The (mis)use of the term ‘commensalism’ in primatology

This commentary arose from a workshop entitled ‘What works, and what doesn’t work? The challenge of creating effective applied conservation research in human-modified habitats’, held during the joint meeting of the European Federation for Primatology and the Primate Society for Great Britain in Oxford, 2019. One discussion point highlighted the different use of terminology between disciplines as a challenge for effective multidisciplinary conservation research. Growing number of publications have drawn attention to the misuse of the terms such as human-wildlife conflict (Marshall et al. 2007, Peterson et al. 2010, Davidar 2018), crop-raiding (Hill 2017), or ecotourism (McKinney 2017). Here we widen this conversation by reflecting on an additional term regularly used in primatology: commensalism. Here, we will give the different definitions of the term ‘commensal’ used across disciplines and the implications of its misuse. We will then discuss whether this term can be used to categorise human-nonhuman primate (afterward primates) relationships, and conclude by proposing alternative terminology

Aegean monkeys and the importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration in archaeoprimatology: a reply to Urbani and Youlatos

In their reply to our article “A new identification of the monkeys depicted in a Bronze Age wall painting from Akrotiri, Thera” [Primates 61(3), 2019], Urbani and Youlatos (Primates https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-020-00825-2, 2020) argue for the traditional identification of the monkeys depicted on the north and west walls of Room 6 of Building Complex Beta at Akrotiri, Thera, as vervet monkeys (Fig. 1). Their argument is based largely on previous scholarship and their analysis of monkey morphology as it appears in this Bronze Age artwork. Here, after clarifying some misconceptions and misquotations, we thoroughly contextualize the wall painting in question, emphasizing the importance of collaboration between disparate disciplines for a multifaceted and rigorous approach. The nature of the item in question is key in this reply: it is an artwork. Because the artwork in question is a cultural representation of monkeys rather than a study of live primates or preserved specimens, consideration of artistic choice, color conventions, and the agency of the artist, which are important facets of material culture, is important when answering the questions raised by Urbani and Youlatos, and should stimulate further cross-disciplinary discussions