For a decade, technological or natural networks have appeared to have a common mathematical architecture. This type of architecture has a node connectivity which follows a power law distribution. This architecture confers to these networks a resistance property to the loss of nodes. Such properties are advantageous for evolutional networks through time. Thus, this architecture can be expected in animal social networks. Another characteristic commonly met concerns the structuration of the network into communities by the mechanism of assortative mixing by vertex degree (i.e. by the number of ties individuals have). Such a structure is a reflection of evolutional mechanisms: the preferential attachment and the triadic closure processes. Using recent analytical techniques on an affiliative social network in a non-human primate species (Macaca sylvanus), we analysed the mathematical architecture and its properties. We demonstrate that in spite of the use of a recent protocol supposed to permit this type of analysis, the type of distribution cannot be clearly determined, encouraging us to carefully interpret the results obtained until then. Nevertheless, we observed interesting properties of the network at an ecological and evolutional level with network resilience that allows a cohesive society to be maintained even when faced with a catastrophe (high predation, epidemic).

1.
Adamic LA, Huberman BA (2000). Power-law distribution of the World Wide Web. Science 287: 2115-2115.
2.
Banks DL, Carley KM (1996). Models for network evolution. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 21: 173-196.
3.
Barabási A-L, Albert R (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286: 509-512.
4.
Brent LJN, Lehmann J, Ramos-Fernández G (2011). Social network analysis in the study of nonhuman primates: a historical perspective. American Journal of Primatology 73: 720-730.
5.
Chase ID, Bartolomeo C, Dugatkin LA (1994). Aggressive interactions and inter-contest interval: how long do winners keep winning? Animal Behaviour 48: 393-400.
6.
Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman ME (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review 51: 661-703.
7.
Croft D, James R, Thomas POR, Hathaway C, Mawdsley D, Laland K, Krause J (2006). Social structure and co-operative interactions in a wild population of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 59: 644-650.
8.
Croft D, James R, Ward A, Botham M, Mawdsley D, Krause J (2005). Assortative interactions and social networks in fish. Oecologia 143: 211-219.
9.
Croft DP, James R, Krause J (2010). Exploring Animal Social Networks. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
10.
Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. Interjournal Complex Systems 1695: 38.
11.
Davidsen J, Ebel H, Bornholdt S (2002). Emergence of a small world from local interactions: modeling acquaintance networks. Physical Review Letters 88: 128701.
12.
De Turckheim G, Merz E (1984). Breeding Barbary Macaques in Outdoor Open Enclosures. New York, Plenum Press.
13.
De Waal F (1997). The chimpanzee's service economy: food for grooming. Evolution and Human Behavior 18: 375-386.
14.
Fenner T, Levene M, Loizou G (2005). A stochastic evolutionary model exhibiting power-law behaviour with an exponential cutoff. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 355: 641-656.
15.
Flack JC, Girvan M, De Waal FB, Krakauer DC (2006). Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates. Nature 439: 426-429.
16.
Granovetter MS (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360-1380.
17.
Heuser T (2009). Whatisee 2.0. Louisville, H3Apps.
18.
Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996). R: a language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5: 299-314.
19.
Jacobs A, Petit O (2011). Social network modeling: a powerful tool for the study of group scale phenomena in primates. American Journal of Primatology 73: 741-747.
20.
James R, Croft DP, Krause J (2009). Potential banana skins in animal social network analysis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63: 989-997.
21.
Jeong H, Tombor B, Albert R, Oltvai ZN, Barabási A-L (2000). The large-scale organization of metabolic networks. Nature 407: 651-654.
22.
Kanngiesser P, Sueur C, Riedl K, Grossmann J, Call J (2011). Grooming network cohesion and the role of individuals in a captive chimpanzee group. American Journal of Primatology 73: 758-767.
23.
Kasper C, Voelkl B (2009). A social network analysis of primate groups. Primates 50: 343-356.
24.
Lawrence S, Giles CL (1999). Searching the web: general and scientific information access. Internet Technologies and Services 1999, Proceedings First IEEE/Popov Workshop, Moscow, pp 18-31.
25.
Lusseau D (2003). The emergent properties of a dolphin social network. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 270: S186-S188.
26.
Lusseau D, Newman MEJ (2004). Identifying the role that animals play in their social networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 271: S477-S481.
27.
Lusseau D, Wilson B, Hammond PS, Grellier K, Durban JW, Parsons KM, Barton TR, Thompson PM (2006). Quantifying the influence of sociality on population structure in bottlenose dolphins. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 14-24.
28.
Manno TG (2008). Social networking in the Colombian ground squirrel, Spermophilus columbianus. Animal Behaviour 75: 1221-1228.
29.
Milgram S (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today 2: 60-67.
30.
Newman ME (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98: 404-409.
31.
Newman ME (2002). Assortative mixing in networks. Physical Review Letters 89: 208701.
32.
Newman ME (2003). Mixing patterns in networks. Physical Review E 67: 026126.
33.
Opsahl T (2009). Structure and Evolution of Weighted Networks. London, Queen Mary University of London.
34.
Piraveenan MR (2010). Topological Analysis of Complex Networks Using Assortativity. Dissertation, School of Information Technologies, University of Sydney.
35.
Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Owen-Smith J (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 110: 1132-1205.
36.
Ramos-Fernández G, Boyer D, Aureli F, Vick L (2009). Association networks in spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63: 999-1013.
37.
Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (1984). Grooming, alliances and reciprocal altruism in vervet monkeys. Nature 308: 541-543.
38.
SPSS (2008). SPSS 17 statistics for Windows. Chicago, SPSS Inc.
39.
Sueur C, Jacobs A, Amblard F, Petit O, King AJ (2011). How can social network analysis improve the study of primate behavior? American Journal of Primatology 73: 703-719.
40.
Sueur C, King A, Pelé M, Petit O (2012). Fast and accurate decisions as a result of scale-free network properties in two primate species. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Complex Systems 2012 (Gilbert T, Kirkilionis M, Nicolis G, eds.), pp 579-584. Cham, Springer International Publishing.
41.
Thierry B, Iwaniuk AN, Pellis SM (2000). The influence of phylogeny on the social behaviour of macaques (Primates: Cercopithecidae, genus Macaca). Ethology 106: 713-728.
42.
Thierry B, Singh M, Kaumanns W (2004). Macaque Societies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
43.
Voelkl B, Kasper C, Schwab C (2011). Network measures for dyadic interactions: stability and reliability. American Journal of Primatology 73: 731-740.
44.
Waal FM, Roosmalen A (1979). Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 5: 55-66.
45.
Wey T, Blumstein DT, Shen W, Jordán F (2008). Social network analysis of animal behaviour: a promising tool for the study of sociality. Animal Behaviour 75: 333-344.
46.
Wey TW, Blumstein DT (2010). Social cohesion in yellow-bellied marmots is established through age and kin structuring. Animal Behaviour 79: 1343-1352.
47.
Wolf JBW, Mawdsley D, Trillmich F, James R (2007). Social structure in a colonial mammal: unravelling hidden structural layers and their foundations by network analysis. Animal Behaviour 74: 1293-1302.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.