Primatology.net

By: Kristin Abt

A recent article in the journal, Zoo Biology, discusses the current lack of gum enrichment for certain primate species in a captive setting that is in contrast to their wild behavior. Huber and Lewis (2011) surveyed zoos at an international scale to assess the occurrence and methods of “gum-based enrichment.”

Patas Monkey at Woodland Park Zoo (Photo: Kristin Abt)

Golden Lion Tamarin at National Zoo (Photo: Kristin Abt)

They identify numerous primates that feed on gums in varying amounts in the wild, including galagos and lorises, marmosets and tamarins, and members of Cercopithecinae.  Because enrichment aims to promote species-typical behaviors in a non-natural environment, the items that are offered should be primarily selected based on whether or not they contribute to this aim.

This study obtained responses from 46 zoos, 27 of which feed gum to at least some of their primates. The greatest disparity between wild gum-feeding and captive gum-provisioning was for cercopithecines. They identify patas monkeys as obligate gumnivores; therefore, they specifically highlight the need for the development of enrichment programs utilizing gum for this species. Also, they highlight the need to provide enrichment devices that simulate how primates feed on gum in the wild as opposed to free-feeding in dishes.

Patas Monkey Exhibit (Photo: Kristin Abt)

Huber and Lewis (2011) take a focused approach to assessing an area of enrichment within zoos that can have a marked management impact. This study shows the value of applied research to enhance the ability of zoos and other facilities to care for their collections in a manner more representative of the wild experience.

Reference:

Huber, H. F. & Lewis, K. P. (2011). “An assessment of gum-based environmental enrichment for captive gumnivorous primates.” Zoo Biology 30: 71-78.

Anti-predatory alarm calls are important  for social animals to alert others of approaching predators. Without the presence of “language”, some non-human primates are known to give out different predator-specific alarm calls to alert conspecific. These non-human primates include ring-tailed lemurs (Zuberbühler et al., 1999), white-faced capuchin monkeys (Fichtel et al., 2005), Diana monkeys (Zuberbühler, 1999), Campbell’s monkeys (Ouattara et al., 2009) and vervet monkeys (Seyfarth et al., 1980).

Alarm calls are typically high frequency sounds because these calls are hard to localized by predators. On the other hand, low frequency sounds are easier to localized by predators. Calls that are hard to localized by predators are selected for because conspecific can pick up on the warning but predators cannot identify the location of the caller. If an individual successfully alert its social group of approaching predator yet does not reveal its location, it will significantly decrease the chance of the caller to be detected and increase the chance of its social group to avoid predation.

Here, I will focus on the study of predatory alarm calls in vervet monkey (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) by Seyfarth et al. (1980) in the Amboseli National Park, Kenya. Vervet monkeys are Old World monkeys that range between Eastern and Southern Africa. These monkeys are diurnal and live in closely-knit social groups. They are quadrupedal and are both terrestrial and arboreal. Like all Old World monkeys, vervet monkeys have the characteristic cheek pouches that enables them to forage and store food to be eaten later. Male vervet monkeys have blue scrotal area and a red penis. Males and females are sexually dimorphic, with males slightly larger than females.

Vervet monkeys are known to elicit predator-specific alarm calls. Three well-documented vervet monkey alarm calls are those for leopard, martial eagle and python. Leopard alarm calls are short tonal calls produced in a series of inhalations and exhalations. Eagle alarm calls are low pitched grunt while python alarm calls are high pitched “chutters”. Different alarm calls seem to evoke different responses to individuals that heard the alarm calls. However, the first reaction of a vervet monkey upon hearing an alarm call is to look at the direction of the caller. Looking at the direction of the caller gives them clues as to why the alarm calls were made and also where the caller is facing reveals the direction of the approaching predator. You can listen to these different alarm calls on this site.

As we said before, different alarm calls evoke different responses. Leopard alarm calls would make the monkeys run up into the tree to avoid being ambushed by the leopard. Also, these monkeys would sit on the branches further away from the tree because, even though leopards can climb trees, the branches could not support the leopard’s weight. When an eagle alarm call is given, vervet monkeys would make them look up, run for the nearest bush or both to avoid an approaching aerial attack. Python alarm calls would the monkeys stand bipedally and look down on the ground.

