. Journal of Comparative Psychology 150: 260-268.

Hopkins, W.D. 1995. Hand Preferences for a Coordinated Bimanual Task in 110 Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Cross-Sectional Analysis. Journal of Comparative Psychology 109(3): 291 - 297.

Hopkins, W.D. 1999. On the Other Hand: Statistical Issues in the Assessment and Interpretation of Hand Preference Data in Nonhuman Primates. International Journal of Primatology 20 (6).

Hopkins, W.D., & Morris, R.D. 1993. Handedness in great apes. A review of findings. International of Journal of Primatology 14: 1-25.

Hopkins, W. D., and de Waal, F. D. 1995. Behavioral laterality in captive bonobos (Pan paniscus): Replication and extension. Int. J. Primatol. 16: 261-276.

Knecht, S., Dräger, B., Deppe, M., Bobe, L., Lohmann, H., Flöel, A., et al. 2000. Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain 123: 2512–2518.

McGrew W.C., & Marchant L.F. 1997. On the Other Hand: Current Issues in and Meta-Analysis of the Behavioral Laterality of Hand Function in Nonhuman Primates. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 40:201–232.

Meguerditchian, A. & Vauclair, J. 2006. Baboons communicate with their right hand. Behavioural Brain Research 171 (2006) 170–174.

Meguerditchian, A. & Vauclair, J. 2009. Contrast of hand preferences between communicative gestures and non-communicative actions in baboons: Implications for the origins of hemispheric specialization for language. Brain & Language 108 (2009) 167–174.

Shafer, D. D. 1997. Hand preference behaviors shared by two groups of captive bonobos. Primates 38: 303-313.

Vauclair et al., 2005. Hand preferences for unimanual and coordinated bimanual tasks in baboons (Papio anubis). Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 25(1): 210–216.

Ward, J.P., Milliken, G.W., & Stafford, D.K. 1993. Patterns of lateralized behavior in prosimians. In J.P. Ward & W.D. Hopkins (Eds.), Primate laterality: Current behavioral evidence of primate asymmetries (pp. 43-76). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Ward, J.P., Milliken, G.W., Dodson, D.L., Stafford, D.K., & Wallace, M. 1990. Handedness as a function of sex and age in a large population of Lemur. Journal of Comparative Psychology 104: 167-173.

Westergaard, G.C., & Suomi, S.J. 1993. Hand preference in capuchin monkeys varies with age. Primates 34: 295-300.

What spooked the hamadryas baboons at Emmen Zoo?

Someone or something done did spooked the hamadryas baboons at Emmen Zoo in Netherlands last week. All 112 baboons in this Dutch zoo were exhibiting rather unusual behavior according to numerous news sources.

Here's what I gathered about the hysteria from different news sources:

• The hamadryas baboons in Emmen Zoo suddenly became hysterical last Monday. It took about an hour to get the baboons to go back into their night enclosure in the evening, which normally takes about a minute according to the zoo spokesman.
• For the next two days, one group sat in a tree and "refuse" to come down while another group sat on an exposed part of the island in the hot sun. This group later moved to a shadier location, but remained "depressed". The baboons were huddling together.
• The zoo keepers brought apples for the baboons (awww, they do love apples) but the baboons ignored the treat. Keepers also placed food above ground, which are normally hidden in the ground to elicit foraging. The baboons also ignored the food. It it not until the third day that the baboons started eating.
• "They [the baboons] would sit with their backs to the public. They wouldn't make much noise; 'it was rather silent, which is not normal for a baboon'", said Wijbren Landman, Emmen Zoo's press officer and biologist.
• "If one of the leaders is shocked by something than most of the colony will obey him and then the whole colony will be shocked. But what really caused one of the leaders to be shocked, well, we didn't find out", Landman added.
• This wasn't the first time these baboons were acting weird; it happened in 1994, 1997 and 2007 as well. In 2007, all the baboons were observed looking at a very specific direction. Since hamadryas baboons can live well over 30 years old, some of the individuals in the zoo have experience previous hysteria.

OK I used a lot of air quotes but bare with me on this one. If you really want to look at animal behavior and why animal exhibit these behaviors, one mustn't anthropomorphize the behaviors. The worse is when the baboons were described as being depressed. Or when the NPR article asks why the baboons were so sad. So instead of saying that the baboons were sad or depressed, one could say that the baboons were lethargic or not moving a lot? At least that's how I feel about it. But whatever, it's the news and not a scientific journal. 

