Search

Darwin observed that form, and in his view, meaning, of facial behaviour (observable changes in the appearance of the face, often termed facial ‘expression’) is similar between a wide range of species and concluded that this must be due to a shared ancestral origin. Yet, as with all social behaviours, exactly how to define similarity and determine homology is debated. Facial behaviour is linked to specific facial muscle movements, so one important factor in determining homology is the anatomical basis of facial behaviours that appear similar in both appearance and social function. The Facial Action Coding System (FACS) was developed for the scientific measurement of human facial behaviour and is based on individual facial muscle movements (Ekman and Friesen, 1978). FACS has since been modified for use with various non-human primate species (chimpanzees, macaques, hylobatids, orangutans) and domestic species (dogs, cats, horses). These FACS can be used to trace continuity of form in facial behaviour across species and build a better understanding of the evolution of facial communication in mammals.

Objectives - While it has been demonstrated that even subtle variation in human facial expressions can lead to significant changes in the meaning and function of expressions, relatively few studies have examined primate facial expressions using similarly objective and rigorous analysis. Construction of primate facial expression repertoires may, therefore, be oversimplified, with expressions often arbitrarily pooled and/or split into subjective pigeonholes. Our objective is to assess whether subtle variation in primate facial expressions is linked to variation in function, and hence to inform future attempts to quantify complexity of facial communication.Materials and Methods - We used Macaque Facial Action Coding System, an anatomically based and hence more objective tool, to quantify “silent bared‐teeth” (SBT) expressions produced by wild crested macaques engaging in spontaneous behavior, and utilized discriminant analysis and bootstrapping analysis to look for morphological differences between SBT produced in four different contexts, defined by the outcome of interactions: Affiliation, Copulation, Play, and Submission.Results - We found that SBT produced in these contexts could be distinguished at significantly above‐chance rates, indicating that the expressions produced in these four contexts differ morphologically. We identified the specific facial movements that were typically used in each context, and found that the variability and intensity of facial movements also varied between contexts.Discussion - These results indicate that nonhuman primate facial expressions share the human characteristic of exhibiting meaningful subtle differences. Complexity of facial communication may not be accurately represented simply by building repertoires of distinct expressions, so further work should attempt to take this subtle variability into account.

Ants are known to use the terrestrial visual panorama in navigation. Recent evidence has accumulated for the use of the currently perceived visual panorama to determine a direction to head in. The pattern of the height of the terrestrial surround, the skyline, is one key cue for the Central Australian red honey ant Melophorus bagoti in determining a direction of travel. But ants might also possess some mechanism to match the skyline heights encountered during training, which functions to steer away from regions whose skyline is too high and towards regions whose skyline is too low. We made an initial test of this hypothesis by training ants to visit a feeder centred between two experimentally constructed walls of black cloth. Trained ants were then tested for their initial homing direction with the walls retaining their heights as encountered in training (controls), with one of the walls lowered or raised in height, or with one wall lowered and the opposite wall raised. Wall-height manipulations deflected the initial headings of ants towards the lower wall, with combined wall lowering and wall raising changing the initial headings by ~30° when compared with controls. The results suggest that the ants combined the dictates of the panorama in determining the best direction of travel (a heading towards the nest) with some attractor mechanism that functions to establish the skyline heights of training conditions (a heading towards the lower wall).