Anointing variation across wild capuchin populations: a review of material preferences, bout frequency and anointing sociality in <i>Cebus</i> and <i>Sapajus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frequency of anointing bouts and the materials used for self- and social anointing vary across capuchin species in captivity, but there is little published data on capuchin anointing in the wild. Here we present previously unpublished data on anointing behaviors from capuchin monkey populations at ten different field sites and incorporate these data into a review of the anointing literature for captive and wild capuchins. Using a comparative phylogenetic framework, we test four hypotheses derived primarily from captive literature for variation in anointing between wild untufted capuchins (Cebus) and tufted capuchins (Sapajus), including that (1) the frequency of anointing is higher in Cebus, (2) Cebus uses a higher proportion of plant species to insect species for anointing compared with Sapajus, (3) anointing material diversity is higher in Cebus, and (4) social indices of anointing are higher in Cebus. We found that wild Cebus anoints more with plant parts, including fruits, whereas wild Sapajus anoints more with ants and other arthropods. Cebus capucinus in particular uses more plant species per site for anointing compared with other capuchins and may specialize in anointing as an activity independent from foraging, whereas most other capuchin species tend to eat the substances they use for anointing. In agreement with captive studies, we found evidence that wild Cebus anoints at a significantly higher frequency than Sapajus. However, contrary to the captive literature, we found no difference in the range of sociality for anointing between Cebus and Sapajus in the wild. We review anointing in the context of other Neotropical primate rubbing behaviors and consider the evidence for anointing as self-medication; as a mechanism for enhanced sociality; and as a behavioral response to chemical stimuli.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".