Mountain gorillas maintain strong affiliative biases for maternal siblings despite high male reproductive skew and extensive exposure to paternal kin

In humans and non-human animals alike, sibling social relationships are marked by continuous dynamics of conflict and cooperation that begin before birth (Trivers, 1974), and can persist throughout an entire lifespan, with important fitness consequences for the individuals involved (Lu, 2007; Hudson and Trillmich, 2008; Nitsch et al., 2013). While classical frameworks of sibling interactions emphasized competition among brood- or litter-mates for limited parental resources during times of dependency (e.g. Mock and Parker, 1997), subsequent developments across numerous academic disciplines demography: e.g., Sear and Mace, 2008; Nitsch et al., 2013; sociology: e.g., Steelman et al., 2002; Lu, 2007; behavioral ecology: e.g., Silk, 2002; Hudson and Trillmich, 2008; developmental psychology: e.g., Lamb and Sutton-Smith, 2014 have explored the full arc of sibling competition and cooperation across the lifespan and demonstrated the complexity and diversity inherent to sibling relationships. In understanding the evolution of human sibling relationships in particular, comparative studies of our primate cousins have identified a number of factors that predict when and how siblings cooperate and compete. Inconsistent results within and between species, along with the remarkable flexibility of human social systems; however, limits the translational value of many primate models. Here, we address these gaps by presenting an extensive longitudinal study of wild mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei), an endangered great ape whose unique, flexible social structure serves as a valuable comparative model for humans.

Classic models of kin selection predict that the social/mating structure of animal groups creates patterns of relatedness between group members, which then selects for kin recognition mechanisms that manifest in differences in cooperative, affiliative, competitive, and/or aggressive behavior (Hamilton, 1964; Grafen, 1990; Mateo and Hauber, 2015). This straightforward idea has spawned a large body of work on kin selection that spans animal groups (reviewed in Widdig, 2007; Smith, 2014). Within primates in particular, investigations of kin discrimination have yielded notably mixed results. Some studies report no bias towards related individuals (e.g. for food-sharing in long-tailed macaques: Schaub, 1996; for various affiliative and aggressive behaviors in yellow baboons: Erhart et al., 1997). Others support the existence of sophisticated kin discrimination based at least partially on phenotype matching, perhaps in interaction with familiarity, as evidenced by social partner preferences (Wu et al., 1980), rates of affiliative behavior (Smith et al., 2003; Streich et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2003), or visual gaze biases (Pfefferle et al., 2014). Still others find support for familiarity alone as the determinant of interaction patterns, with familiarity being assessed by time spent living together (in pig-tailed macaques: Fredrickson and Sackett, 1984), common clustering around mothers (in ursine colobus: Wikberg et al., 2014), or age differences (in bonnet macaques: Silk, 1994; in chimpanzees: Langergraber et al., 2007). There is also extensive debate over differences in patterns of discrimination between paternally and maternally related kin (e.g. Chapais, 2001). Some have suggested that non-monogamous primates evince matrilineal but not patrilineal sibling kin discrimination, perhaps due to restrictive dispersal patterns that may limit opportunities for long-term social relationships with paternal kin (Mitani et al., 2000; Langergraber et al., 2007) or polygynandrous mating systems with low reproductive skew that complicate efforts to accurately identify them (Galezo et al., 2022). Yet other perspectives challenge a clean distinction between maternal and paternal kin, suggesting that complex interactions between familiarity and other modes of kin discrimination structure social bonds across primates (see e.g. Silk, 2002; Streich et al., 2002; Widdig et al., 2006; Silk, 2009; Lynch et al., 2017).

As one of the main contributors to familiarity, age differences within sibling and non-sibling dyads might influence social dynamics (Widdig et al., 2001; Streich et al., 2002; Langergraber et al., 2007; Pfefferle et al., 2014; Wikberg et al., 2014). On one hand, siblings close in age might be more likely to compete for limited parental resources (Tung et al., 2016; Salmon and Hehman, 2021); on the other hand, as longer-lasting co-residents within the same family environment, they might also be expected to form stronger affiliative bonds than siblings distant in age (though, again, this may not apply equally to maternal and paternal sibships; Streich et al., 2002). It is unclear to what extent age proximity effects are restricted to genetic relatives. Female rhesus macaques appear to bias affiliation towards similarly aged peers, even when unrelated to them (Widdig et al., 2001). Among female baboons, even in individuals not related through the matriline, dyadic bond strength weakened with increasing age differences; however, when analyses are restricted to females unrelated through both the matriline and patriline, effects of age differences attenuated sharply (Smith et al., 2003; Silk et al., 2006). These results once again imply social familiarity (as indexed by age differences) and kin discrimination are both important for predicting sibling relationship qualities (Godoy et al., 2016), though their additive and/or interactive effects remain poorly defined.

