Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42503153›Full record

ArticlePrimates; journal of primatology2026

Post-mortem infant-directed behaviours in wild Guinea baboons.

Anaïs Avilés de Diego, Federica Dal Pesco, Julia Fischer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Primates; journal of primatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anaïs Avilés de DiegoDepartment for Primate Cognition, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany. anais.aviles87@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5159-2470
Federica Dal PescoDepartment for Primate Cognition, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2326-1185
Julia FischerDepartment for Primate Cognition, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5807-0074

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing field of comparative thanatology aims to shed light on how and why the understanding of death evolved. Observations across different nonhuman primate species have reported care-taking behaviour toward dead infants, but also cannibalism. Various hypotheses have been put forward to explain these behaviours, ranging from responses to infantile cues to an understanding of death. To aid comparative analyses and future tests of these hypotheses, we report behaviours toward dead infants in a wild population of Guinea baboons (Papio papio) living in the Niokolo-Koba National Park, Senegal. During 12 years of field observations (2014-2025), we recorded 64 infant deaths within the first year of life. In 22 of these cases, mothers, but occasionally also other group members, carried, protected, groomed, and dragged dead infants. In 6 cases, cannibalism occurred. None of the mothers expressed any signs of emotional distress in response to infant death. We suggest that no concept of death in Guinea baboons needs to be invoked to explain the observed behaviours. Instead, post-mortem caretaking behaviours can be viewed as the by-product of selection for infant care, which includes not abandoning an infant that might temporarily be unresponsive. The lack of infant responses to maternal behaviour, together with the disintegration of the corpse, may drive a shift from perceiving the infants as an object that elicits caretaking to one that is either abandoned or, in some cases, comes to resemble food, ultimately facilitating cannibalism.

Indexed as

Dead infantMother-infant bondPapio papioPost-mortem behavioursThanatology

Identifiers

PMID42503153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.