Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Spatial Patterns and Peripheralisation of Yellow Baboons (Papio Cynocephalus) During Sexual Consortships

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Behaviour

1. In free-ranging troops of savannah baboons, adult males form temporary pair bonds or "consortships" with females in oestrus. Consort pairs are characterized by unusually close and continued proximity and exclusive sexual interaction; such pairs are typically found on the periphery of the troop. Changes in the spatial patterning of 13 adult male and 20 cycling adult female yellow baboons which occurred during consortships are reported. 2. Adult males were normally more peripheral to the troop than were adult females; hence the peripheralisation of consort pairs involved much less change in the nearest neighbour patterns of adult males than it did in those of adult females. 3. Subordinate females were more peripheral and had fewer adult female and immature neighbours than dominant females, both during consortships and while not in consort. Nulliparous females who were not in consort generally had more neighbours close to them than did parous females. There was some tendency for low-ranking adult males to be more peripheral than high-ranking males when they were not in consort, but there was no relationship between peripherality and male agonistic rank during consortships. 4. Consort partners were within 5 m of each other on three-quarters of all interval samples, and were rarely observed more than 15 m apart. Partners were closest together during the ovulatory stage of the female's cycle, and farthest apart once the fertile stage had passed. Consort pairs were most peripheral to the troop during the ovulatory and pre-ovulatory stages of the female's cycle, and least peripheral on days following the fertile stage. 5. Evidence is presented which suggests that the female partner, rather than the male partner, may be responsible for the peripheralisation of consort pairs. Possible reasons why females might favour moving to the edge of the troop for mating are discussed.

Affiliations: 1: Sub-Department of Animal Behaviour, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Behaviour — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation