Primatology.net

A new gibbon species have been discovered by researchers, led by Christian Roos, from the German Primate Center (Deutschen Primatenzentrums) and was published on Vietnamese Journal of Primatology. The northern buffed-cheeked gibbons (Nomascus annamensis) live in the rainforests of Annamite Mountains, situated around Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The northern buffed-cheeked gibbons were once thought to be the yellow-cheeked gibbons (Nomascus gabriellae) but vocalization and genetic research prove that both are distinct species.

“The discovery of a new species of ape is a minor sensation”, Christian Roos warns. All crested gibbons (genus Nomascus) are either endangered or critically endangered with Hainan black crested gibbons (Nomascus nasutus hainanus) the most critically endangered, totaling to only 20 individuals. The sharp decline of Hylobatids can be contributed to illegal hunting and loss of habitat. “Knowledge of their biology and exact distributions is essential for effectively protecting the animals. Only if we know where which species is found and how many individuals there are can we start with serious conservation actions”, Roos adds.

Gibbons are mostly monogamous, pair-bonding primates that are strongly territorial. These vocal displays or songs, usually a duet between a mated pair and sometimes their offspring, can be heard from as far as 1km away. Gibbon songs are territorial displays, perhaps if a gibbon can hear another gibbon sing then it is  encroaching a mated pair territory. Oh, in case you are wondering, gibbons do not have tails (they are apes).

For more about this discovery:
New ape species uncovered in Asia on Mongabay.com
New gibbon species discovered in Indochina on Informationsdienst Wissenschaft

Thinh, VN. Mootnick, AR. Thanh, VN. Nadler, T. Roos, C. A new species of crested gibbon, from the central Annamite mountain range. Vietnamese Journal of Primatology 1(4), 2010, 1-12.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

An adult Caquetá titi monkey (Callicebus caquetensis)

A new species of titi monkey has been discovered in a Colombian Amazon expedition. Caquetá titi monkey or Callicebus caquetensis is about the size of a domestic cat with a bushy red beard. Totaling to only about 250 individuals, this newly discovered species is also critically endangered due to severe fragmentation of its habitat.

Along with the news of the discovery is the published paper by Defler et al. (2010), Callicebus caquetensis: A New and Critically Endangered Titi Monkey from Southern Caquetá, Colombia (free pdf). In it, they described the morphology and distribution of the Callicebus caquetensis.

An adult Caquetá titi monkey (Callicebus caquetensis)

For more about the discovery, read Pictures: Bushy-Bearded Titi Monkey Discovered on National Geographic.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

After reading an article from Psychology Today by Hal Herzog, it got me thinking about the idea of pet-keeping. The article ”Are Humans The Only Animals That Keep Pets?“, claims that humans are the only animal that keeps members of other species for an extended point of time purely for enjoyment. Herzog points out that while some animals are documented having pets, this behavior almost always happen in captive or semi-captive environment where food and shelter are provided. The author believes that humans are “true” pet owners because the owner-pet relationship occurs in a natural setting and argues that animal pet owners are not “true” pet owners because they do so in captive or semi-captive settings. Thus, Herzog believes that humans are the only animals that keep pets.

Cited in the article is a paper by Izar et al. (2006), on cross-genus adoption of a marmoset by wild capuchin monkeys (link to the paper is below on References). While the paper specifically refers to the behavior as an adoption, Herzog and paper co-author Dorothy Fragaszy think that there is a parallel between the capuchin-marmoset adoption and pet-keeping in humans. However, these capuchins live in a site where food are provided daily. So, Despite the similarities, these capuchins are not “true” pet owners according to Herzog’s definition of pet-keeping,

What is a pet and how would you define one? Herzog (2010) defines a pet as a member of other species that are being kept for an extended period of time for enjoyment. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of a pet is “a domesticated animal kept for pleasure rather than utility”. The definition of a pet in Oxford English Dictionary is “a domestic or tamed animal or bird kept for companionship or pleasure and treated with care and affection”. Dr. James Serpell defines pet-keeping as a leisure activity but not necessarily without function, much like there are function in play or other recreational pursuits (Serpell, 1990). He thinks that pet-keeping is functional in a broad sense but not easily evaluable in economic terms.