Some of the theories put forth as to what had spooked the baboons:

Lighting and thunder

Probable. Maybe there was a thunder that strike near the zoo.

Earthquake

Though there no records of earthquakes in or around Emmen Zoo but the area does occasionally experience minor earthquakes. Did they felt something that wasn't on the radar, so to speak?

Aliens or UFO

This is not the History Channel. Let's not go there.

Predators such as a snakes, foxes or aerial predators

Very unlikely. Again, if they are easily spooked by other animals then there would have been more episodes of hysteria. According to Landman who consulted a "French baboon expert", hamadryas baboon exhibit hysteria in the wild, triggered by awareness of a predator but for a relatively short period of time.

Zoo visitors

Zoo visitors might have spooked the baboons or maybe wore a T-shirt that has a picture of a predator (according to one of the news article, a lion). This is also very unlikely. Probable but unlikely. Just like the predator explanation, the baboons would have exhibited more frequent episodes of hysteria. But there might be other ways that the zoo visitors had unintentionally spooked these baboons. Maybe wearing a specific type of clothing. The baboons I worked with reacts aggressively towards visitors that wear trench coats (I would too, ewww the 90s called and they want their clothes back). 

So what do I think spooked the baboons? I'm gonna go with the unpopular opinion. I think it is a fear response towards zoo visitors. But what spooked them? For the fourth time in 20 years? Your guess is as good as mine. Wish I was there to observe their behavior though!

Any guesses on why the baboons were spooked?

References:

Why Were The Baboons So Sad? Many Theories, No Answers from NPR

Mysterious Apathy: Baboons Go on Strike in Dutch Zoo from Spiegel online 

Spooked baboons baffle Dutch zoo in Emmen from BBC

Baboons At Emmen Dierenpark In The Netherlands Baffle Dutch Visitors, Zoologists from Huffington Post

Baboon updates from Emmen Zoo.

All photos from Spiegel Online.

Handedness in Humans and Geladas

I thought I’d share a paper I wrote from last semester’s Comparative Psychology class on handedness in humans and geladas. Debating if I should actually follow through with this preliminary report and do some data collection. There is a YouTube video that accompanies this paper, which will appear on the bottom of the page.

Handedness can be defined as the unequal distribution of fine motor skills between the left and right hands. Simply put, handedness is the preference to use left, right or both hands when performing tasks. Humans are mostly right-handed across cultures. Here, I compare handedness in humans (Homo sapiens) to handedness in geladas (Theropithecus gelada).

Right-handedness is predominant across cultures in humans. About 85% to 90% of humans report themselves as right-handers (10). In studies of great apes, comparative analysis indicates that chimpanzees and bonobos exhibit population-level preference in right-handedness while gorillas and orangutans do not exhibit population-level preference in handedness (10). However, right-handedness seems to be uniquely human as no other primate species has such a clear bias (1, 13 & 14). The objective of this preliminary study is to elucidate whether geladas exhibit preference in handedness.

A male gelada at The Bronx Zoo.

Geladas are Old World Monkeys and can be found in the high plateau of North Central Ethiopia and Eritrea (9 & 2). Geladas are sometimes referred to as “bleeding heart monkeys” due to the presence of a naked, pink patch of skin on the chest of males and females that looks like an hourglass (2). They exhibit sexual dimorphism; males have manes and are slightly larger than females. The maximum lifespan of a gelada is about 19 years in the wild (5) and well over 30 years in captivity (9). Geladas are gramnivores; they are unique among primates because grass is their main food source but is occasionally supplemented by seeds, roots, and bulbs (3).

There are many definitions of handedness. Here, I define handedness as the preference of left, right or either hand when performing tasks. In humans, those who have a preference for using their right hand are right-handed while those that prefer using their left hand are left-handed. Those that prefer to use either hand when performing tasks are ambidextrous.

Approximate location of Broca's area and Wernicke's area. Photo from Wikipedia.

Handedness is due to the lateralization (asymmetry) of the brain hemispheres. Those that are right-handed have a more dominant left hemisphere, while those that are left-handed have a more dominant right hemisphere. In most humans, the left hemisphere of the brain is more dominant. The left brain hemisphere is also involved in language and is where Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area are located. Broca’s area is involved in speech production while Wernicke’s area is involved in language comprehension.

