Skip to main content

Whose the daddy Gorilla?


With television shows  emotionally uniting children with their long-lost 'real fathers', paternity clearly matters to us humans. Many species show discrimination in rearing their own offspring.  But, it appears not to matter so much to mountain gorillas.


Gorilla Fathers from Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund on Vimeo.

Recent research published in the journal Animal Behaviour shows that being the biological daddy isn’t so important for male gorillas when it comes to their relationships with the youngsters in the group. What matters is their rank.

Mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) live in groups in the forests of central Africa.  They are unusual among primates because one group, or troop, of gorillas can have more than one male, as well as several females.  So, do the males behave differently to the youngsters in the group? Or do they treat them all the same?  Is there any sign they are distinguishing their 'own' young?

The Thin End

Rank more important than genetic parentage  

The researchers tracked the way male mountain gorillas interact with infants to see if their behaviour is similar to other primates that live in troops with more than one male. The results show that being the biological father does not influence the way male gorillas interact with infants.

Primates like chimpanzees that live in troops with more than one male have a way of recognising which infants belong to which males. For animals that live in groups with only one male this is not necessary, as the male is most likely to be the father of all the infants in the group. The researchers wanted to determine whether gorillas have evolved a way of recognising their own offspring or father.

The researchers followed gorillas in Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda, and monitored the way the males and infants interacted. They looked at the amount of time the gorillas spent grooming each other and playing, and noted every ten minutes which gorillas were physically close to one another. They also looked at which males were dominant in the group.

The researchers analysed more than 1500 hours of data and found that there is no evidence to suggest that gorillas recognise their own offspring or father. Or at least if they do it doesn't affect the way they interact. 

Dominant males are gentle and nurturing 

Instead, they found that a male gorilla’s dominance or social rank had a stronger influence on its relationships with infants; alpha males tend to be more nurturing and have stronger relationships with infants in the troop. While statistically they are most likely to be the father, many infants are also sired by other males, but this doesn't affect they way they are treated.

“When we think of a human alpha male, we have a very specific set of cultural norms that go along with that, like aggression and not being very paternal,” says lead researcher Dr. Rosenbaum.

In gorillas, dominant males are often the biggest in the group, but they are gentle and nurturing with the infants.
Mountain gorillas are not only capable of living in multi-male groups, they may actually benefit from doing so. Advantages to living in multi-male groups include better female retention, since females seem to prefer multi male groups, and lower risk of infanticide.     

There are also clear benefits to the offspring. Infants in multi male groups are still generally safe even if the dominant male dies, since other males in the group can deter infanticidal outsiders.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha