Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2016
  • Online publication date: May 2016

Preface by the authors

Summary

Diversity organises unity which organises

Edgar Morin, 1977

Theoretical discussion and debate are open on which part of social behaviour is really exclusive of Homo sapiens and other apes, and what, instead, is rooted in the common ground of primate origins. Since the time of our common ancestors, lemurs have been following their own evolutionary pathway to become ‘modern primates’. This process, enhanced by Madagascar's isolation from the rest of the world, which started about eighty million years ago, has led lemurs to possess a puzzling combination of features, such as a small brain and communication highly based on smell combined with biological peculiarities, such as female dominance, lack of sexual dimorphism and strict seasonal breeding. On the other hand, group-living lemurs share basic features with social monkeys and apes such as cohesive multimale-multifemale societies, female philopatry and individual recognition. Lemurs are the ideal model to shed light on the ‘primate behavioural potential’ in terms of conflict management, communication strategies and society building, and on how much these crucial aspects of social living are similar to or different from those found in monkeys, apes and humans. Part of the perceived gap between strepsirrhines and haplorrhines – also mentioned by Alison Jolly and Ian Tattersall in their foreword – probably lies in the divergent research methodologies applied to these two groups. The aim of this book is to review and expand upon the newest fields of research in lemur behavioural biology, including recent analytical approaches that, so far, have been restricted to haplorrhines.

Breaking the wall

Are lemurs primates? This question may sound rhetorical, but unfortunately the answer (yes, they are) cannot be taken for granted.

The idea for this book came to our minds after a few influential Italian anthropologists had questioned the relevance of lemur behavioural studies to the anthropological domain and, therefore, to the understanding of the evolution of human behaviour. Monkeys were discriminated against as well, because – according to these scholars – they did not fit in the discipline, unless direct comparisons with humans were drawn. While the significance of lemurs and monkeys to human evolution was debated (and no consensus reached), apes were automatically included in the anthropological domain, thankfully. Of course the discrimination of strepsirrhines and monkeys was instrumental in favouring other research strains.

Beard, K. C. (1988). The phylogenetic significance of strepsirhinism in Paleogene primates. International Journal of Primatology, 9, 83–95/96.
Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.
de Waal, F. B. & Ferrari, P. F. (2010). Towards a bottom-up perspective on animal and human cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 201–207.
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. (1796). Mammifères. Memoire sur les rapports naturels des makis Lemur, L. et Description d'une espèce nouvelle de Mammifère. Magazin Encyclopédique, 1, 20–50.
Haeckel, E. (1883). The History of Creation: or the Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes, 3rd ed. translated by Lankester, E. R.. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Co.
Hofer, H. O. (1977). The anatomical relations of the ductus vomeronasalis and the occurrence of taste buds in the papilla palatina of Nycticebus coucang (Primates, Prosimiae) with remarks on strepsirrhinism. Gegenbaurs Morphologisches Jahrbuch, 123, 836–856.
Hübrecht, A. A. W. (1908). Early ontogenetic phenomena in mammals and their bearing on our interpretation of the phylogeny of vertebrates. Quarterly Journal of Microscopic Science, 53, 1–181.
Jolly, A. (1985). The Evolution of Primate Behavior, 2nd edition. New York: Macmillan.
Jolly, A. (2001). Lucy's Legacy: sex and intelligence in human evolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Illiger, C. (1811). Prodromus Systematis Mammalium et Avium. Berlin: Sumptibus C. Salfeld.
Luckett, W. P. (1976). Cladistic relationships among primate higher categories: evidence of the fetal membranes and placenta. Folia Primatologica, 25, 245–276.
Martin, R. D. (1990). Primate Origins and Evolution: a Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Morin, E. (1977). La Methode. 1. La Nature de la nature. Paris: Seuil.
Morin, E. (1990). Introduction à la pensée complexe (Vol. 96). Paris: Esf.
Reng, R. (1977). Die Placenta von Microcebus murinus Miller. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 42, 201–214.
Rosenberger, A. L. & Strasser, E. (1985). Toothcomb origins: support for the grooming hypothesis. Primates, 26, 73–84.
Rosenberger, A. L. & Szalay, F. S. (1980). On the tarsiiform origins of Anthropoidea. In: Ciochon, R. L. & Chiarelli, A. B., Evolutionary Biology of the New World Monkeys and Continental Drift. New York: Plenum Press.
Simpson, G. G. (1945). The principles of classification and a classification of the mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 85, 1–350.
Simpson, G. G. (1961). Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tattersall, I. (1982). The Primates of Madagascar. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tattersall, I. (2003). The Monkey in the Mirror: Essays on the Science of What Makes Us Human. Harvest Books.
Van Valen, L. (1969). The classification of the primates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 30, 295–296.