Right-handed preference is deep-seated in hominid evolution. Analysis of stone tools from Lower Pleistocene sites in Koobi Fora, Kenya and Middle Pleistocene sites in Ambrona, Spain showed that there is a consistent pattern of tools being produced by right-handed Homo habilis and Homo erectus (15). Preference for right-handedness may have existed as early as 1.4 to 1.9 million years ago, and might hint that the hominid brain had lateralized and was well on its way to becoming more specialized for different functions (15). Analysis of scratch patterns in incisors and canines from archaic humans (Sima de los Huesos in Atapuerca, Spain) and European Neandertals (Sima de los Huesos in Atapuerca, Spain and Vindija, Croatia) also showed that there was a persistent pattern of right handedness (6 & 7).

The prevalence of right-handedness in humans has a linear correlation with left hemisphere dominance (12). Since the left brain hemisphere plays an important role in language, brain lateralization leads to right-handedness. Thus, the prevalence of right-handedness in humans is a byproduct of human language.

The left-handed Ned Flanders from The Simpsons. Photo from SF Weekly.

The subjects for this study are from a captive population of geladas at The Bronx Zoo (Wildlife Conservation Society). There were 7 individuals present during the observations and all were male. Observations were done on two separate days between 12 P.M. and 3 P.M. The geladas were recorded using a video camera, and the recordings were later analyzed.

Geladas spend a significant amount of their time foraging (8). Site studies show that geladas spend 35.7% to 81.6% of their time foraging (8). There is a positive correlation between altitude and time spent foraging; more energy is burnt at higher altitudes, therefore more time is spent foraging (11).

A male gelada foraging with both hands.

My observations showed that geladas use either hand while foraging. They use either their left or right hands to pick up bunches of grass to eat. As my observation progressed, I became concerned that their repetitive motion of picking up grass and putting it in their mouths was not a sufficiently varied behavior to indicate handedness. Therefore, I also observed the geladas grooming.

A female gelada grooming herself.

There are two types of grooming in geladas: autogrooming (self grooming) and allogrooming (social grooming). Grooming is not only important for hygienic reasons but also important for strengthening social bonds (4). A study by Dunbar suggests that the major reason for grooming is the satisfaction of physical contact between the groomer and the individual being groomed (4).

From my observations, allogrooming starts with the individual being groomed initiating eye contact with the groomer. Then, the individual lies down and presents the area that needs to be groomed. Sometimes, a groomer simply approaches the individual they want to groom and starts grooming them. My observations showed that there is also no preference for which hand is used by geladas during grooming. The geladas used either hand for both autogrooming and allogrooming. The decision to use their left or right hand seemed to be determined by the area of the body that needed grooming.

From my observations, it seems that the geladas use either hand for foraging and grooming. The geladas at The Bronx Zoo seem to exhibit ambidexterity because they have no preference for their left or right hand, unlike humans who are predominantly right-handed.

Handedness is correlated with brain hemisphere dominance. For most humans, the left brain hemisphere is dominant and is also involved in language. Thus, the prevalence of right-handedness is a byproduct of human language. None of the geladas I observed at The Bronx Zoo exhibited preference for handedness. This is probably due to the fact that geladas do not have language; therefore, their left brain hemisphere is not dominant and does not lead to right-handedness. Besides foraging and grooming, more behavioral repertoire should be used in future analysis to further elucidate the preference in gelada handedness.









 References

 1. Cashmore, L., Uomini, N., & Chapelain, A. (2008). The evolution of handedness in humans and great apes. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 86, 7-35.

 2. Dunbar, R.I.M., &; Dunbar, P. (1975). Contributions to Primatology: Social Dynamics of Gelada Baboons (Vol. 6). Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG.

 3. Dunbar, R.I.M. (1984). Reproductive Decisions. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

 4. Dunbar, R.I.M. (2008). The social role of touch in humans and primates: Behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(2), 260-268.

 5. Falk, D. (2000). Primate Diversity. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.

 6. Frayer, W.D., Fiore, I., Lalueza-Fox, C., Radovčić J., & Bondioli, L. (2010). Right handed Neandertals: Vindija and beyond. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 88, 113-127.

 7. Frayer, W.D., Lozano, M., de Castro, J.M.B., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J.L., Radovčić J., Fiore, I., & Bondioli, L. (2011). Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, doi:10.1080/1357650X.2010.529451

 8. Gron, KJ. (2008, September 3). Primate Factsheets: Gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada) Taxonomy, Morphology, & Ecology. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from www.pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/gelada_baboon

 9. Hiller, C. (2000). "Theropithecus gelada" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from www.animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Theropithecus_ gelada.html

10. Hopkins, W.D. (2006). Comparative and Familial Analysis of Handedness in Great Apes. Psychology Bulletin, 132(4), 538–559.

