Unpublished comparative dataset used in:
Nunn, C.L., J.L. Gittleman, J. Antonovics (2000) Promiscuity and the primate immune system. Science 290: 1168-1170.

Species name Group Size Population Density Percent Terrestrial Terrestriality Codes
Alouatta caraya 7.3 159   0
Aotus trivirgatus 3.4 29.7   0
Ateles fusciceps       0
Ateles geoffroyi 52.3 14.4   0
Callicebus donacophilus 3.7 31.3   0
Callimico goeldii 7.6     0
Callithrix jacchus 8.6 1030   0
Cebuella pygmaea 7.9 37.5 0 0
Cebus apella 15.1 22.9   0
Cercocebus torquatus 23.2 52.2 70 1
Cercopithecus diana 21.1 47.3 0 0
Cercopithecus mitis 16.9 108 0 0
Cercopithecus neglectus 6.7 112 25 1
Colobus angolensis 11.7 67.8   0
Colobus guereza 8.9 209   0
Erythrocebus patas 31 0.7 60 2
Eulemur fulvus 8.2 705 0 0
Eulemur macaco 10 129   0
Eulemur mongoz 3.1   0 0
Gorilla gorilla 15.8 1   1
Hylobates lar 3.8 8.3 0 0
Hylobates syndactylus 4 1.4   0
Lemur catta 15.9 168 25 1
Leontopithecus chrysomelas 6.6     0
Leontopithecus rosalia 5.3     0
Macaca fuscata 55.4 31.5   1
Macaca nigra 22.1 24.9 60 1
Macaca silenus 18.1   0 0
Mandrillus sphinx 84     1
Miopithecus talapoin 92.5 71.3 5 0
Nycticebus coucang   20   0
Pan troglodytes 49.2 3.5 50 1
Papio sp. 62.5 20.8 90 2
Pithecia pithecia 3.9 3.6   0
Pongo pygmaeus 1.8 3.1 5 0
Propithecus verreauxi 6.6 130 5 0
Saguinus imperator 3.3 8.3   0
Saguinus midas 4.7 32.9   0
Saguinus oedipus 5.3 35.8   0
Saimiri sciureus 43.1 86.7   0
Varecia variegata 8.3 175   0
WBC counts are available from ISIS (International Species Information System, 1999). Blank cells indicate that no information is available for that species.  Terrestriality codes:  0=arboreal, 1=terrestrial in generally wooded habitat, 2=terrestrial in open (savanna) habitat. Information on other social, ecological and mating variables can be obtained from secondary sources cited in the published paper (Nunn et al. 2000). Raw data on population density were particularly variable, but use of values from secondary sources provided similar results. Because we used a three-part classification of mating partner number (van Schaik et al. 1999), we conservatively used only those primate species with accurate information to ensure calculation of reliable contrasts. Thus, we did not apply a value found in one species to its congeners, as variation is common within genera (e.g. Cercopithecus spp., Macaca spp.). We also excluded Pithecia pithecia from the analysis because little is known about its mating habits in the wild (it was classified as 1+ mates in van Schaik et al. 1999, whereas other sources listed it as monogamous), and contrasts involving this species are less reliable due to phylogenetic uncertainty in that portion of the tree. Moreover, information on combined WBC counts and mating behavior were available for an uneven number of New World monkeys; to avoid calculating contrasts across major primate radiations, for which grade shifts in WBC counts exist, therefore required us to eliminate one species from this clade. Information on female WBC counts was available for three gibbons (Hylobates spp.), but information on mating behavior was provided for the genus rather than individual species. We therefore used only one gibbon species, choosing the one with the median female WBC count (Hylobates lar). We also performed analyses using combined male and female WBC values from the ISIS dataset. Such analyses confound the effect of sex and age but provide more contrasts and similar results. These results, and other phylogenetic analyses, will be presented elsewhere.

Back to Comparative Data