Finally, the sex makeup of the dyad might influence interaction styles due to the differential benefits males and females receive from interactions with brothers, sisters, and unrelated partners (e.g. Lonsdorf et al., 2018). For males, especially in species who engage in aggressive intrasexual competition, other males, brothers included can represent important allies (e.g. Meikle and Vessey, 1981; Goodall, 1986) or rivals (Daly and Wilson, 1988; Snowdon and Pickhard, 1999; Chagnon et al., 2017) during status-striving efforts in adulthood. In either case, assessing physical capacities or formidability would aid in these efforts. Accordingly, rough-and-tumble play between males might serve as a rehearsal for intrasexual competition in adulthood (Gray, 2019), suggesting such a behavior should occur most often in male-male relationships—a prediction supported by research on male-dominant primates (e.g. Brown and Dixson, 2000; Maestripieri and Ross, 2004). While male-male interaction patterns might generally differ from those of other sex configurations, these differences may themselves partially depend on kinship. In chimpanzees, some evidence suggests that fraternal relationships among adolescents and adults are more affiliative and cooperative than relationships between unrelated males (e.g. Mitani, 2009; Sandel et al., 2020). From the female perspective, evidence for fraternal influences on fitness outcomes is mixed. While there are some reports of chimpanzee brothers ‘adopting’ immature sisters (Hobaiter et al., 2014; Reddy and Mitani, 2019), and one demographic study of humans reports benefits of older brothers on women’s lifetime fitness (Nitsch et al., 2013), other research on primate species with sex-biased dispersal suggests no lasting fitness effects (except perhaps when mothers die; Engh et al., 2009).

From the perspective of both males and females, sisters may represent important future alloparental helpers, either for the individual themselves (e.g. Hamilton et al., 1982; Gould, 2000; Hobaiter et al., 2014), or the individual’s offspring (e.g. Johnson et al., 1980; Nishida, 1983; but see Silk et al., 2006). Thus, cultivating relationships with sisters via affiliative interactions might be beneficial for both males and females. Last, for females in particular, sororal relationships may exert important influences on future rank and resource acquisition outcomes (Charpentier et al., 2008; Lea et al., 2014; cf. Engh et al., 2009). However, these kinds of sex-biased interactions might additionally depend on age differences between siblings (Lonsdorf et al., 2018), once again underscoring the complicated mix of demographic factors that may influence sibling relationships.

Understanding the nature and evolution of complex social relationships, such as those between siblings, requires long-term investigations that reveal how individuals respond behaviorally to socioecological variation (e.g. Alberts and Altmann, 2012). Additionally, comparative models for human sibling relationships in particular are most useful when the model species shares key social features. With these principles in mind, mountain gorillas in particular are a compelling model for studies of sibling dynamics. First, long-term monitoring of wild mountain gorillas by the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund has revealed social structures marked by extensive diversity in relatedness, age proximity, and sex makeup infrequently observed in other non-human primate groups (Robbins et al., 2009b; Roy et al., 2014). Mountain gorillas regularly form multi-female, single-male groups, as well as multi-female, multi-male groups in which multiple males reproduce, though paternity data and unsophisticated paternal kin discrimination mechanisms are consistent with historically high reproductive skew (Bradley et al., 2005; Rosenbaum et al., 2015; Vigilant et al., 2015). As a result of their highly variable social structure, researchers regularly observe co-resident immatures that are full siblings, paternal half-siblings, maternal half-siblings, or unrelated to one another.

Second, like humans but unlike nearly all other primates, both male and female mountain gorillas may opt to disperse or remain in their natal groups upon reaching maturity (Robbins et al., 2009b; Stoinski et al., 2009). This permits fraternal, sororal, and mixed-sex relationships that can last for an entire lifespan, meaning that siblings can be an important source of support well into adulthood. For example, adult males benefit greatly from allies who help them fend off outside male challengers and prevent females from transferring out of their groups (Sicotte, 1993; Rosenbaum et al., 2016b; Mirville, 2018). Adult females with offspring benefit from male protection from infanticide (Harcourt and Stewart, 2007; Robbins et al., 2013) in multi-male groups, this protection could potentially come not only from mates, but from brothers as well, who receive indirect fitness benefits from their sister’s reproductive success. While the benefits of female-female relationships remain understudied in this species, higher-ranking females have better energy balance and shorter inter-birth intervals, and it is plausible that support from other females plays a role in achieving and maintaining dominance (Robbins et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2014; Wright et al., 2020). At the same time, sibling bonds in mountain gorillas are characterized by the potential for competition as well as cooperation. Even after co-resident mountain gorilla siblings cease competing over parental resources, they are likely to compete over other limited resources, including dominance positions, mating opportunities, and preferred foods (Harcourt and Stewart, 2007), which highlights the complexity of making straightforward predictions about affiliative and aggressive interactions and relatedness (e.g. Silk et al., 2010).

In the present study, we use nearly 40,000 hr of behavioral data spanning 14 years to describe patterns of interactions between siblings and demographically comparable non-sibling dyads in social groups of wild mountain gorillas. Using extensive maternity and genetic paternity data available for 157 identifiable individuals studied from late infancy through adulthood, we examine whether full siblings, maternal half-siblings (hereafter, ‘maternal siblings’), paternal half-siblings (‘paternal siblings’), and unrelated co-residents (‘non-siblings’) exhibit differing patterns of affiliation (playing, grooming, and time spent in close proximity) and agonism (contact and non-contact aggression) in line with models of kin selection, after adjusting for the potential mediating presence of mothers in these interactions. Currently, there are no data regarding kin discrimination patterns among mountain gorilla siblings. While research in other primate species has reported both greater cooperation and greater competition between siblings compared to non-siblings, on balance we expect that mountain gorillas should be more cooperative/affiliative with siblings than non-siblings due to the potential for inclusive fitness benefits. Regarding matrilineal versus patrilineal kin biases, it is unclear whether gorilla siblings should exhibit the same maternal sibling bias observed in other primate species. In species with meaningfully lower reproductive skew, paternal sibling discrimination may be challenging or of limited use due to dispersal patterns that limit opportunities to benefit from paternal kin. Gorillas’ high reproductive skew, in contrast, could conceivably facilitate paternal sibling discrimination—but it could also obviate the need to develop any such mechanisms. Given these competing considerations, we ask which scenario is more consistent with the dynamics of gorillas’ sibling relationships.