Adult vervet monkeys are more discriminatory when eliciting alarm calls. Infants and juveniles calls however, are less discriminating as they attribute most terrestrial mammals with leopard calls, flying birds with eagle calls and stick-like figures with snake calls (although, compared to infants, juveniles are more discriminant when making alarm calls). In spite of that, adult vervet monkeys seem to elicit eagle alarm calls to different species of raptors and non-raptors (see illustration below). We can infer that adult vervet monkeys attribute eagle alarm calls to birds with the same silhouette as martial eagles. As vervet monkeys get older, they seem to have a better association between predator species and types of alarm calls. Vervet monkeys generally pay more attention to adult alarm calls than those of juveniles or infants.

The study of vervet monkey alarm calls by Seyfarth et al. (1980) laid an important ground work to better understand the complexity of animal communications. By showing that vervet monkeys make different alarm calls to different predatory species, we can posit that vervet monkeys have the ability to categorize different species. The ability to discriminate between terrestrial mammal, flying birds and snake-like objects starts during infancy in vervet monkeys. As they get older, they are better at associating predators with specific alarm calls.

The ability to over generalize during infancy is evident in both vervet monkeys and humans. For example, upon learning the word “dog”, human infants would refer to quadruped mammals they see as “dog”. As the infant grows, so does the ability to associate the semantic meaning of words they learned. However, the acquisition of alarm calls in vervet monkeys is different than the acquisition of speech (language) in humans. Alarm calls in vervet monkeys are instinctual and not learned. Humans, however, have to learn their language. Failing to do so during the “critical period” generally will result in the inability to learn language in later years. Feral child are examples of human infants that lack linguistic input during their critical period of language acquisition.

Most of us interpret animal alarm calls as an uncontrollable auditory response to fear or pain, akin to humans yelping if we had our finger caught in a door. While this is not entirely false, some animal calls actually convey information from the caller to the listener. Seyfarth et al. (1980) posit that vervet monkey alarm calls are actually basic semantic signals or symbolic signals because each alarm calls seem to mean something to these vervet monkeys. While we don’t know if these alarm calls actually mean “leopard” or “run up to the tree”, we do know that it conveys specific information to their conspecific about approaching predators.

I will be blogging Part II of this post later this week, where I will explain in details the experiments done by Seyfarth and Cheney on vervet monkey alarm calls.

References:
Cawthon Lang KA. 2006 January 3. Primate Factsheets: Vervet (Chlorocebus) Taxonomy, Morphology, & Ecology. http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/vervet. Accessed 2011 March 9.

Fichtel, C. Perry, S. Gros-Louis, J. 2005. Alarm calls of white-faced capuchin monkeys: an acoustic analysis. Animal Behaviour 70(1): 165-176. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.09.020.

Gould, JL. Gould, CG. 1999. The Animal Mind. Scientific American Library.

Ouattara, K. Lemasson, A. Zuberbühler, K. 2009. Campbell’s Monkeys Use Affixation to Alter Call Meaning. PLoS ONE 4(11). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007808.

Seyfarth, RM. Cheney, DL. Marler, P. 1980. Monkey responses to Three Different Alarm Calls: Evidence of Predator Classification and Semantic Communication. Science 210(4471): 801-803.

Zuberbühler, K. Jenny, D. Bshary, R. 1999. The Predator Deterrence Function of Primate Alarm Calls. Ethology 105: 477–490. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.1999.00396.x.

Zuberbuhler, K. 2000. Referential labelling in Diana monkeys. Animal Behaviour 59(5): 917-927. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1317.

Woodland Park Zoo Lion-tailed Macaque (Photo: Kristin Abt)

By: Kristin Abt

The Lion-tailed Macaque (Macaca silenus) is an endangered cercopithecine primate native to the Western Ghats region of India, described as one of the primary hotspots of biodiversity in the world (Kumara & Singh, 2004).  IUCN (2010) estimates a mere 2,500 mature individuals with a total population size of 4,000 individuals.  Furthermore, these monkeys (LTMs) exist in an estimated 47 subpopulations in 7 locations.  Their serious status merits continuing intense and collaborative research on their demographics, current pressures, and the effects of habitat fragmentation, which appears to be the primary concern for their long-term survival in the wild.

