The promise of primatology fulfilled?

In 1972, Sherwood Washburn, one of the forerunners of biological anthropology, gave an invited address during the 4th Congress of the International Primatological Society in Portland, Oregon, in which he expounded his vision for the field of primatology. His address was published the following year in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and titled: "The promise of primatology." In this centennial commentary, we revisit Washburn's "promise", 45 years on. His address and article discuss the constraints acting on the field, including a positioning of the discipline across different kinds of university departments, and within the social sciences, which he viewed as a mixed blessing. Prescient aspects of Washburn's address include a focus on the need to study communication multimodally, and a hope that the study of mechanisms would become foundational within the field. We discuss new promising aspects of primatology, focusing on technological advances in a number of areas highlighted by Washburn that have ushered in new eras of research, and the increasingly large number of long-term field sites, which see the discipline well-set for new developmental and longitudinal studies. We find much to admire in Washburn's keen foresight, and natural intuition. Washburn hoped that primatology would repudiate the notion that "the social should be studied without reference to the biological." In this regard, we consider much of Washburn's promise fulfilled.

Where am I? Who am I? The Relation Between Spatial Cognition, Social Cognition and Individual Differences in the Built Environment

Knowing who we are, and where we are, are two fundamental aspects of our physical and mental experience. Although the domains of spatial and social cognition are often studied independently, a few recent areas of scholarship have explored the interactions of place and self. This fits in with increasing evidence for embodied theories of cognition, where mental processes are grounded in action and perception. Who we are might be integrated with where we are, and impact how we move through space. Individuals vary in personality, navigational strategies, and numerous cognitive and social competencies. Here we review the relation between social and spatial spheres of existence in the realms of philosophical considerations, neural and psychological representations, and evolutionary context, and how we might use the built environment to suit who we are, or how it creates who we are. In particular we investigate how two spatial reference frames, egocentric and allocentric, might transcend into the social realm. We then speculate on how environments may interact with spatial cognition. Finally, we suggest how a framework encompassing spatial and social cognition might be taken in consideration by architects and urban planners.

Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the Human-Primate Interface

Humans are literal and figurative kin to other primates, with whom many of us coexist in diverse social, ecological, symbolic, conflictual, and even hopeful contexts. Anthropogenic action is changing global and local ecologies as fast as, or faster than, we can study them. Ethnoprimatology, the combining of primatological and anthropological practice and the viewing of humans and other primates as living in integrated and shared ecological and social spaces, is becoming an increasingly popular approach to primate studies in the twenty-first century. This approach plays a core linking role between anthropology and primate studies and may enable us to more effectively assess, and better understand, the complex ecologies and potential for sustainability in human–other primate communities. Here I review the basic theoretical underpinnings, historical contexts, and a selection of current research outcomes for the ethnoprimatological endeavor and indicate what this approach can tell us about human–other primate relations in the Anthropocene.

Associations between adult spectral tarsiers

While anecdotal observations of gregarious behavior in nocturnal prosimian primates are common, most anthropologists continue to refer to them as solitary, perhaps based on the assumption that the occasional social interactions observed via ad libitum methods represent random chance encounters and not patterned social interactions. In this paper, I test the null hypothesis that nocturnal encounters between spectral tarsier (Tarsius spectrum) group members, outside of the sleeping tree, are the result of chance. Three male-female pairs were radio-collared and observed over a 4-month period, using continuous focal animal sampling at the Tangkoko Nature Reserve (Sulawesi, Indonesia). Using Waser's random gas model, I found that spectral tarsiers spent more time in proximity to other group members than expected by chance, given the size of their home range and nightly path length. Adult group members spent 11% of the night in physical contact and an additional 17% of the night within a 10-m radius of one another. Spectral tarsiers were also observed to significantly increase the amount of time spent foraging when located less than 10 m from another group member. Individuals foraging in proximity to another adult group member had lower insect capture rates compared to individuals who were not foraging in proximity to another adult group member. If living in a group is costly to these tarsiers' foraging efficiency, then why don't they actively avoid one another when foraging? One situation in which it might benefit tarsiers to be gregarious is high predation pressure. Preliminary results suggest that predation pressure by snakes may be the most likely factor selecting for the tarsiers to forage in proximity.