Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Comments on Methods and Results

Posted by ACRG on 09 Jan 2008 at 12:58 GMT

Methods:
The authors observed numerous sharing events, thus it does not appear that their data is simply anecdotal and instead reflects a great deal of careful research. But the authors do need to explain how a sharing event was defined. For example, in the supplementary video provided showing sharing (clearly!), would this count as one episode, since this was one instance of a male sharing with a female? Or, would this count as several occurrences since the female reached over and took pieces several times?

Another methodological concern is the lack of reliability in the manuscript, both for sharing events and for RSS rates. Reliability should be performed and reported in the article, if possible.


Results:
We think it would be interesting to analyze the sharing behavior as a function of proximity between individuals, if that data is available. For example, did males tend to spend more time in close proximity to the female who was frequently shared with even when there was no cultivated fruit involved? Data on proximity outside the sharing context could address this issue. Further, did the males share any more with this female when she was in estrous as opposed to not in estrous? This would more directly support the “food for sex” argument.

Also, we are puzzled how, as shown in Table 1, “woody tissue” of papaya could be shared even though there were 0 reported crop-raiding events for this material. Please explain more clearly how raiding and sharing events were defined and related.