Ecology and Distribution

These Old World monkeys have cheek pouches with simple stomachs, long, non-prehensile tails, an opposable hallux and pollex, hardened ischial callosities, and close, downward facing nostrils.  They are diurnal with complex, matrilineal social systems normally with one adult male and one subadult male to multiple females and their offspring.  Males disperse and females display estrus swellings to advertise their reproductive status.  They have an average group size of 18 with a range of 7 to 40 individuals (Umapathy & Kumar, 2000b).  Compared to other macaque species, Umapathy and Kumar point out that they have a slower life history with females reproducing first at 6.6 years and having a birth rate of 0.31 infants/female/year thereafter.  This overall low prolificacy with delayed sexual maturity, long interbirth interval, and low population turnover presents an additional challenge when groups must respond to external survival pressures.

The LTM differs from other macaque species additionally through its primarily arboreal nature.  Menon and Poirier (1996) emphasize this characteristic through the documentation of 3 falls and one subsequent death from tree gaps.  In places with incontiguous canopy cover, individuals exhibited a strong preference to exert considerable effort to cross large holes in the canopy without descending to the ground.  Ramachandran and Joseph (2000) discuss the conservation and sustainability implications of this in that LTMs failed to range into adjacent areas disrupted by fire or eucalypt and teak plantations in order to exhaust nearby resources in neighboring forest fragments.

Individuals are found only in the Western Ghats region in the three states of Kerala, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu and have been studied extensively in such national and private evergreen forests as Silent Valley in the Palghat district (Ramachandran & Joseph, 2000), the Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary in Anamalai Hills (Umapathy & Kumar, 2000a & b), Brahmagiri-Makut and Sirsi-Honnovara (Kumara and Singh 2004), the Puthuthotam Cardamom Forest (Menon & Poirier, 1996), and the Kudremukh Forest Complex (Kumara & Singh, 2008).  Within these locations, it has been found that the LTMs prefer habitat primarily between 300m asl – 900m asl (Kumara & Singh, 2008).  It is estimated that almost 40% of the remaining population exist as small groups found in isolated, highly fragmented forests in these areas (Umapathy & Kumar, 2000a).  As one goes from South to North within their range, group size has been shown to increase (Kumara & Singh, 2004).

Woodland Park Zoo Exhibit for Lion-tailed Macaques (Photo:Kristin Abt)

Within their habitat, LTMs serve as “one of the most important habitat specialist primates in India” (Ramachandran & Joseph, 2000).  Sushma and Singh (2006) found that compared to other arboreal mammals, such as bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata), Nilgiri langurs (Semnopithecus johnii), and the Indian giant squirrel (Ratufa indica), LTMs have the narrowest niche breadth with some overlap with bonnet macaques, which indicates a degree of competition where these animals must coexist.  Ramachandran and Joseph (2000) point out that they seldom range outside of their evergreen forest even into the deciduous areas.  They also reported that LTMs feed primarily (91%) on plant matter with the remainder consisting of invertebrates, which is a higher amount than other macaque species (Sushma & Singh, 2006).  Ramachandran & Joseph (2000) found that they formed significant associations with 6 major tree species, especially Cullenia.  These are needed in the proper abundance in order to sustain the primates; however, some flexibility is present.  Menon and Poirier (1996) note that, in times of food scarcity, individuals supplement their diet with Artocarpus and Coffea trees in nearby forested plantations. Because they are highly frugivorous and consume large amounts of figs (Sushma & Singh, 2006), they must range significant distances in order to find sufficient food for the group.  Fruit, as a seasonal and patchy resource, offers a lot of carbohydrates, but not a good amount of protein.  As a result, invertebrates comprise a relatively large amount of their diet in order to provide the necessary nutrition for successful reproduction (Umapathy & Kumar, 2000a). Juveniles spend a significantly larger amount of time feeding on these, suggesting their importance for proper growth and development, as well.

Western Ghats, India Map from cepf.net

Conservation Threats due to Habitat Fragmentation

When primate groups are found in highly fragmented habitat, this presents serious survival pressures for themselves and for those individuals in neighboring forests without the opportunity for gene flow.  McGarigal and Cushman (2002) define habitat fragmentation as a “landscape level process in which a specific habitat is progressively subdivided into smaller and more isolated fragments.”  They further discuss how it encompasses a change in landscape composition, structure, and function.  Because habitat fragmentation, along with habitat loss, is considered to be one of the main influences causing the incredible mass extinction of species that is currently occurring, studying the effects of this in order to produce urgent and important management strategies is paramount.

