Terrestrial Activity in Pitheciins (Cacajao, Chiropotes, and Pithecia)
Zoology; behavior; risk; primates; saimiri-sciureus; predation; new-world monkeys; terrestrial; bearded; eastern brazilian amazonia; habitat use; pitheciids; rain-forest; sakis; satanas-chiropotes; seed-predator; spider monkeys
Neotropical monkeys of the genera Cacajao, Chiropotes, and Pithecia (Pitheciidae) are considered to be highly arboreal, spending most of their time feeding and traveling in the upper canopy. Until now, the use of terrestrial substrates has not been analyzed in detail in this group. Here, we review the frequency of terrestrial use among pitheciin taxa to determine the ecological and social conditions that might lead to such behavior. We collated published and unpublished data from 14 taxa in the three genera. Data were gleaned from 53 published studies (including five on multiple pitheciin genera) and personal communications of unpublished data distributed across 31 localities. Terrestrial activity was reported in 61% of Pithecia field studies (11 of 18), in 34% of Chiropotes studies (10 of 29), and 36% of Cacajao studies (4 of 11). Within Pithecia, terrestrial behavior was more frequently reported in smaller species (e.g. P. pithecia) that are vertical clingers and leapers and make extensive use of the understory than in in the larger bodied canopy dwellers of the western Amazon (e.g. P. irrorata). Terrestrial behavior in Pithecia also occurred more frequently and lasted longer than in Cacajao or Chiropotes. An apparent association was found between flooded habitats and terrestrial activity and there is evidence of the development of a local pattern of terrestrial use in some populations. Seasonal fruit availability also may stimulate terrestrial behavior. Individuals also descended to the ground when visiting mineral licks, escaping predators, and responding to accidents such as a dropped infant. Overall, the results of this review emphasize that terrestrial use is rare among the pitheciins in general and is usually associated with the exploitation of specific resources or habitat types. Am. J. Primatol. 74:1106-1127, 2012. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Barnett A A; Boyle S A; Norconk M M; Palminteri S; Santos R R; Veiga L M; Alvim T H G; Bowler M; Chism J; Di Fiore A; Fernandez-Duque E; Guimaraes A C P; Harrison-Levine A; Haugaasen T; Lehman S; Mackinnon K C; De Melo F R; Moreira L S; Moura V S; Phillips C R; Pinto L P; Port-Carvalho M; Setz E Z F; Shaffer C; Da Silva I R; Da Silva Sdsb; Soares R F; Thompson C L; Vieira T M; Vreedzaam A; Walker-Pacheco S E; Spironello W R; Maclarnon A; Ferrari S F
American Journal of Primatology
2012
2012-12
Journal Article or Conference Abstract Publication
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22068" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1002/ajp.22068</a>
Cross-sectional bone distribution in the mandibles of gouging and non-gouging platyrrhini
bone biomechanics; callithrix-jacchus; cross-sectional geometry; form; functional-significance; iterative selection method; jaw functional morphology; load resistance; macaca-fascicularis; mandibular corpus; morphology; new-world monkeys; primates; stress; tree gouging; Zoology
Recent morphometric analyses have led to dissimilar conclusions about whether the jaws of tree-gouging primates are designed to resist the purportedly large forces generated during this biting behavior. We further address this question by comparing the cross-sectional geometry of the mandibular corpus and symphysis in tree-gouging common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) to nongouging saddleback tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis) and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). As might be expected, based on size, squirrel monkeys tend to have absolutely larger cross-sectional areas at each tooth location sampled, while saddleback tamarins are intermediate, followed by the smaller common marmosets. Similarly, the amount and distribution of cortical bone in squirrel monkey jaws provides them with increased ability to resist sagittal bending (I (xx) ) and torsion (K) in the corpus as well as coronal bending (I (xx) ) and shearing in the symphysis. However, when the biomechanical parameters are scaled to respective load arm estimates, there are few significant differences in relative resistance abilities among the 3 species. A power analysis indicates that we cannot statistically rule out subtle changes in marmoset jaw form linked to resisting loads during gouging. Nevertheless, our results correspond to studies in vivo of jaw loading, field data, and other comparative analyses suggesting that common marmosets do not generate relatively large bite forces during tree gouging. The 3 species are like most other anthropoids in having thinner bone on the lingual than on the buccal side of the mandibular corpus at M-1. The similarity in corporal shape across anthropoids supports a hypothesized stereotypical pattern of jaw loading during chewing and may indicate a conserved pattern of mandibular growth for the suborder. Despite the overall similarity, platyrrhines may differ slightly from catarrhines in the details of their cortical bone distribution.
Vinyard C J; Ryan T M
International Journal of Primatology
2006
2006-10
Journal Article
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-006-9083-7" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1007/s10764-006-9083-7</a>