In addition to kinship, we also investigate the impacts of age differences and sex. We determine whether age differences, commonly used in kinship research as a proxy for familiarity between social partners, predict patterns of affiliative or agonistic behavior, and whether these patterns differ between paternal and maternal kin (as some evidence from cercopithecine monkeys suggests; e.g. Streich et al., 2002). Finally, we test whether male-male, female-female, and mixed-sex sibling relationships are characterized by differing rates and types of social interactions, and whether these sex category differences are restricted to kin. While developmental changes in social relationships are not the focus of this study, these comparisons do speak to questions regarding the kinds of benefits siblings might be expected to deliver later in life for one’s status-striving and/or resource acquisition efforts: e.g., among males, are fraternal relationships marked by higher rates of playing and fighting, and sororal relationships higher rates of grooming?; among females, are sororal relationships marked by the highest rates of grooming compared to any other dyad configuration?; are affiliative patterns unique to siblings, or are comparable trends found in unrelated dyads?

In a comprehensive examination of dyadic mountain gorilla social relationships spanning 14 years and nearly 40,000 hr of observation, we find complex patterns of affiliation and competition within gorilla pairs that speak to sex-, age-, and relatedness-specific social biases. In general, siblings affiliated with each other more and spent more time together than non-siblings, even when accounting for the presence of mothers. But within siblings, affiliative patterns further varied: full and maternal siblings were in most cases much more affiliative than paternal siblings, whose behavior more closely resembled that of non-siblings. We consistently observed a trend for male-male dyads to play more, for female-female dyads to groom more, and for mixed-sex dyads to fall intermediate between these groups. Examining competitive behaviors, on the other hand, revealed a narrower sibling bias. Aggression was most common in mixed-sex non-sibling dyads, and larger age differences similarly predicted less aggression across all dyad types.

At the broadest level, our results support the existence of affiliative biases towards kin in mountain gorillas. While past research has been largely equivocal about the extent of kin discrimination that relies on mechanisms beyond familiarity (e.g. Wikberg et al., 2014; Godoy et al., 2016; Lynch et al., 2017)–and indeed, our results do support a role of familiarity (at least as indexed by age difference) in structuring social interactions–our findings are unlikely to be entirely explained by mere exposure for at least three reasons:

First, gorilla social groups are tight-knit and cohesive compared to their close ape relatives (Goodall, 1986; Remis, 1997; Morrison et al., 2021b; Schaller and Emlen, 1963; Doran and McNeilage, 1998), reflected by remarkable features such as the ability for these groups to buffer the fitness costs of maternal loss (Morrison et al., 2021a). Due to this highly cohesive structure, all individuals in a group, related or not, are very likely quite familiar with one another. Even within this tight-knit context, however, ubiquitous 'play groups' of infants and juveniles frequently form around adult males (Rosenbaum and Silk, 2022), providing similar-aged animals even more opportunities to interact and become familiar with one another. Second, prosocial biases towards siblings are not fully explained by the greater familiarity that closer-in-age animals likely have (Widdig et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2003; Lynch et al., 2017). We observed clear biases towards kin at all but the largest age differences–and some siblings in our data set were 20 or more years apart in age–even though sibling and non-sibling age-mates in the same social group would typically be expected to possess close familiarity. Finally, while mothers undoubtedly mediate social interactions of offspring, especially for immature individuals, biases towards siblings persist even when adjusting for the frequency of her presence during interaction periods. Jointly, these considerations suggest a sibling bias in mountain gorillas subject to influence, but not determination, by demographic factors, which we interpret as aiding in the development of sibling relationships that exist across timescales rarely observed in other non-human primates.

The observation that full and maternal siblings groomed, played, and spent more time near each other than paternal siblings or non-siblings, who tended to affiliate at comparable rates, further suggests that mountain gorillas, like several other primate species studied (Langergraber et al., 2007; Silk et al., 2006; Lynch et al., 2017), evince much stronger maternal than paternal kin bias (see also Rosenbaum et al., 2015, who found little evidence for paternal kin discrimination among fathers and offspring). Interestingly, this ‘asymmetric bias’ in affiliation seems to persist even though the high reproductive skew of mountain gorillas opposes the dynamic thought to underlie such biases in other primate species (i.e. low reproductive skew; Galezo et al., 2022). Thus, one question concerns why mountain gorillas do not appear to more strongly favor paternal siblings. Current evidence indicates that single-male gorilla groups across research sites are genetically polygynous (reviewed in Rosenbaum and Silk, 2022), and while there can be considerable temporal variation, reproductive skew is generally much higher in multi-male gorilla groups than in, for example, chimpanzee, savannah baboon, or rhesus macaque groups (Vigilant et al., 2015; Surbeck et al., 2017; Alberts et al., 2003; Widdig et al., 2004). We propose that, despite possessing a mating system quite unlike these other primate species, mountain gorillas still exhibit a comparable maternal sibling bias due to a mismatch between their historical mating structure–which we infer consisted of highly polygynous one-male units–and their contemporary social structure of tight-knit, often multi-male groups. In other words, while individuals in highly polygynandgrous groups might find it too difficult to detect and adjust affiliation toward paternal kin, perhaps mountain gorillas fail to do so because, until very recently, it was unnecessary. If co-residency was enough to identify paternal kin with reasonable accuracy, a more sophisticated recognition mechanism would be unlikely to evolve.