Thus far, a number of studies of the LTM have discovered relevant consequences to the habitat fragmentation continually occurring within their range.  In reference to the demographics of social groups, the effects of habitat fragmentation have been to significantly change the composition naturally found in contiguous and undisturbed sections of forest.  Specifically, Umapathy and Kumar (2000b) found near significance with smaller fragments containing larger group sizes compared to larger fragments.  Also, it appears that there is more likely to be two adult males in a social group of a small fragment than the typical one male: multiple females found in larger fragment sizes.  Significantly, there is a positive correlation between fragment size and the number of immatures and birth rate.  The authors cite possible factors for this as increased predation pressures and resource shortages.  Kumara and Singh (2004) classified health of a population by a high overall presence of groups with the modal group size, favorable sex ratio, and a large percentage of immature individuals; therefore, the findings from the previous study provide further support to their criteria as valid to use when investigating the demographics of LTMs in fragmented areas.

Studies have also investigated how vegetation status in relation to level of fragmentation affects these primates.  Umapathy and Kumar (2000a) found that individuals spent significantly less time feeding on invertebrates, a key component to their diet, in smaller fragments.  Additionally, the least disturbed fragments contained the highest plant abundance.  In areas with colonized species, such as mangos and guava, the macaques added these to their diet, which might slightly compensate for the loss in space and flora diversity; however, it could also contribute to human-wildlife conflict.  Furthermore, these researchers (2000b) also demonstrated a positive correlation between the quality of vegetation and the amount of fragmentation.

Along with demographic and dietary changes, significant changes occur in disturbed populations with respect to the groups’ overall behaviors and activity patterns.  Menon and Poirier (1996) studied individuals in a private forest that experienced selective logging and clearing for planting on the floor and found that the primates used the ground often for ranging and foraging out of necessity, but still much preferred the trees – even when travelling in such a manner presented serious and mortal danger due to the lack of sufficient canopy continuity.  They were also forced to cross roads and raid fruit in neighboring plantations, which resulted in human-wildlife conflict and deterrence measures implemented.  Furthermore, the individuals needed to increase their time ranging, which seriously impacted their ability to feed and engage in necessary social behaviors.  Especially relevant to small, isolated populations is the inability to disperse naturally, which Debinski and Holt (2000) discuss and, consequently, suggest corridors for landscape connectivity, especially for highly mobile animals.  Without proper gene flow and the opportunities for appropriate social groups to form, the long-term survival of this species is severely threatened, which is already evidenced by the results of lower numbers of juveniles in these fragmented groups.

In addition to the restriction of available habitat and isolation of existing groups, human-wildlife conflict has placed significant pressure on their survival.  Along with plantations cultivated for teak and eucalypt and areas that are clear felled for tea and coffee, humans also use the forest areas for wood gathering, logging, and hunting of the LTMs and other fauna (Kumara & Singh, 2000b; Menon & Poirier, 1996).  Fragments also increase the likelihood of the macaques coming into human contact and the likelihood that humans will disturb the forest.

Conclusions

As with so many conservation stories, this one can greatly benefit from increased attention, education, and priority at numerous levels. Over recent years, the LTM has featured less prominently in North American zoo collections despite its endangered status, declining populations, charismatic appearance, and active nature (Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 1998). Additionally, few conservation and education efforts are currently in place to support its population (AZA, 1998). While research into its populations and its behavioral ecology are important to further understand the species, additional efforts to increase gene flow between populations, protect its forest habitat, and address conflicts with agriculture are needed for this macaque species to persist.

References

Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 1998. Lion-tailed macaque 98 fact sheet. Retrieved February 8, 2011, from Web site: http://www.nagonline.net/Fact%20Sheet%20pdf/AZA%20-%20Lion-Tailed%20Macaque%20 Species%20Survival%20Plan.pdf

Debinski, D. M. and R. D. Holt. 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology 14: 342–355.

IUCN.  2010 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.  Retrieved February 8, 2011, from Web site: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/12559

Kumara, H. N. and M. Singh. 2004. Distribution and abundance of primates in rain forests of the Western Ghats, Karnataka, India and the conservation of Macaca silenus. International Journal of Primatology 25: 1001–1018.

Kumara, H. N. and V. R. Singh. 2008. Status of Macaca silenus in the Kudremukh Forest Complex, Karnataka, India. International Journal of Primatology 29: 773–781.

McGarigal, K. and S. A. Cushman. 2002. Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecological Applications 12: 335–345.

Menon, S. and F. E. Poirier. 1996. Lion-tailed Macaques (Macaca silenus) in a disturbed forest fragment: Activity patterns and time budget. International Journal of Primatology 17: 969–985.