 11. Iwamoto, T., & Dunbar, R.I.M. (1983). Thermoregulation, Habitat Quality and The Behavioural Ecology of Gelada Baboons. Journal of Animal Ecology, 52, 257-366.

12. Knecht, S., Dräger, B., Deppe, M., Bobe, L., Lohmann, H., Flöel, A., Ringelstein, E.-B., & Henningsen, H. (2000). Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain, 123 (12), 2512-2518

13. McGrew, W.C., & Marchant, L.F. (1997). On the other hand: Current issues in and meta-analysis of the behavioral laterality of hand function in nonhuman primates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 104(25), 201-232.

 14. Steele, J. & Uomini, N. (2009). Can the Archaeology of Manual Specialization Tell Us Anything About Language Evolution? A Survey of the State of Play. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 19, 97-110.

15. Toth, N. (1985). Archaeological Evidence for Preferential Right-Handedness in The Lower And Middle Pleistocene, and Its Possible Implications. Journal of Human Evolution, 14(6,) 607-614.

Someone Cited My Thesis!

Some time last week, a little birdie sent me a link to what appears to be a page from American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). Said birdie also mentioned that the link has to do with my honors thesis. Along with the link was a thumbnail of a male hamadryas baboon that looked rather familiar. It took me a few seconds to realize that I am looking at Fadi, or Moja as what he is referred to by the zoo. (Follow this link for who's who at Prospect Park Zoo) Confused as to what my honors thesis, Moja and AMNH have in common, I opened the link. The link directed me to one of AMNH's Young Naturalist Awards winner, a young gentleman by the name of Henry.

Henry's winning entry is Hamadryas Baboons, Papio hamadryas: Captive vs. Wild. His research was on hamadryas baboon behaviors, where he compares the Prospect Park Zoo troops with the ones from Larissa Swedell's field work in Ethiopia. And guess what, he cited my thesis! I'm excited that someone dug up my baby and used it in their research. This is the first time (that I know of) someone actually cited my research. I'm so glad I uploaded my honor thesis on Scribd instead of just letting the bound copy collect dust in my college's library. Anyway ...

Henry's research is quite interesting. He found that there are behavioral differences between captive and wild hamadryas baboons. Also, grooming was not the highest in frequency compared to other behaviors (sitting was the highest in frequency). This could be explained by the hot weather or the fact that data for this research was only collected for about 9 hours. Nonetheless, this is heading in a good direction and a pretty good research topic for a 15 year-old. Hopefully he'll stick to his passion for primates (baboons) and go on to be the next primatologist.

Note that the male hamadryas photo "Simen, a 19-year-old Alpha Male" (above) is actually Moja, Simen's offspring. Simen can be identified with a mole underneath his left eye, which is absent in this photo. Click on the link to read my thesis, A Cross-Species Comparative Study: Grooming Patterns in Captive Populations of Hamadryas Baboons and Geladas.

A Blond Baby Hamadryas Baboon!

The birth of a baby hamadryas baboon ten days ago was a joyous occasion for Scud and her male, Shapira, at the Safari Park in Ramat Gan, Israel. The arrival of the baby was extra special because she was born with a genetic mutation that made her fur blond (golden yellow). I have cautioned myself by not referring to the color of her fur as "ginger" or red. Instead, I describe it as blond-haired.

The baby carries within her a mutated gene that was passed down by her mother and can be traced back to her great grandparents. In the 1950s, the Yemenites went to Israel and brought with them their pets which were albino hamadryas baboon. These albino baboons late became part of the collection at the old Tel Aviv Zoo. Because of these albino individuals, the recessive gene are being passed down from one generation to another resulting in periodic births of albino and blond-haired offspring. It has been 20 years since a blond-haired baby was born in Safari Park. The baby hamadryas baboon has yet to be named but they totally should name her Barbie. Hah!

Somewhere around the 0:34 mark in the second video, Ms. Terkel (Safari Park curator) mumbled about how the Yemenites came to Israel with their flying carpets. What was she smoking? Also, she kept saying "gingy". Who says that! Anyway ... enjoy the videos below.

There are two videos, click on 1 and 2 to change them.

Normally, a baby hamadryas baboon is born with black fur. As they mature, the black fur will slowly turn into a grayish silver (males) and grayish brown (females) coloration.