One important limitation of our analyses is that we have far less information about sibling relationships in single-male groups—where shared paternity is nearly or entirely certain—than we do about siblings in multi-male groups, where reproductive skew is high but not 100%. The structure of the research groups during our 14 years of data was primarily multi-male, with only 60 dyad-years of data (n=10 total dyads) from single-male groups. All of these dyads were paternal half-siblings (i.e. there were no unrelated or maternally related dyads available in single-male groups). This small sample size and lack of variability in relatedness precludes a test of whether natal group structure predicts features of sibling relationships. If all available partners are paternal kin, then discrimination becomes a question of full versus paternal siblings, rather than discrimination among four categories (full, half maternal, half paternal, and unrelated). Choice is constrained, perhaps limiting the utility of a discrimination mechanism. It would be interesting to know whether animals in single-male groups treat paternal versus full siblings differently, but the currently available data do not allow us to answer this question.

Notably, while we see little evidence that mountain gorillas show a prosocial bias towards paternal siblings, patterns of aggressive behavior suggest there may still be kin recognition mechanisms at play for all sibling types. Aggression remained low across most combinations of relatedness and sex configurations, with one exception: mixed-sex interactions among non-siblings. This pattern is consistent with males deploying aggression in the context of mate attraction or coercion. Our interpretation is further bolstered by the distinct statistical patterns that emerge for aggression when examining unrelated mixed-sex dyads with early-life familiarity, which suggest much of the mixed-sex aggression in our data took place among unrelated and unfamiliar male-female dyads. These encounters were most common when females transferred into new groups and were thus likely to be particularly attractive mates for males. Past research in gorillas suggests male aggression towards females may have a number of non-mutually exclusive functions: to police female-female aggression, to discourage female dispersal or mate choice, or to indicate protective ability or overall condition (Robbins, 2009a; Breuer et al., 2016). The fact that this kind of aggression was observed less frequently among related male-female pairs is another observation consistent with accurate kin discrimination. It also suggests active inbreeding avoidance, to the extent that aggression truly serves a mate attraction function. While death and dispersal have been suggested to obviate the need for sophisticated inbreeding avoidance mechanisms in some primates (e.g. baboons; Galezo et al., 2022), such an explanation is unlikely to apply to contemporary mountain gorillas. Living with opposite-sex relatives after sexual maturity is a routine occurrence in this species. Prior research confirms strong inbreeding avoidance between father-daughter dyads in this species (Vigilant et al., 2015), but further work is needed to investigate the extent to which male mate choice is manifested via female-directed aggression, and whether females, for their part, possess additional mechanisms to avoid mating with kin, including paternal siblings.

Together, these observations–prosocial biases towards kin that do not appear to be fully explained by familiarity; a stronger maternal than paternal sibling prosocial bias; and avoidance of intersexual aggression across all sibling types–both speak to key questions about the development of great ape sibling relationships and present two additional puzzles for interpretation. First, traditional mechanistic explanations for sibling biases that typically appeal to exposure during developmental periods appear largely inconsistent with our results and the nature of mountain gorilla sociality, in which siblings and non-siblings, and maternal and paternal siblings, are all likely to have significant exposure to one another during development. It is possible that maternally mediated early-life exposure effects that we could not measure–e.g., via repeatedly sharing night nests (Fossey, 1979) –function analogously to the manner in which co-residence duration serves as a key component of kin recognition in humans (Lieberman et al., 2007), or that preferential mother-father relationships post-birth might lead to social preferences among siblings (Rosenbaum et al., 2016a). Individuals may also possess some degree of phenotype matching ability (Widdig, 2007; Parr et al., 2010; Langergraber, 2012; Pfefferle et al., 2014).

Second, the lack of evidence for a prosocial bias towards paternal siblings is not readily reconciled with clear behavioral evidence of reduced aggression within these same dyads. This remarkable disjunct between apparent sibling recognition and sibling bias suggests that from a mountain gorilla’s perspective, paternal siblings are known entities that nevertheless are less attractive social partners than maternal siblings, despite each being equal relatives. There may be multiple, non-mutually exclusive explanations for this dynamic. Perhaps the presence of paternal siblings provides fewer benefits to an individual than do other sibling types–this possibility, while previously suggested (e.g. Cords et al., 2018), has not been systematically investigated and is an ideal target for future research. Relatedly, the strength of maternal versus paternal kin bias may to some degree depend on the costs of the behaviors in question (Widdig et al., 2006). A mismatch between historical and current social structure might also lead to inconsistent, weakened kin recognition among paternal siblings that manifests in the contrasting patterns we report. Ultimately, disentangling these potential explanations within a species that only exists in the wild may depend on the opportunity to study long-term mating patterns and the impacts of ‘natural experiments’ such as early maternal loss or adoption (most often carried out by adult males in this species; Fossey, 1979; Morrison et al., 2021a).

Our study subjects came from a population of habituated wild mountain gorillas living in Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda, that have been monitored nearly continuously for the last 54 years by the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. Using focal follow and scan data collected by researchers and staff, we compiled a dataset of all available dyadic gorilla behavior spanning the years of 2003–2017. We then supplemented this dataset with demographic and relatedness data (for maternal relatedness, via direct observation; for paternal relatedness, via genetic paternity determination–see e.g. Vigilant et al., 2015) on individuals pulled from long-term records. From this combined dataset, we excluded interactions with infants <1 year of age at time of observation, parent-offspring interactions, and interactions between dyads for which we could not calculate relatedness from available data. This yielded a final, curated dataset containing 157 unique individuals studied from late infancy to adulthood (75 F, 82 M; average age at time of observation = 9.75 years; age range: 1–38.5 years old) and 38,996 total hours of observation.