Ramachandran, K. K. and G. K. Joseph. 2000. Habitat utilization of lion-tailed macaque (Macaca silenus) in Silent Valley National Park, Kerala, India. Primate Report 58: 17–25.

Sushma, H. S. and M. Singh. 2006. Resource partitioning and interspecific interactions among sympatric rain forest arboreal mammals of the Western Ghats, India. Behavioral Ecology 17: 479–490.

Umapathy, G. and A. Kumar. 2000a. Impacts of the habitat fragmentation on time budget and feeding ecology of lion-tailed macaque (Macaca silenus) in rain forest fragments of Anamalai Hills, South India. Primate Report 58: 67–82.

Umapathy, G. and A. Kumar. 2000b. The demography of the Lion-tailed Macaque (Macaca silenus) in rain forest fragments in the Anamalai Hills, South India. Primates 41: 119–126.

Animation of chimpanzee yawning from Emory University. Illustration from BBC News.

I’m sure we are all familiar with this scenario: Someone yawns and we would “catch” it or vice versa. This is the phenomenon of contagious yawning. A new paper from The Proceedings of The Royal Society “Computer animations stimulate contagious yawning in chimpanzees” suggests that the phenomenon of contagious yawning and empathic response to animation occurs in chimpanzees. Computer animations of yawning chimpanzees (see illustration above) can be use to stimulate contagious yawning in chimpanzees. Previous researches have documented contagious yawning in chimpanzees through video-recorded footage.

Dr. Matthew Campbell, lead author of the paper from Emory University’s Yerkes National Primate Research Center said that they would also like to learn more about behaviors that are related to empathy such as consolation (when an individual does something nice to the victim of aggression). They want to know if individuals that are good contagious yawners are also good consolers. Understanding how chimpanzees empathize and imitate animations can help us understand how we, as human beings, empathize and imitate animations as well, said Dr. Campbell.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

A Fongoli chimp. Photo by Frans Lanting, National Geographic.

I just stumbled upon this on Twitter (Thanks to DarwinMonkey). It’s a National Geographic page about the Senegalese Fongoli chimps, named after the Fongoli stream that runs through the chimpanzee’s range. There are videos showing these chimps using tools fishing for termites, hunting a bushbaby and taking baths. Mary Roach’s field note-like article “Almost Human” offers readers an insight to what the daily life of a chimpanzee is like (the Fongoli chimps are savanna-woodlands chimp), the concept of “ecological intelligence” and innovative tool use by the Fongoli chimps that were suppose to be unique to humans. Read about “Almost Human” on National Geographic.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

A research from Duke University by Daniel Schmitt, associate professor of evolutionary anthropology, and Tracy Kivell, a post-doctoral research associate, shows that human evolved from tree climbing ancestors, not from knuckle-walkers. Schmitt and Kivell examined and compared the wrist bones of humans and African apes. Their research, “Independent evolution of knuckle-walking in African apes shows that humans did not evolve from a knuckle-walking ancestor“, was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on August 10th, 2009.

They also found that knuckle walking evolved at least two different times; gorillas fundamentally knuckle walk differently than chimpanzees and bonobos.

Kivell and Schmitt think this suggests independent evolution of knuckle-walking behavior in the two African ape lineages.

Some scientists point to features in the human anatomy as our own vestiges of a knuckle-walking ancestry. One notable example is the fusion a two wrist bones that could provide us extra stability, a feature we share with gorillas, chimps and bonobos.

But some lemurs have that feature too, and they do a variety of different movements in the trees but do not knuckle-walk, Kivell said.

Altogether, the evidence leans against the idea that our own bipedalism evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, the pair wrote. “Instead, our data support the opposite notion, that features of the hand and wrist found in the human fossil record that have traditionally been treated as indicators of knuckle-walking behavior in general are in fact evidence of arboreality.”

In other words, a long-ago ancestor species that spent its time in the trees moved to the ground and began walking upright.

There are no fossils from the time of this transition, which likely occurred about seven million years ago, Kivell and Schmitt said. But none of the later fossils considered to be on the direct human line were knuckle-walkers.

Read more on Science Daily: Bipedal Humans Came Down From The Trees, Not Up From The Ground

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio

A Geoffroy’s Spider Monkey hanging on the branch. Photo from Primate Info Net.

Wild Geoffroy’s Spider Monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) or Black-handed Spider Monkeys had been documented using tools to scratch themselves, according to a new publication “Tool use in wild spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi)“. Important to note that spider monkeys do not have thumbs, only four fingers (picture below) so tool manipulation is rather limited but nonetheless a rather interesting find.

