Archive for the ‘Blog’ Category
New snub-nosed monkey from Northern Myanmar: Rhinopithecus strykeri
By Raymond Ho
A team of primatologists supposed discovered a new species of snub-nosed monkey in Northern Myanmar during their Hoolock Gibbon Status Review early this year. The new species was formally named Rhinopithecus strykeri, after the President and Founder of the Arcus Foundation Jon Stryker. The locals do have a name for these snub-nosed monkeys. They call them “mey nwoah” or “monkey with an upturned face”.
This primate reported has an upturned nose which, according to the locals, made them sneeze when it rains. Locals observed that to avoid getting rain water into their nose, R. strykeri would sit with their heads tucked in between their legs. Their pelage is entirely black except for a white tuft on their ears, chin beard and the perineal end. It has a relatively long tail, about 140% of its body. R. strykeri is the first species of the Rhinopithecus genus to be found in Myanmar. The other four species (R. roxellana, R. bieti, R. brelichi and R. avunculus) are found in China and Vietnam. R. strykeri‘s range is limited only to the Maw River area. There are estimated about 260 to 330 individuals of R. strykeri left in the wild, making them Critically Endangered according to IUCN.
Read more at New Snub-Nosed Monkey Discovered in Northern Myanmar.
Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.
Are slow lorises really venomous?
By Raymond Ho
I must say, the idea of venomous primates never crossed my mind. While venomous species do exist in mammals, it is much more common in insects, reptiles and fishes. In primates, slow lorises (genus Nycticebus) are though to be venomous in Thai folklore (Wilde, 1972) but are they really?
Nycticebus
As of 2010, the genus Nycticebus consists of four species: Pygmy slow loris (Nycticebus pygmaeus), Javan slow loris (Nycticebus javanicus), Sunda slow loris (Nycticebus coucang) and Bengal slow loris (Nycticebus bengalensis). The Javan slow loris was previously recognized as a subspecies but has since been elevated to species status. These prosimians are found in different parts of Southeast Asia. Nycticebus range, in red. Illustration from Primate Info Net.
Slow lorises are arboreal primates that move quadrupedally between branches. They are nocturnal and omnivorous, feeding on plant matter and insects. Slow lorises sleep during the day, curled up like a ball in hidden parts of trees above ground. Their predators include pythons (Python reticulatus), hawk-eagles (Spizaetus cirrhatus) and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Slow lorises have a relatively low metabolism compared to similar-sized mammals (Gron, 2009). Sunda slow loris (Nycticebus coucang). Photo from Primate Info Net.
Although the words “venomous” and “poisonous” are used interchangeably in everyday speech, they are actually fundamentally different. By definition, venom has to be injected into the body, introduced by a bite or a sting. Poison, on the other hand, is ingested or inhaled into the body by the victim. Thus, venomous and poisonous animals are altogether different.
The brachial gland produces exudate with an allergen that is similar to the Fel d 1 cat allergen (Hagey et al., 2006; Krane et al., 2003). This brachial gland exudate shares a high degree of similarity in sequence, as well as unusual disulfide-bridged heterodimeric structure similar with Fel d 1. Fel d 1 is an allergen found mostly in saliva and the sebaceous glands (glands found inside the skin) of domestic cats, Felis catus. Humans with a cat allergy are allergic to five known allergen produced by domestic cats, Fel d 1 being one of them. However, the biological function of Fel d 1 is still currently unknown (Grönlund et al., 2010).
So are slow lorises venomous or poisonous?
To answer this, let’s revisit the definitions of venomous and poisonous. A venomous animal injects toxins into its victim’s body by bite or sting. A poisonous animal, on the other hand, produces toxins that are poisonous once inhaled or ingested. Medical literature shows that human – slow loris injuries come from slow loris bites and not from ingesting their toxins. So are slow lorises venomous? Well, not quite.
Slow lorises have needle-like teeth called dental combs or tooth combs on their lower jaw. Paired with the constant licking of the brachial gland, it is not surprising that one would assume the dental comb plays a part in injecting brachial gland exudate into unsuspecting victims (Hagey et al., 2006). However, this is not the case.
Used for grooming, dental combs might look menacing to some but their function is less sinister than one might conjure up. A bite from a slow loris is painful due to their sharp pointed teeth. Illustration of slow loris teeth from Loris Conservation. The dental comb is on the lower jaw, shape like a spade.
Wilde (1972) reports that the victim of a slow loris bite immediately succumbs to anaphylactic shock (extreme allergic reaction) followed by hematuria. In spite of that, the victim fully recovered. There is no clinical evidence of toxic substances in slow loris saliva to support the notion that they are venomous (Wilde, 1972).
Another incident involves a 34 year-old woman who is 19 weeks pregnant. She was bitten by a pygmy slow loris at the zoo she works in. The patient only complained about an acute pain at the location where she was bitten. She did not go into anaphylactic shock (Kalimullah et al., 2008).
Reports of slow loris bites are rare in literature. However, based on these published reports, it seems that slow loris bites are not venomous (Kalimullah et al., 2008; Wilde, 1972). Due to the high degree of similarity between the brachial gland exudate of slow lorises and the Fel d 1 allergen in domestic cats, the anaphylactic shock expressed by victims is probably just a reaction to the exudate’s allergen.
What is the function of the brachial gland exudate?
Hagey et al. (2007) posit that the brachial gland exudate is used as olfactory signalling to broadcast individual home range and territories. Most nocturnal primates rely on olfaction — slow loris included. Since brachial gland exudates are not an immediate response to stress or pursuit, their function might be to deter predators, warn other slow lorises of danger or even both (Hagey et al., 2006).