Results for analyses restricted to dyads with “early-life familiarity” (see Materials and methods for details of categorization; total dyad-years: 6724). Full model results available from data and code posted publicly at https://osf.io/6qgj5.

Results for analyses using a ‘stricter’ categorization of maternal siblings (n = 50; see Materials and methods for details of categorization)

Results for analyses including average age as a covariate in analyses.

Appendix 3—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Results for analyses assessing contact aggression and non-contact aggression separately.

Appendix 4—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Appendix 4—figure 2

Download asset Open asset

All data and code necessary to reproduce our results are available publicly at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6QGJ5.

1. 1. Grebe NM
   2. Hirwa JP
   3. Stoinski TS
   4. Vigilant L
   5. Rosenbaum S

   (2022) Open Science Framework

   Dynamics of cooperation and competition in mountain gorilla siblings.

   https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6QGJ5

1. 1. Alberts SC
   2. Watts HE
   3. Altmann J

   (2003) Queuing and queue-jumping: long-term patterns of reproductive skew in male savannah baboons, Papio cynocephalus

   Animal Behaviour 65:821–840.

   https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2106

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Alberts SC
   2. Altmann J

   (2012)

   In Long-Term Field Studies of Primates

   261–287, The amboseli baboon research project: 40 years of continuity and change, In Long-Term Field Studies of Primates, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 10.1007/978-3-642-22514-7_12.

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Almeling L
   2. Hammerschmidt K
   3. Sennhenn-Reulen H
   4. Freund AM
   5. Fischer J

   (2016) Motivational shifts in aging monkeys and the origins of social selectivity

   Current Biology 26:1744–1749.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.04.066

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bradley BJ
   2. Robbins MM
   3. Williamson EA
   4. Steklis HD
   5. Steklis NG
   6. Eckhardt N
   7. Boesch C
   8. Vigilant L

   (2005) Mountain gorilla tug-of-war: silverbacks have limited control over reproduction in multimale groups

   PNAS 102:9418–9423.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0502019102

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Breuer T
   2. Robbins AM
   3. Robbins MM

   (2016) Sexual coercion and courtship by male Western gorillas

   Primates; Journal of Primatology 57:29–38.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-015-0496-9

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Brooks ME
   2. Kristensen K
   3. Benthem KJ
   4. van Magnusson A
   5. Berg CW
   6. Nielsen A
   7. Skaug HJ
   8. Mächler M
   9. Bolker BM

   (2017) GlmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling

   The R Journal 9:378.

   https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Brown GR
   2. Dixson AF

   (2000) The development of behavioural sex differences in infant rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta)

   Primates; Journal of Primatology 41:63–77.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02557462

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chagnon NA
   2. Lynch RF
   3. Shenk MK
   4. Hames R
   5. Flinn MV

   (2017) Cross-cousin marriage among the yanomamö shows evidence of parent-offspring conflict and mate competition between brothers

   PNAS 114:E2590–E2607.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618655114

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Chapais B

   (2001) Primate nepotism: what is the explanatory value of kin selection?

   International Journal of Primatology 22:203–229.

   https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005619430744

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Charpentier MJE
    2. Tung J
    3. Altmann J
    4. Alberts SC

    (2008) Age at maturity in wild baboons: genetic, environmental and demographic influences

    Molecular Ecology 17:2026–2040.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03724.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Cords M
    2. Minich T
    3. Roberts SJ
    4. Sleator C

    (2018) Evidence for paternal kin bias in the social affiliation of adult female blue monkeys

    American Journal of Primatology 80:e22761.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22761

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. Book

    1. Daly M
    2. Wilson M

    (1988)

    Homicide

    A. de Gruyter.

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Del Giudice M
    2. Angeleri R
    3. Manera V

    (2009) The juvenile transition: a developmental switch point in human life history

    Developmental Review 29:1–31.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2008.09.001

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Doran DM
    2. McNeilage A

    (1998) Gorilla ecology and behavior

    Evolutionary Anthropology 6:120–131.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1998)6:4<120::AID-EVAN2>3.0.CO;2-H

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Eckardt W
    2. Fawcett K
    3. Fletcher AW

    (2016) Weaned age variation in the virunga mountain gorillas (gorilla beringei beringei): influential factors

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70:493–507.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2066-6

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Engh AL
    2. Hoffmeier RR
    3. Seyfarth RM
    4. Cheney DL

    (2009) O brother, where art thou? the varying influence of older siblings in RANK acquisition by female baboons

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64:97–104.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0824-4

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Erhart EM
    2. Coelho AM
    3. Bramblett CA

    (1997) Kin recognition by paternal half-siblings in captive Papio cynocephalus

    American Journal of Primatology 43:147–157.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2345(1997)43:2<147::AID-AJP4>3.0.CO;2-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Fagen R

    (1993)

    Juvenile Primates

    182–196, Primate juveniles and primate play, Juvenile Primates, Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Fossey D

    (1979)

    The Great Apes

    137–184, Development of the mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei), through the first thirty-six months, The Great Apes, The Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company.

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Fredrickson WT
    2. Sackett GP

    (1984) Kin preferences in primates (Macaca nemestrina): relatedness or familiarity?