References:

Herzog, H. 2010. Are Humans The Only Animals That Keep Pets? Retrieved July 1, 2010 http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201006/are-humans-the-only-animals-keep-pets

Izar, P. Verderane, MP. Visalberghi E. Ottoni, E. De Oliveira, MG. Shirley, J. Fragaszy, D. 2006. Cross-Genus Adoption of a Marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) by Wild Capuchin Monkeys (Cebus libidinosus): Case Report. American Journal of Primatology 68:692-700. Retrieved July 1, 2010 http://psychology.uga.edu/primate/pub/Cross-genus%20adoption%20AJP%2068,%20692-700%202006.pdf

Serpell, JA. 1990. Pet-keeping and Animal Domestication: A reappraisal. In The Walking Larder. Clutton-Brock, J, ed. Pp. 10-21. Massachusetts: Unwin Hyman Inc. Retrieved July 1, 2010 http://research.vet.upenn.edu/Portals/36/media/Serpell_pet_keeping_domestication.pdf

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

BBC’s Meeting the world’s smallest primate (click link for the site and video), is being criticized for its inaccurate information.  Made as an educational piece to show that the animal’s popularity with tourists is affecting the animals’ welfare, poor research and possibly bad editing culminated in some errors. While these errors are minute, they affect the overall educational purpose of this video.

The show’s host referred to Philippines tarsiers (Tarsius syrichta) as marsupials. T. syrichta (and all tarsiers for that matter) do not have marsupium, the hallmark of marsupials. Tarsiers are primates, grouped in the suborder of Haplorrhini. Tarsier offspring are born precocial, while marsupial offspring (joey) are born altricial.

Precocial offspring are relatively mature and mobile after birth. There is a distinct slowing down in brain growth relative to body growth at around time of birth. Altricial offspring on the other hand are born helpless. Their brain growth declines during the developmental stage instead of around the time of birth. Human babies are unique within primates because they are born “secondarily altricial” (Martin, 2007). While human offspring are born helpless, their brain growth relative to body growth continues for about a year before slowing down. Calling tarsiers marsupials is just rude (don’t we all want to be primates?).

The claim that Philippines tarsiers is the smallest primate is also false. The title for the smallest primate actually goes to Berthe’s mouse lemur (Microcebus berthae) (Dammhahn & Kappeler, 2005).

Male Philippines tarsiers weigh 119-153 g (4.2-5.4 oz) and females weigh 110-132 g (3.9-4.7 oz) (Gron, 2008). Philippines tarsiers exhibit sexual dimorphism, where males are slightly heavier than females. Berthe’s mouse lemur weigh 30.6 g (1.1 oz) for both males and females (Gron, 2009). Clearly, Philippines tarsiers weigh more than Berthe’s mouse lemur.


Philippines tarsiers have a  head and body length of 11.7-12.7 cm (4.6-5.0 in) for both males and females (Gron, 2008). Berthe’s mouse lemur have a head and body length of 9.2 cm (3.6 in) for both males and females (Gron, 2009). Clearly, Philippines tarsiers is longer in size than Berthe’s mouse lemur.


Also read Bonn Aure’s BBC’s Faulty Tarsier Video on Time Travelling for his take on this video.

References:

Dammhahn, M. Kappeler, PM. 2005. Social System of Microcebus berthae , the World’s Smallest Primate. International Journal of Primatology 407-435. Retrieved May 08, 2010 http://www.springerlink.com/content/u6u4372474318166/

Gron, K. 2008. Primate Factsheets: Tarsier (Tarsius). Primate Info Net Retrieved May 08, 2010 http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/tarsier

Gron, K. 2009. Primate Factsheets: Mouse lemur (Microcebus). Primate Info Net Retrieved May 08, 2010 http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/mouse_lemur

Martin, RD. 2007. The evolution of human reproduction: a primatological perspective. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45:59-84. Retrieved May 08, 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=PureSearch&db=pubmed&term=18046752[UID]

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

The concept of “family” and relatedness are prevalent in the animal kingdom. Individuals seem to be able to tell if they are related to one another, probably in effort to avoid incest breeding (to increase fitness). While “phenotype matching” is proposed to be one of the kin recognition mechanism between animals to assess their relatedness, “phenotype matching” using olfactory cues (body odor) have been poorly investigated and tested in anthropoids.

