While there is no consensus about the definition of complexity, it is widely accepted that the ability to produce uncertainty is the most prominent characteristic of complex systems. We introduce new metrics that purport to quantify the complexity of living organisms and social organizations based on their levels of uncertainty. We consider three major dimensions regarding complexity: diversity based on the number of system elements and the number of categories of these elements; flexibility which bears upon variations in the elements; and combinability which refers to the patterns of connection between elements. These three dimensions are quantified using Shannon's uncertainty formula, and they can be integrated to provide a tripartite complexity index. We provide a calculation example that illustrates the use of these indices for comparing the complexity of different social systems. These indices distinguish themselves by a theoretical basis grounded on the amount of uncertainty, and the requirement that several aspects of the systems be accounted for to compare their degree of complexity. We expect that these new complexity indices will encourage research programmes aiming to compare the complexity levels of systems belonging to different realms.

The evolutionary study of social systems in non-human primates has long been focused on ecological determinants. The predictive value of socio-ecological models remains quite low, however, in particular because such equilibrium models cannot integrate the course of history. The use of phylogenetic methods indicates that many patterns of primate societies have been conserved throughout evolutionary history. For example, the study of social relations in macaques revealed that their social systems are made of sets of correlated behavioural traits. Some macaque species are portrayed by marked social intolerance, a steep dominance gradient and strong nepotism, whereas others display a higher level of social tolerance, relaxed dominance and a weaker influence of kinship. Linkages between behavioural traits occur at different levels of organization, and act as constraints that limit evolutionary responses to external pressures. Whereas these constraints can exert strong stabilizing selection that opposes the potential changes required by the ecological environment, selective mechanisms may have the potential to switch the whole social system from one state to another by acting primarily on some key behavioural traits that could work as pacemakers.

Comparative study of the social systems of macaques has revealed correlated variations between species in multiple social traits such as the asymmetry of dominance relationships, preferential treatment of kin, patterns of aggression and reconciliation, modes of socialization, and access to food resources. Macaques can be classified on a scale of four categories of social styles, ranging from the least to the most tolerant species. This led to the development of the covariation framework, which addresses the constraints responsible for the linkages between social traits, and their consequences on the evolution of primate social systems. Decades of research have provided a wealth of information that supports, complements, expands, or challenges the covariation framework. In this article, I review this body of knowledge and consider covariation in its two aspects, that is, as a pattern and as a hypothesis. I first consider the extent to which social styles can be invariant, the strength of correlations between traits, and the possible extension of the framework to nonhuman primates other than macaques. I then discuss how to formulate hypotheses, identify sources of linkage between traits, make predictions about the effects of social constraints, assess the tolerance dimension of social styles, and consider the breaking of linkages between traits. Whereas socioecological studies aim to understand how adaptation to the ecological environment determines the shape of social systems, the covariation framework is a complementary research program that seeks to unravel the internal processes that restrict or channel change in social behavior.

We tested the social complexity hypothesis which posits that animals living in complex social environments should use complex communication systems. We focused on two components of vocal complexity: diversity (number of categories of calls) and flexibility (degree of gradation between categories of calls). We compared the acoustic structure of vocal signals in groups of macaques belonging to four species with varying levels of uncertainty (i.e. complexity) in social tolerance (the higher the degree of tolerance, the higher the degree of uncertainty): two intolerant species, Japanese and rhesus macaques, and two tolerant species, Tonkean and crested macaques. We recorded the vocalizations emitted by adult females in affiliative, agonistic and neutral contexts. We analysed several acoustic variables: call duration, entropy, time and frequency energy quantiles. The results showed that tolerant macaques displayed higher levels of vocal diversity and flexibility than intolerant macaques in situations with a greater number of options and consequences, i.e. in agonistic and affiliative contexts. We found no significant differences between tolerant and intolerant macaques in the neutral context where individuals are not directly involved in social interaction. This shows that species experiencing more uncertain social interactions displayed greater vocal diversity and flexibility, which supports the social complexity hypothesis.

It was long assumed that only humans can distinguish the living from the dead. Renewed interest in this question over the last decade has led several authors to assert that non-human primates are also aware of death. We investigate this issue by comparing the behaviours of monkeys and great apes toward helpless conspecifics, basing our analysis on published reports. We first examine the behaviours of mothers towards the body of their dead offspring. They may carry the corpse for days or more before abandoning it. They groom, inspect and protect it, sometimes allowing group members to explore it, and rare cases of cannibalism have been reported. No significant difference is observed in the way that monkeys and great apes treat the bodies of infants. We then examine responses to collapsed (still able to move and react) and inanimate (unresponsive or dead) conspecifics. Monkeys and great apes guard, care for and inspect their helpless partners, and also manipulate and mobilise them. Through these actions, individuals may inform themselves about the state of their partners, test their responsiveness and/or attempt to rouse them. It appears that only chimpanzees and gorillas show violent action such as display behaviours and the rough treatment of bodies. They can also make distress calls, and periods of “stunned silence” sometimes occur in chimpanzees, indicating that they are experiencing intense emotion. Finally, we argue that while both monkeys and great apes detect body dysfunction through the victims’ inability to wake up and move, only great apes can understand that something serious has happened. The signs of emotional disturbance reported in them indicate that they may believe that inanimate conspecifics have entered a state of “dormancy”, meaning that they are unlikely to regain wakefulness. However, there is no evidence that any non-human primates are aware of mortality.