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 98:29–34.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.98.1.29

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Galezo AA
    2. Nolas MA
    3. Fogel AS
    4. Mututua RS
    5. Warutere JK
    6. Siodi IL
    7. Altmann J
    8. Archie EA
    9. Tung J
    10. Alberts SC

    (2022) Mechanisms of inbreeding avoidance in a wild primate

    Current Biology 32:1607–1615.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.01.082

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Godoy I
    2. Vigilant L
    3. Perry SE

    (2016) Cues to kinship and close relatedness during infancy in white-faced capuchin monkeys, Cebus capucinus

    Animal Behaviour 116:139–151.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.03.031

    • Google Scholar
23. Book

    1. Goodall J

    (1986)

    The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior

    The Belknap Press of Harvard University.

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Gould L

    (2000) Adoption of a wild orphaned ringtailed lemur infant by natal group members: adaptive explanations

    Primates; Journal of Primatology 41:413–419.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02557652

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Grafen A

    (1990) Do animals really recognize kin?

    Animal Behaviour 39:42–54.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80724-9

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Gray P

    (2019)

    The Cambridge Handbook of Play: Developmental and Disciplinary Perspectives

    84–102, Evolutionary functions of play: practice, resilience, innovation, and cooperation, The Cambridge Handbook of Play: Developmental and Disciplinary Perspectives, Cambridge University Press.

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Grebe NM
    2. Fitzpatrick C
    3. Sharrock K
    4. Starling A
    5. Drea CM

    (2019) Organizational and activational androgens, lemur social play, and the ontogeny of female dominance

    Hormones and Behavior 115:104554.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2019.07.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Hamilton WD

    (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour: II

    Journal of Theoretical Biology 7:17–52.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Hamilton WJ
    2. Busse C
    3. Smith KS

    (1982) Adoption of infant orphan chacma baboons

    Animal Behaviour 30:29–34.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(82)80233-9

    • Google Scholar
30. Book

    1. Harcourt AH
    2. Stewart KJ

    (2007)

    Gorilla Society: Conflict, Compromise, and Cooperation Between the Sexes

    Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    • Google Scholar
31. Software

    1. Hartig F

    (2022) DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level / mixed) regression models, version 0.4.5

    R Package.

    https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/DHARMa/vignettes/DHARMa.html
32. 1. Hobaiter C
    2. Schel AM
    3. Langergraber K
    4. Zuberbühler K

    (2014) “ Adoption ” by maternal siblings in wild chimpanzees

    PLOS ONE 9:e103777.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103777

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Hudson R
    2. Trillmich F

    (2008) Sibling competition and cooperation in mammals: challenges, developments and prospects

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62:299–307.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0417-z

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Johnson C
    2. Koerner C
    3. Estrin M
    4. Duoos D

    (1980) Alloparental care and kinship in captive social groups of vervet monkeys (cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus)

    Primates; Journal of Primatology 21:406–415.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02390469

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kulik L
    2. Amici F
    3. Langos D
    4. Widdig A

    (2015) Sex differences in the development of aggressive behavior in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta)

    International Journal of Primatology 36:764–789.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-015-9853-1

    • Google Scholar
36. Book

    1. Lamb ME
    2. Sutton-Smith B

    (2014)

    Sibling Relationships: Their Nature and Significance across the Lifespan

    New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Langergraber KE
    2. Mitani JC
    3. Vigilant L

    (2007) The limited impact of kinship on cooperation in wild chimpanzees

    PNAS 104:7786–7790.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611449104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Langergraber KA

    (2012)

    The Evolution of Primate Societies

    491–513, Cooperation among kin, The Evolution of Primate Societies, London, The University of Chicago Press.

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Lea AJ
    2. Learn NH
    3. Theus MJ
    4. Altmann J
    5. Alberts SC

    (2014) Complex sources of variance in female dominance RANK in a nepotistic Society

    Animal Behaviour 94:87–99.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.05.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. Software

    1. Lenth RV

    (2022) Emmeans: estimated marginal means, AKA least-squares means, version 1.7.2

    R Package.

    https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
41. 1. Lieberman D
    2. Tooby J
    3. Cosmides L

    (2007) The architecture of human kin detection

    Nature 445:727–731.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05510

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Lonsdorf EV
    2. Stanton MA
    3. Murray CM

    (2018) Sex differences in maternal sibling-infant interactions in wild chimpanzees

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 72:1–12.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2531-5

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Lu PC

    (2007) Sibling relationships in adulthood and old age

    Current Sociology 55:621–637.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392107077646

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Lynch EC
    2. Di Fiore A
    3. Lynch RF
    4. Palombit RA

    (2017) Fathers enhance social bonds among paternal half-siblings in immature olive baboons (Papio hamadryas anubis)

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 71:1–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2336-y

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Maestripieri D
    2. Ross SR

    (2004) Sex differences in play among Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) infants: implications for adult behavior and social structure

    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 123:52–61.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10295

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Mateo JM
    2. Hauber M

    (2015) Perspectives: Hamilton ’ S legacy: mechanisms of kin recognition in humans

    Ethology: Formerly Zeitschrift Fur Tierpsychologie 121:419–427.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12358

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Meikle DB
    2. Vessey SH

    (1981) Nepotism among rhesus monkey brothers

    Nature 294:160–161.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/294160a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. Thesis

    1. Mirville MO

    (2018)

    The causes and consequences of intergroup interactions in mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei). PhD Thesis

    University of Western Australia.

