Study
Elephants classify human ethnic groups by odor and garment color
Bates, Lucy A.; Sayialel, Katito N.; Njiraini, Norah W.; Moss, Cynthia J.; Poole, Joyce H.; Byrne, Richard W.
Current Biology, 2007
Wild elephant families were presented with clean garments previously worn by Maasai men, who traditionally spear elephants, or by Kamba men, who farm and rarely do. In a separate test, elephants were shown unworn cloth dyed the red associated with Maasai dress.
- Studied in
- Loxodonta africana
- Sample size
- family groups tested in Amboseli National Park
Elephants moved away faster and travelled further from garments carrying Maasai scent than Kamba scent. Red cloth with no scent produced aggression rather than flight.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
Elephants categorise humans into groups presenting different degrees of danger, using scent and colour as separate cues that provoke different responses.
How NatureHQ reads it
The two-cue design is what makes this more than an anecdote about elephants disliking a colour. Smell produced avoidance and colour produced aggression — different responses to different cues about the same category of person, which is difficult to explain as simple learned aversion to a stimulus. It is worth being careful with the word "ethnic": what was tested is discrimination between two groups whose dress, scent and behaviour towards elephants all differ.
- Small number of family groups, as is unavoidable in wild elephant fieldwork.
- Maasai and Kamba differ in more than the cues tested, so the categories are not cleanly separable.
- Cannot distinguish learned association within a lifetime from knowledge acquired socially.
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Published by: Cell PressPublished in a Cell Press journal.
doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.060
This reference was resolved automatically against Crossref and OpenAlex on 2026-08-11.
NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-08-09.