Célérier et al. (2010) uses mice to assess the relatedness of chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) through olfactory cues. But, why mice you asked?

Human noses are often quite weak compared with the rest of the animal kingdom, making it hard for us to find out if baboons can be told apart by smell. Researchers therefore decided to draft much better noses — those of mice. The researchers swabbed the armpits and groins of wild chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) from two different troops of the primates in Namibia. They next tested 24 adult male Swiss mice to scents from 14 adult female baboons. They chose female baboons partly because “some male mice were peeing on male baboon odors as if they were in competition,” said researcher Aurélie Célérier, a behavioral biologist at the CNRS and the University of Montpellier II, France.

Their research shows that mice can detect odor differences between individuals of the same sex and age class in another mammal species, and that the mice can perceive a higher similarity between baboons that are related than baboons that are unrelated. These results show that olfactory cues may play a role assessing the degree of relatedness in among individual baboons. Detective mice assess relatedness in baboons using olfactory cues by Célérier et al. (2010) was published on The Journal of Experimental Biology. Also read Detective Mice Help Scientists Study Baboons by Charles Q. Choi on LiveScience.

Anyone has access to this article, by any chance?

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

The “discovery” of this new fossil primate species, thought to be more than 11 million years old, is as interesting as how it was found. Quoting from EurekAlert, a jaw bone of this newly discovered fossil primate species was found in a rubbish dump in Catalonia, Spain. Yes, you read that right … rubbish dump! First of all, out of curiosity , who throws out a fossil. Secondly, I want to know how this fossil was “found”. Although I do have a suspicion that the fossil was not thrown out but was just coincidentally dug up in a rubbish dump. Who knows … Maybe it’s just another lost in translation scenario.

Now back to the fossil. It seems that from the molars and lower jaw, the fossil belongs to the genus Pliopithecus, an extinct family of primitive Catarrhines (Old World Monkeys). This new species was named Pliopithecus canmatensis in honor of the rubbish dump it was found (the rubbish dump of Can Mata in the Vallès-Penedès basin of Catalonia, Spain). At a glance, the dental formula on the lower jaw seems consistent with those of Catarrhines, 2:1:2:3.

“Based on the anatomical, palaeobiographical and biostratigraphic information available, the most probable evolutionary scenario for this group is that the Pliopithecoidea were the first Catarrhini to disperse from Africa to Eurasia, where they experienced an evolutionary radiation in a continent initially deserted of other anthropoids (apes)”, David Alba, main author of the study and researcher at the Catalan Institute for Palaeontology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), explains to SINC.

- EurekAlert, Discovery of a primate more than 11 million years old.

The analysis of this fossil, A new species of Pliopithecus Gervais, 1849 (Primates: Pliopithecidae) from the Middle Miocene (MN8) of Abocador de Can Mata (els Hostalets de Pierola, Catalonia, Spain), was published on American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

The saying “You can’t judge a book by its cover” can sometimes be applied to primate mating system and social system. Primate social systems sometimes differ from mating systems, as evidenced by reports of field observation (although sometimes first-hand field observations mistakenly report and link primate social systems to mating systems). For example, geladas (Theropithecus gelada) can be observed forming multimale-multifemale social groups (herd) as they graze nonchalantly up in the highlands of Ethiopia but when it comes to mating system, geladas mate in a OMU (one-male unit) where one male mates with multiple females of the unit (Gron, 2008). Primate mating systems can be approached in two different point of views: male coercion or female choice. The latter has been the focus of most primatologists in recent years. The Mating System of the Sichuan Snub-Nosed Monkey (Rhinopithecus roxellana), by Guo et al. (2010) on the current issue (Vol 72:1) of American Journal of Primatology is a paper that examines female choice (female mating strategy) in the mating system of Sichuan snub-nosed monkey (specifically the Qinling subspecies) population in the Qinling Mountains, China. I have the pdf. for the paper if anyone wants to read it.