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Mitani JC
    2. Merriwether DA
    3. Zhang C

    (2000) Male affiliation, cooperation and kinship in wild chimpanzees

    Animal Behaviour 59:885–893.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1389

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Mitani JC

    (2009) Male chimpanzees form enduring and equitable social bonds

    Animal Behaviour 77:633–640.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.021

    • Google Scholar
51. Book

    1. Mock D
    2. Parker G

    (1997)

    The Evolution of Sibling Rivalry

    Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Morrison RE
    2. Eckardt W
    3. Colchero F
    4. Vecellio V
    5. Stoinski TS

    (2021a) Social groups buffer maternal loss in mountain gorillas

    eLife 10:e62939.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62939

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Morrison RE
    2. Mushimiyimana Y
    3. Stoinski TS
    4. Eckardt W

    (2021b) Rapid transmission of respiratory infections within but not between mountain gorilla groups

    Scientific Reports 11:1–12.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98969-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Nishida T

    (1983) Alloparental behavior in wild chimpanzees of the mahale mountains, Tanzania

    Folia Primatologica 41:1–33.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000156117

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Nitsch A
    2. Faurie C
    3. Lummaa V

    (2013) Are elder siblings helpers or competitors? antagonistic fitness effects of sibling interactions in humans

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 280:20122313.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2313

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Parr LA
    2. Heintz M
    3. Lonsdorf E
    4. Wroblewski E

    (2010) Visual kin recognition in nonhuman primates: (Pan troglodytes and Macaca mulatta): inbreeding avoidance or male distinctiveness?

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 124:343–350.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020545

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Pfefferle D
    2. Kazem AJN
    3. Brockhausen RR
    4. Ruiz-Lambides AV
    5. Widdig A

    (2014) Monkeys spontaneously discriminate their unfamiliar paternal kin under natural conditions using facial cues

    Current Biology 24:1806–1810.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.058

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Reddy RB
    2. Mitani JC

    (2019) Social relationships and caregiving behavior between recently orphaned chimpanzee siblings

    Primates; Journal of Primatology 60:389–400.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-019-00732-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Remis MJ

    (1997) Ranging and grouping patterns of a Western lowland gorilla group at BAI hokou, central African Republic

    American Journal of Primatology 43:111–133.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2345(1997)43:2<111::AID-AJP2>3.0.CO;2-#

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Robbins MM
    2. Gerald-Steklis N
    3. Robbins AM
    4. Steklis HD

    (2005) Long-Term dominance relationships in female mountain gorillas: strength, stability and determinants of RANK

    Behaviour 142:779–809.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539054729123

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Robbins MM

    (2009)

    Sexual Coercion in Primates

    Male aggression toward females in mountain gorillas: courtship or coercion, Sexual Coercion in Primates, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Robbins AM
    2. Stoinski TS
    3. Fawcett KA
    4. Robbins MM

    (2009b) Socioecological influences on the dispersal of female mountain gorillas—evidence of a second folivore paradox

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63:477–489.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0679-0

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Robbins AM
    2. Gray M
    3. Basabose A
    4. Uwingeli P
    5. Mburanumwe I
    6. Kagoda E
    7. Robbins MM

    (2013) Impact of male infanticide on the social structure of mountain gorillas

    PLOS ONE 8:e78256.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078256

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Rosenbaum S
    2. Hirwa JP
    3. Silk JB
    4. Vigilant L
    5. Stoinski TS

    (2015) Male RANK, not paternity, predicts male–immature relationships in mountain gorillas, gorilla beringei beringei

    Animal Behaviour 104:13–24.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.02.025

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Rosenbaum S
    2. Hirwa JP
    3. Silk JB
    4. Vigilant L
    5. Stoinski TS

    (2016a) Infant mortality risk and paternity certainty are associated with postnatal maternal behavior toward adult male mountain gorillas (gorilla beringei beringei)

    PLOS ONE 11:e0147441.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147441

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Rosenbaum S
    2. Vecellio V
    3. Stoinski T

    (2016b) Observations of severe and lethal coalitionary attacks in wild mountain gorillas

    Scientific Reports 6:1–8.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Rosenbaum S
    2. Silk JB

    (2022) Pathways to paternal care in primates

    Evolutionary Anthropology.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21942

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Roy J
    2. Gray M
    3. Stoinski T
    4. Robbins MM
    5. Vigilant L

    (2014) Fine-Scale genetic structure analyses suggest further male than female dispersal in mountain gorillas

    BMC Ecology 14:1–16.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-14-21

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Salmon CA
    2. Hehman JA

    (2021) Good friends, better enemies? the effects of sibling sex, co-residence, and relatedness on sibling conflict and cooperation

    Evolutionary Psychological Science 7:327–337.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-021-00292-y

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Sandel AA
    2. Langergraber KE
    3. Mitani JC

    (2020) Adolescent male chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) form social bonds with their brothers and others during the transition to adulthood

    American Journal of Primatology 82:e23091.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23091

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. Book

    1. Schaller GB
    2. Emlen JT

    (1963) Observations on the ecology and social behavior of the mountain gorilla

    In: Howell FC, Bourliere F, editors. African Ecology and Human Evolution. Aldine, Chicago: Routledge. pp. 686–687.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.144.3619.686

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Schaub H

    (1996) Testing kin altruism in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) in a food-sharing experiment

    International Journal of Primatology 17:445–467.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02736631

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Schino G
    2. Pinzaglia M

    (2018) Age-Related changes in the social behavior of tufted capuchin monkeys

    American Journal of Primatology 80:e22746.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22746

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Sear R
    2. Mace R

    (2008) Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival

    Evolution and Human Behavior 29:1–18.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.10.001

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Sicotte P

    (1993) Inter-group encounters and female transfer in mountain gorillas: influence of group composition on male behavior

    American Journal of Primatology 30:21–36.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.1350300103

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Silk JB

    (1994) Social relationships of male bonnet macaques: male bonding in a matrilineal Society

    Behaviour 130:271–291.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853994X00569

    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Silk JB

    (2002) Kin selection in primate groups

    International Journal of Primatology 23:849–875.

