Search

In anthropoid primates, social grooming is the principal mechanism (mediated by the central nervous system endorphin system) that underpins social bonding. However, the time available for social grooming is limited, and this imposes an upper limit on the size of group that can be bonded in this way. I suggest that, when hominins needed to increase the size of their groups beyond the limit that could be bonded by grooming, they co-opted laughter (a modified version of the play vocalization found widely among the catarrhine primates) as a form of chorusing to fill the gap. I show, first, that human laughter both upregulates the brain's endorphin system and increases the sense of bonding between those who laugh together. I then use a reverse engineering approach to model group sizes and grooming time requirements for fossil hominin species to search for pinch points where a phase shift in bonding mechanisms might have occurred. The results suggest that the most likely time for the origin of human-like laughter is the appearance of the genus Homoca 2.5 Ma. This article is part of the theme issue 'Cracking the laugh code: laughter through the lens of biology, psychology and neuroscience'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gorillas and chimpanzees live in social groups of very different size and structure. Here I test the hypothesis that this difference might reflect the way fertility maps onto group demography as it does in other Catarrhines. For both genera, birth rates and the number of surviving offspring per female are quadratic (or ∩-shaped) functions of the number of adult females in the group, and this is independent of environmental effects. The rate at which fertility declines ultimately imposes a constraint on the size of social groups that can be maintained in both taxa. The differences in group size between the two genera seem to reflect a contrast in the way females buffer themselves against this cost. Gorillas do this by using males as bodyguards, whereas chimpanzees exploit fission–fusion sociality to do so. The latter allows chimpanzees to live in much larger groups without paying a fertility cost (albeit at a cognitive cost). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I argue that speech and language evolved through a series of stages individually designed to break through successive glass ceilings on group size. Language was simply the last of these (and hence evolved late in hominin evolution), but its precursors (laughter and singing) each played a crucial role in preparing the way for speech production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional approaches to population biology emphasise the roles of climatic conditions, nutrient flow and predation as constraints on population dynamics. We argue here that this focus has obscured the role of time as a crucial constraint on species’ abilities to survive in some habitats. Time constraints may be particularly intrusive both for species that live in intensely bonded groups (where the need to devote time to social interaction may ultimately limit the size of group that a species can maintain in a particular habitat) and for taxa that face constraints on the length of the active day. We use a linear programming approach that allows us to specify both how time allocations to different activities are influenced by local environmental and climatic variables and how these in turn limit group size and population density. The linear programming approach identifies the realizable niche space within which a species can maintain coherent groups that are larger than the minimum viable group size (or density). This approach thus allow us to understand better why a given taxon can survive in some habitats but not others, as well as the demographic stress that a population may face. In addition, they also allow us to evaluate the implications of both past and future climate change for a taxon’s ability to cope with particular habitats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]