EDIT: ZooBorns covered the story of this baby baboon as well. Click here to go to their site (they have photos of the baby).

Prospect Park Zoo's Baby Hamadryas Named Azizi and Jabari

After more than a thousand suggestions submitted by the public, the two baby hamadryas baboons at Prospect Park Zoo are given the name "Azizi" and "Jabari" respectively. Their names are in Arabic, the language spoken in modern day Egypt (where these baboons can be found). "Azizi" means precious while "Jabari" means brave. Both Azizi (mother, Rebecca) and Jabari (mother, Kaia) are on exhibit daily from 10 AM to 2 PM inside the Animal Lifestyles building.

More at:
Azizi and Jabari, Prospect Park Zoo's newest baboons, get monikers inspired by their ancestry by Daily News.

The Vote Is In: Meet Jabari and Azizi from Prospect Park Zoo.

Wordless Wednesday

Help Name The Prospect Park Zoo Baby Baboons

Congratulations to Bole for being the father to two healthy and beautiful babies! Born on July 23rd and July 28th respectively, these two babies are a bundle of joy for mothers Kaia and Rebecca. The last time Prospect Park Zoo had a baboon birth was 6 years ago, a male baboon named Kito to mother Matara and father Simen.

Kaia and Rebecca (both 7 years old) were sent from Bucknell University to breed with Bole, a longtime resident of the hamadryas baboon exhibit at Prospect Park Zoo. For now, the babies are referred to #1 and #2 but that will change come September 24th. Prospect Park Zoo is asking you to submit names for these two fur balls no later than September 21st. Then, on September 24th, the zoo will announce the winning names. To suggest names, please visit Prospect Park Zoo's website here.

Photographs by Julie Larsen Maher ©WCS

Baby hamadryas baboons are born with black fur (pelage). As they mature, their fur changes from black to olive brown. Adult hamadryas baboons are grayish (males) or brownish (females). Hamadryas baboons were once considered sacred by the ancient Egyptians because these baboons were the attendant of the god Thoth.

Personally, the birth announcement was an exciting news because I've come to "know" Bole after spending almost a year observing him at Prospect Park Zoo. The 18 year-old Bole were especially closed to one of his three females, Zula. Together with Zula, Bole can been seen obsessively grooming each other up to the point where both of them had bare patches of skin. That, my friend, is one extreme PDA!

Without a doubt, the introduction of Kaia and Rebecca into Bole's group will change the troop's dynamics but I am very curious to see what the changes are to Bole's group. What will happen with the relationship between Bole and his three original females (Zula, Mekele and Kobo)? My recent observations suggest that Mekele and Kobo had moved from Bole's group into Simen's group. While I probably won't know the exact reasons why they would do so, I'm guessing that these lower ranking females are joining a much more dominant group for better access to food resources (higher ranking members get access to more preferable pieces of fruit, etc.).

Read more about the baby baboon here.

Using mice to assess the degree of relatedness in chacma baboons

The concept of "family" and relatedness are prevalent in the animal kingdom. Individuals seem to be able to tell if they are related to one another, probably in effort to avoid incest breeding (to increase fitness). While "phenotype matching" is proposed to be one of the kin recognition mechanism between animals to assess their relatedness, "phenotype matching" using olfactory cues (body odor) have been poorly investigated and tested in anthropoids.

A chacma baboon.

Célérier et al. (2010) uses mice to assess the relatedness of chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) through olfactory cues. But, why mice you asked?

Human noses are often quite weak compared with the rest of the animal kingdom, making it hard for us to find out if baboons can be told apart by smell. Researchers therefore decided to draft much better noses — those of mice. The researchers swabbed the armpits and groins of wild chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) from two different troops of the primates in Namibia. They next tested 24 adult male Swiss mice to scents from 14 adult female baboons. They chose female baboons partly because "some male mice were peeing on male baboon odors as if they were in competition," said researcher Aurélie Célérier, a behavioral biologist at the CNRS and the University of Montpellier II, France.

Their research shows that mice can detect odor differences between individuals of the same sex and age class in another mammal species, and that the mice can perceive a higher similarity between baboons that are related than baboons that are unrelated. These results show that olfactory cues may play a role assessing the degree of relatedness in among individual baboons. Detective mice assess relatedness in baboons using olfactory cues by Célérier et al. (2010) was published on The Journal of Experimental Biology. Also read Detective Mice Help Scientists Study Baboons by Charles Q. Choi on LiveScience.

Anyone has access to this article, by any chance?