title: Why male orangutans do not kill infants.
abstract: Infanticide is widespread among mammals, is particularly common in primates, and has been shown to be an adaptive male strategy under certain conditions. Although no infanticides in wild orangutans have been reported to date, several authors have suggested that infanticide has been an important selection pressure influencing orangutan behavior and the evolution of orangutan social systems. In this paper, we critically assess this suggestion. We begin by investigating whether wild orangutans have been studied for a sufficiently long period that we might reasonably expect to have detected infanticide if it occurs. We consider whether orangutan females exhibit counterstrategies typically employed by other mammalian females. We also assess the hypothesis that orangutan females form special bonds with particular "protector males" to guard against infanticide. Lastly, we discuss socioecological reasons why orangutan males may not benefit from infanticide. We conclude that there is limited evidence for female counterstrategies and little support for the protector male hypothesis. Aspects of orangutan paternity certainty, lactational amenorrhea, and ranging behavior may explain why infanticide is not a strategy regularly employed by orangutan males on Sumatra or Borneo.
authors.forename: Lydia H
authors.initials: LH
authors.lastname: Beaudrot
authors.forename: Sonya M
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Kahlenberg
authors.forename: Andrew J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Marshall
references.citation: Am J Hum Biol. 2003 May-Jun;15(3):342-51
references.pmid: 12704710
references.citation: J Hum Evol. 2008 Jan;54(1):34-42
references.pmid: 17804037
references.citation: Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 Feb;135(2):171-81
references.pmid: 18046778
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Nov 22;264(1388):1687-94
references.pmid: 9404030
references.citation: Folia Primatol (Basel). 2007;78(4):215-26
references.pmid: 17495479
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2007 May 15;17(10):R355-6
references.pmid: 17502085
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2006 Aug;15(9):2577-88
references.pmid: 16842428
references.citation: J Hum Evol. 2007 Mar;52(3):275-93
references.pmid: 17083968
references.citation: Anim Behav. 1997 Sep;54(3):599-614
references.pmid: 9299045
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Mar;19(3):127-34
references.pmid: 16701243
references.citation: J Hum Evol. 2004 Dec;47(6):385-98
references.pmid: 15566945
references.citation: J Biosoc Sci. 2004 Sep;36(5):573-95
references.pmid: 15446353
references.citation: Am J Primatol. 1985;8(2):87-99
references.pmid: 31986816
references.citation: J Reprod Fertil. 1988 Jul;83(2):627-34
references.pmid: 3411555
references.citation: Am J Primatol. 2008 Jun;70(6):533-41
references.pmid: 18186082
references.citation: Primates. 2006 Jan;47(1):14-26
references.pmid: 16132168
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 1993 Dec;8(12):2248-58
references.pmid: 8150934
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 27;101(17):6530-5
references.pmid: 15096623
references.citation: Folia Primatol (Basel). 2002 Jan-Feb;73(1):1-20
references.pmid: 12065937
references.citation: Hum Biol. 1979 May;51(2):109-25
references.pmid: 457082
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2007 Oct;10(10):956-69
references.pmid: 17845296
references.citation: Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005 May;127(1):79-94
references.pmid: 15472890
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007 Aug;82(3):335-59
references.pmid: 17624958
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1988 May;3(5):102-5
references.pmid: 21227158