The hand of a Geoffroy’s Spider Monkey. Note that they do not have a thumb and only four fingers. Photo from Wikipedia.

Published in the latest issue of Primates, authors Stacy Lindshield and Michelle Rodrigues collected their data from wild spider monkeys at El Zota Biological Field Station in northeastern Costa Rica. There were three documented instances where these spider monkeys used tools to scratch themselves.

The first to scratch was an adult female. Holding a small, leafy branch in her hand, she scratched her chest and abdominal regions.The second, another adult female, used a detached stick lacking side branches and leaves to scratch her left side. She chewed the tool tip between bouts.

The third individual, a juvenile female, first chewed the distal tip of a stick before scratching the underside of her tail and her genital region.

Seems that this publication coincide with the call for an inter-disciplinary field that seek to examine primate tool use in a long term, evolutionary context. Julio Mercader, archaeologist from University of Calgary, said “We used to think that culture and, above anything else, technology was the exclusive domain of humans, but this is not the case.”

Read the full article on Discovery: Spider Monkeys Invent Medicated Body Scratcher.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

A chimpanzee mother using rocks (hammer and anvil) to break open nuts, an example of tool use in primates. Photo from Duke University.

A new branch of archaeology is being introduced by international scientists. Led by University of Calgary archaeologist Julio Mercader and 17 other co-authors of the paper “Primate archaeology“, advocate a new “Paleoanthropology meets Primatology” inter-disciplinary field that seek to examine primate tool use in a long term, evolutionary context.

Read more about the article from redOrbit: International Scientists Establish New Branch Of Archaeology.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

Researchers have discovered a new tamarin subspecies in the Amazon forest of Brazil. A subspecies of the saddleback tamarin, it was named Mura’s saddleback tamarin (Saguinus fuscicollis mura) after the Mura Indians, the Amerindian ethnic group that lives in the Purus and Madeira river basins where the tamarins can be found.

Artist Stephen Nash’s rendition of the recently discovered Mura’s saddleback tamarin. Picture from Mongabay.com

This new subspecies has a gray and dark brown pelage and a distinctly mottled “saddle”. Its coloration is distinct than the two of its geographically closest relatives, the Wendell’s saddleback tamarin (Saguinus fuscicollis weddelli) and Avila Pires’ saddleback tamarin (Saguinus fuscicollis avilapiresi). The Mura’s saddleback tamarin weighs about 213 grams (less than 3/4 pounds) and is 240 millimeters (9 inches) tall with a 320 millimeter (12.6 inch) tail.

The discovery was published in the June online edition of the International Journal of Primatology: A New Subspecies of Saguinus fuscicollis (Primates, Callitrichidae) by Fabio Röhe, José de Sousa e Silva, Ricardo Sampaio and Anthony B. Rylands.
Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

Muriquis feeding and resting. Photo from Primate Info Net.

The muriquis, or woolly spider monkeys live in the rain forest of Brazil. They are considered peaceful individuals but an intra-community lethal attack had left researchers to reconsider how peaceful these monkeys are and why such attack occurred.

The image of peaceful individuals mainly stemmed from the northern population. Leaves are abundant in the northern population, so these muriquis chew on leaves all day and males would patiently queue to mate with females. When food is abundant, animals tend to stay in the same place.

However, in the southern population, fruits tend to be more abundant. Generally, females need more caloric intake compared to males, so females from the southern population disperse from the group to find clumps of fruits unlike the northern population where everyone stays together to eat.

It is in the southern population that a gang of six male muriquis were observed attacking another male from the same group, brutally biting his face, body and genitals. The male died about an hour later.

A change in dietary habit might be the clue to why such assault happened, said lead researcher Mauricio Talebi of the Federal University of São Paulo-Diadema, Brazil. Social bonding also explains why a gang of males attacked another male. Due to lack of readily available mates, males may become frustrated, creating tension and aggression between individuals. Because muriqui males bond for life with male siblings and relatives, this facilitates gang attacks, said Filippo Aureli of Liverpool John Moores University, UK. This assault can be seen as aggression among non-kin males.

For more, read ‘Hippy’ monkey is a killer when starved of sex on NewScientist and Intra-community coalitionary lethal attack of an adult male southern muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides) on Wiley Interscience.

Originally posted on Prancing Papio.