I’m looking forward to more studies on these prosimians and the properties of their brachial gland exudates. More research, as well as slow loris bite records, are needed to elucidate the effects of brachial gland exudates on humans.
References:
Gron, KJ. 2009. Primate Factsheets: Slow Loris (Nycticebus) Taxonomy, Morphology & Ecology. Primate Info Net Retrieved October, 19 2010 http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/slow_loris.
Grönlund, H. Saarne, T. Gafvelin, G. van Hage, M. 2010. The Major Cat Allergen, Fel d 1, in Diagnosis and Therapy. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 151(4): 265-274.
Hagey, LR. Fry, BG. Fitch-Snyder, H. 2007. Talking Defensively: A Dual Use for the Brachial Gland Exudate of Slow and Pygmy Lorises. Primate Anti-Predatory Strategies 2: 253-272 DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-34810-0_12.
Krane, S. Itagaki, Y. Nakanishi, K. Weldon, PJ. 2003. “Venom” of the slow loris: sequence similarity of prosimian skin gland protein and Fel d 1 cat allergen. Naturwissenschaften 90: 60-62.
Kalimullah, EA. Schmidt, SM. Schmidt, MJ. Lu, JJ. 2008. Beware the Pygmy Slow Loris? Clinical Toxicology 46(7): 602. http://www.eapcct.org/publicfile.php?folder=congress&file=Abstracts_Toronto.pdf.
Wilde, H. 1972. Anaphylactic Shock Following Bite by a ‘Slow Loris’, Nycticebus coucang. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 21(5): 592-594. http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/5/592.
Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.
Ape behavior inside the exhibit and holding area
An insightful paper published by Ross et al. (2010), compares zoo-living ape behavior inside their holding and exhibit areas in Lincoln Park Zoo, an accredited member of Association for Zoos and Aquarium (AZA). Zoo animals usually have at least two areas where they are housed (excluding some aquatic animals): the holding area and the exhibit area. During visiting hours and at night, zoo animals are housed in their exhibit area. In the morning, before the zoo opens, they move into the holding area to receive husbandry care and their morning food ration.
Holding and exhibit areas differ in size, design and functionality. A study by Ross and Lukas on 11 AZA-accredited zoos shows that holding areas are usually about 40 times smaller than exhibit areas (Ross et al., 2010). At the Lincoln Park Zoo, the holding area is about 9.3% of the size of the exhibit area (for both gorillas and chimpanzees). Whereas the exhibit area is designed for the complexity and to mimic the natural environment of its animal inhabitant, the holding area is usually designed for simplicity and functionality to meet husbandry needs.
Seven gorillas (2 males, 5 females; N = 7) and seven chimpanzees (3 males, 4 females; N = 7) were observed in this study. I should point out that the authors of the study is by no means criticizing Lincoln Park Zoo. It is an informal observation of behavioral changes for these animals in different environment. The result of the study shows that:
Gorillas
Inside the holding area – Increased locomotion and affiliative behavior. Also showed increased rates of aggression, self-directed behavior (subject touches, manipulates or examines the body, skin, or hair) and solitary play. Were in close proximity with each other.
Inside the exhibit area - Increased feeding and foraging behavior and also sexual behavior.
Chimpanzees
Inside the holding area – Increased aggression. Increased rate of scratching and self directed behavior (subject touches, manipulates or examines the body, skin, or hair). Were in close proximity with each other.
Inside the exhibit area - Increased feeding and foraging behavior.
Both gorillas and chimpanzees showed increased aggression accompanied with self directed behavior when inside holding area. Increase in aggression can sometimes be attributed to overcrowding and self directed behavior generally means that an animal is nervous. Being constrained in a smaller space increases the chance of mixed-sex and mixed-dominance encounters thus resulting in agonistic and submissive observations. When inside exhibit areas, both apes exhibited an increase in feeding and foraging behavior. This presumably is due to their feeding and foraging habit in the exhibit area. If I remember correctly, one of the major breakthrough in exhibiting apes (and most animals) is to encourage foraging behavior throughout the day. It is no surprise that these apes exhibit these behaviors.
These apes reacted differently when inside their holding area than in their exhibit area because they are exposed to different sensory. Apart from the difference in size and complexity, these two areas also differ in the degree of human interaction, cross-species presence, environmental factors and time spent between these two areas. An understanding of these differences and motivational factors is important in promoting optimized environments for captive apes. The authors encourage that zoos would consider species-specific functional, physical and social preferences when designing enclosures for apes regardless of frequency of use.
Reference:
Ross, S. Wagner, K. Schapiro, S. Hau, J. 2010. Ape behavior in two alternating environments: comparing exhibit and short-term holding areas. American Journal of Primatology 72: 951–959. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20857
Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.
New Gibbon Species Discovered
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.
Gameboy Gorilla
This image puts a whole new perspective to the Nintendo classic game, Donkey Kong. At the San Fransisco Zoo, a boy dropped his Nintendo DS into the gorilla enclosure. The following happened. I’m particularly loving the little one’s expression and body language.
From Spicuzza Photo Today blog by way of Gamesradar and The Escapist
Callicebus caquetensis: A New Species of Titi Monkey Discovered
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.
Do animals keep pets?
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.
Philippine tarsiers: Not world’s smallest primates, not marsupials
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.
Using mice to assess the degree of relatedness in chacma baboons
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.
New fossil primate species found in Catalonia garbage dump: Pliopithecus canmatensis
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.