R. roxellana basic unit consist of a OMU, which consist of one male and about eight females. They are arboreal herbivores; living in temperate, mountainous forests in China (Gron, 2007). Males and females exhibit sexual dimorphism, where males are heavier and bigger than females (Gron, 2007). Qinling Golden snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana qinlingensis) are considered a subspecies of Sichuan snub-nosed monkeys or Golden snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana) by Wilson and Reeder’s Mammal Species of the World. R. r. qinlingensis can be differentiated from the other subspecies by its brilliant golden pelage.

Thought to be of polygynous mating system (one male-multifemale), most of the Sichuan snub-nosed monkeys from Qinling Mountains population were observed in a polygamous mating system (multimale-multifemale) instead. About 18% of the females from this population were observed copulating with males outside of the unit (extra-unit males), in which the researchers call the “extra-unit mating behavior”. This behavior was observed from field site by the researchers. Paternal DNA done on the population shows that more than 50% of the offspring were sired by extra-unit males. 94.5% of copulation with extra unit males were initiated by females.

Three theories were proposed to explain the evolutionary purpose of extra-unit mating behavior: infanticide avoidance, inbreeding avoidance and gaining access to resources. However, Guo et al. (2010) posit that mating with extra-unit males in R. roxellana qinlingensis is adaptive and were probably due to infanticide avoidance. In five years of continuous study, there were no observation of infanticide or aggressive behavior of resident males towards immature individuals which includes those not sired by the resident males. Inbreeding avoidance is most probably not the reason why females copulate with extra-unit males although the researchers lack data to posit that females gain access to resources if they copulate with extra-unit males.

References:

Ethnoprimatology is defined as the approach that draws from primate socioecology, ethnoecology/environmental anthropology, and conservation biology. This approach enable us to see the multifaceted interaction between humans and nonhuman primates in a dynamic ecosystem. It seems to be something I would like to do and learn more. What’s a better way to incorporate the fundamentals of cultural anthropology and biological anthropology.

An ethnoprimatology paper by Riley and Priston (2010) on the American Journal of Primatology, Macaques in farms and folklore: exploring the human-nonhuman primate interface in Sulawesi, Indonesia (free abstract) explores the complex interaction between macaques and humans through overlapping resource use and cultural perceptions of macaques. If you do not have access to the paper, I can send you a copy of the pdf.

Macaca tonkeana, one of the endemic macaque species of Sulawesi. Photo from Wikipedia.

There are six species of macaques endemic to the island of Sulawesi. Macaca nigra, Macaca nigrescens, Macaca maura, Macaca tonkeana, Macaca hecki and Macaca ochreata. Despite constant crop raiding by macaques, farmers in Sulawesi show considerable tolerance to this behavior. This tolerance can be explained by a positive reinforcement in the farmer’s local culture, folklore and religion. Two types of farming subsistence exists in Sulawesi: dryland crops and wet-rice agriculture.

Macaca nigra, one of the endemic macaque species of Sulawesi. Photo from Wikipedia.

Most dryland crops farmers are Muslim. They abstain from killing and/or eating these macaques (which Balinese Hindus would have no problem doing) as it is considered haram. In the Lindu highlands, the macaques are considered kin by the To Lindu people. In Buton, certain places in the forest are considered sacred, thus these places are protected by the locals. Macaques and other animals benefits from this protection, making these pockets of forest their refuge.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

The IUCN Red List has a Species of the Day feature that highlights species that are threatened of different taxa. Everyday, a species is showcased along with information about the threats they are facing.

Species of the Day for March 3, 2010 is a primate name Kipunji (Rungwecebus kipunji). Kipunji are endemic to Tanzania and was first discovered in 2003. For more about Kipunji, also read The Kipunji Might Have Interbred Baboons.

If you have a Twitter account, follow them at @SpeciesOfTheDay. For more information, go to the IUCN Red List website, http://www.iucnredlist.org

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

Laelaps has an interesting post on friendship in male and female baboons. Check out the post, “You just call out my name…”: Friendships in Male and Female Baboons. Insightful hypotheses explaining the friendship between male and female baboon. Would love to read more papers and data on this.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.