    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015581016205

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Silk JB
    2. Altmann J
    3. Alberts SC

    (2006) Social relationships among adult female baboons (Papio cynocephalus) I. variation in the strength of social bonds

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61:183–195.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-006-0249-2

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Silk JB

    (2009) Nepotistic cooperation in non-human primate groups

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 364:3243–3254.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0118

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Silk JB
    2. Beehner JC
    3. Bergman TJ
    4. Crockford C
    5. Engh AL
    6. Moscovice LR
    7. Wittig RM
    8. Seyfarth RM
    9. Cheney DL

    (2010) Female chacma baboons form strong, equitable, and enduring social bonds

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64:1733–1747.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-0986-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Smith K
    2. Alberts SC
    3. Altmann J

    (2003) Wild female baboons bias their social behaviour towards paternal half-sisters

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 270:503–510.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2277

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Smith JE

    (2014) Hamilton ’ S legacy: kinship, cooperation and social tolerance in mammalian groups

    Animal Behaviour 92:291–304.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.029

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Snowdon CT
    2. Pickhard JJ

    (1999) Family feuds: severe aggression among cooperatively breeding cotton-top tamarins

    International Journal of Primatology 20:651–663.

    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020796517550

    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Steelman LC
    2. Powell B
    3. Werum R
    4. Carter S

    (2002) Reconsidering the effects of sibling configuration: recent advances and challenges

    Annual Review of Sociology 28:243–269.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.111301.093304

    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Stoinski TS
    2. Vecellio V
    3. Ngaboyamahina T
    4. Ndagijimana F
    5. Rosenbaum S
    6. Fawcett KA

    (2009) Proximate factors influencing dispersal decisions in male mountain gorillas, gorilla beringei beringei

    Animal Behaviour 77:1155–1164.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.12.030

    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Streich WJ
    2. Widdig A
    3. Bercovitch F
    4. Nürnberg P
    5. Krawczak M

    (2002) Affiliation and aggression among adult female rhesus macaques: a genetic analysis of paternal cohorts

    Behaviour 139:371–391.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853902760102717

    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Surbeck M
    2. Langergraber KE
    3. Fruth B
    4. Vigilant L
    5. Hohmann G

    (2017) Male reproductive skew is higher in bonobos than chimpanzees

    Current Biology 27:R640–R641.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.039

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Trivers RL

    (1974) Parent-Offspring conflict

    American Zoologist 14:249–264.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/14.1.249

    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Tung J
    2. Archie EA
    3. Altmann J
    4. Alberts SC

    (2016) Cumulative early life adversity predicts longevity in wild baboons

    Nature Communications 7:1–7.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11181

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Vigilant L
    2. Roy J
    3. Bradley BJ
    4. Stoneking CJ
    5. Robbins MM
    6. Stoinski TS

    (2015) Reproductive competition and inbreeding avoidance in a primate species with habitual female dispersal

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 69:1163–1172.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-015-1930-0

    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Widdig A
    2. Nürnberg P
    3. Krawczak M
    4. Streich WJ
    5. Bercovitch FB

    (2001) Paternal relatedness and age proximity regulate social relationships among adult female rhesus macaques

    PNAS 98:13769–13773.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.241210198

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Widdig A
    2. Bercovitch FB
    3. Streich WJ
    4. Sauermann U
    5. Nürnberg P
    6. Krawczak M

    (2004) A longitudinal analysis of reproductive skew in male rhesus macaques

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 271:819–826.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2666

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Widdig A
    2. Streich WJ
    3. Nürnberg P
    4. Croucher PJP
    5. Bercovitch FB
    6. Krawczak M

    (2006) Paternal kin bias in the agonistic interventions of adult female rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta)

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61:205–214.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-006-0251-8

    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Widdig A

    (2007) Paternal kin discrimination: the evidence and likely mechanisms

    Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 82:319–334.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00011.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Wikberg EC
    2. Ting N
    3. Sicotte P

    (2014) Familiarity is more important than phenotypic similarity in shaping social relationships in a facultative female dispersed primate, colobus vellerosus

    Behavioural Processes 106:27–35.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.04.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Wright E
    2. Robbins AM
    3. Robbins MM

    (2014) Dominance RANK differences in the energy intake and expenditure of female bwindi mountain gorillas

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 68:957–970.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-014-1708-9

    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Wright E
    2. Galbany J
    3. McFarlin SC
    4. Ndayishimiye E
    5. Stoinski TS
    6. Robbins MM

    (2020) Dominance RANK but not body size influences female reproductive success in mountain gorillas

    PLOS ONE 15:e0233235.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233235

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Wu HM
    2. Holmes WG
    3. Medina SR
    4. Sackett GP

    (1980) Kin preference in infant Macaca nemestrina

    Nature 285:225–227.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/285225a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Nicholas M Grebe

   Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   ngrebe@umich.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1411-065X

2. Jean Paul Hirwa

   The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, Atlanta, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Tara S Stoinski

   The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, Atlanta, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Linda Vigilant

   Department of Primatology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

   Contribution

   Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Stacy Rosenbaum

   Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7576-5302

• 1,095

  views

• 189

  downloads

• 11

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.