Primate Social Organization Evolved from a Flexible Pair-Living Ancestor

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-17 · read from full text ⓘ

This study challenges the long-held assumption that ancestral primates were solitary by analyzing intra-specific variation in social organization across primate populations. Using a detailed database of field studies and Bayesian phylogenetic models, the authors found that pair-living was the most common ancestral social structure, with only 15-20% of individuals living solitarily. The research indicates that body size and activity patterns significantly influenced transitions between social types, suggesting pair-living evolved early for reproductive benefits rather than complex social structures evolving from solitude. This paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Explaining the evolution of primate social organization has been fundamental to understand human sociality and social evolution more broadly. It has often been suggested that the ancestor of all primates was solitary and that other forms of social organization evolved later. However, previous research included the assumption that many understudied primate species were solitary, then finding transitions to more complex social systems being driven by various life history traits and ecological factors. Here we show that when intra-specific variation is accounted for, the ancestral social organization of primates was variable, with the most common social organization being pair-living but with approximatively 15-20% of social units of the ancestral population deviating from this pattern by being solitary living. We built a detailed database from primary field studies quantifying the number of individuals (social units) expressing different social organizations in each population. We used Bayesian phylogenetic models to infer the probability of each social organization, conditional on several socio-ecological predictors, in ancestral populations. Body size and activity patterns had large effects on transitions between types of social organizations. Our results challenge the assumption that ancestral primates were solitary and that pair-living evolved afterwards. Moreover, our results emphasize the importance of focusing on field data and accounting for intra-specific variation. Pair-living is evolutionary ancient, likely caused by reproductive benefits such as access to partners and reduced intra-sexual competition, with more complex social structure (pair-bonding) and care systems (biparental and allo-parental care) evolving later. Significance Statement Was the ancestor of all primates a solitary-living species? Did more social forms of primate societies evolve from this basic and simple society? The dogma has been that the answer is yes. We used a modern statistical analysis, including variations within species, to show that the ancestral primate social organization was most likely variable. Most lived in pairs, and only 15-20% of individuals were solitary. Living in pairs was likely ancient and caused by reproductive benefits, like access to partners and reduced competition with the sexes. More complex social elaborations like pair-bonds, and biparental and allo-parental care, probably evolved later.
Full text 2,666 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Explaining the evolution of primate social organization has been fundamental to understand human sociality and social evolution more broadly. It has often been suggested that the ancestor of all primates was solitary and that other forms of social organization evolved later. However, previous research included the assumption that many understudied primate species were solitary, then finding transitions to more complex social systems being driven by various life history traits and ecological factors. Here we show that when intra-specific variation is accounted for, the ancestral social organization of primates was variable, with the most common social organization being pair-living but with approximatively 15-20% of social units of the ancestral population deviating from this pattern by being solitary living. We built a detailed database from primary field studies quantifying the number of individuals (social units) expressing different social organizations in each population. We used Bayesian phylogenetic models to infer the probability of each social organization, conditional on several socio-ecological predictors, in ancestral populations. Body size and activity patterns had large effects on transitions between types of social organizations. Our results challenge the assumption that ancestral primates were solitary and that pair-living evolved afterwards. Moreover, our results emphasize the importance of focusing on field data and accounting for intra-specific variation. Pair-living is evolutionary ancient, likely caused by reproductive benefits such as access to partners and reduced intra-sexual competition, with more complex social structure (pair-bonding) and care systems (biparental and allo-parental care) evolving later. Significance Statement Was the ancestor of all primates a solitary-living species? Did more social forms of primate societies evolve from this basic and simple society? The dogma has been that the answer is yes. We used a modern statistical analysis, including variations within species, to show that the ancestral primate social organization was most likely variable. Most lived in pairs, and only 15-20% of individuals were solitary. Living in pairs was likely ancient and caused by reproductive benefits, like access to partners and reduced competition with the sexes. More complex social elaborations like pair-bonds, and biparental and allo-parental care, probably evolved later. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes ↵† shared first authorship ↵‡ shared last authorship https://github.com/CharlotteAnaisOLIVIER/Social-organization-of-primates.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00