Liza M. Veiga

Geophagy in new world monkeys (Platyrrhini): ecological and geographic patterns.

Geophagy has been recorded in an increasing number of New World monkeys (Platyrrhini) over recent years, permitting a tentative analysis of ecological patterns. While geophagy has now been recorded in species representing all 4 platyrrhine families and a majority of genera, there is a marked tendency for it to occur in the larger-bodied Pitheciidae and Atelidae. Howlers (Alouatta) are responsible for almost a third of reports, which are concentrated in the more frugivorous species, Alouatta belzebul and Alouatta seniculus. Geophagy may also be relatively common in the spider monkeys (Ateles) and the pitheciids, which are specialised frugivores and seed predators, respectively. An overview of the available data points to a marked Amazonian bias, allowing for geographical differences in the number of species and field studies. This pattern is demonstrated most emphatically by Alouatta, for which there are almost as many reports as field studies in the Amazon basin, in stark contrast with Central American sites, which have a long tradition of fieldwork, but no published records of geophagy. There are also relatively few reports from the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Despite the growth in reports, and the patterns identified here, the functional aspects of geophagy in the platyrrhines still remain unclear.

Terrestrial Activity in Pitheciins (Cacajao, Chiropotes, and Pithecia)

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 We collated published and unpublished data from 14 taxa in the three genera.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were gleaned from 53 published studies (including five on multiple pitheciin genera) and personal communications of unpublished data distributed across 31 localities.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.

Evolutionary Biology and Conservation of Titis, Sakis and Uacaris: Why we know so little: the challenges of fieldwork on the Pitheciids

Introduction Possessing a suite of unusual and interesting features, Pitheciids are at the extremes of many of primatology’s ecological and sociological continua (see Norconk 2011). Pitheciids should provide acute tests of many primatological models; however, this is frequently thwarted by the lack of even the most basic quantitative information concerning ecology, behavior and social organization. Such gaps are due not only to the small number of studies, but also to difficulties in obtaining data. This chapter considers why, given that these primates possess such aesthetic and intellectual appeal and high conservation value, they have been so little studied. The peculiarities of pitheciids, combined with their native habitats’ inherent challenges, have often undermined potentially successful fieldwork. Some researchers who began working with species of Callicebus or Chiropotes, for example, simply gave up because of problems habituating the animals or because the study was so difficult that the quality and quantity of gained data would not be worth the effort. Several researchers who persisted were either unable to obtain the expected volume of data or were incapable of answering many of their initial research questions, sometimes both. Using field experiences from a variety of research projects across a range of habitat types and pitheciid taxa, this chapter reports on the problems that arose during these studies and presents suggestions to minimize similar difficulties in the future.

Geographic comparison of plant genera used in frugivory among the pitheciids Cacajao, Callicebus, Chiropotes, and Pithecia.

Pitheciids are known for their frugivorous diets, but there has been no broad‐scale comparison of fruit genera used by these primates that range across five geographic regions in South America. We compiled 31 fruit lists from data collected from 18 species (three Cacajao, six Callicebus, five Chiropotes, and four Pithecia) at 26 study sites in six countries. Together, these lists contained 455 plant genera from 96 families. We predicted that 1) closely related Chiropotes and Cacajao would demonstrate the greatest similarity in fruit lists; 2) pitheciids living in closer geographic proximity would have greater similarities in fruit lists; and 3) fruit genus richness would be lower in lists from forest fragments than continuous forests. Fruit genus richness was greatest for the composite Chiropotes list, even though Pithecia had the greatest overall sampling effort. We also found that the Callicebus composite fruit list had lower similarity scores in comparison with the composite food lists of the other three genera (both within and between geographic areas). Chiropotes and Pithecia showed strongest similarities in fruit lists, followed by sister taxa Chiropotes and Cacajao. Overall, pitheciids in closer proximity had more similarities in their fruit list, and this pattern was evident in the fruit lists for both Callicebus and Chiropotes. There was no difference in the number of fruit genera used by pitheciids in habitat fragments and continuous forest. Our findings demonstrate that pitheciids use a variety of fruit genera, but phylogenetic and geographic patterns in fruit use are not consistent across all pitheciid genera. This study represents the most extensive examination of pitheciid fruit consumption to date, but future research is needed to investigate the extent to which the trends in fruit genus richness noted here are attributable to habitat differences among study sites, differences in feeding ecology, or a combination of both. Am. J. Primatol. 78:493–506, 2016.

2nd Congress of the European Federation for Primatology

Folia Primatol 2008;79:305–401 DOI: 10.1159/000137690 2nd Congress of the European Federation for Primatology Prague, September 3–7, 2007 Editors: Vaclav Vancata and Marina Vancatova, Prague, Czech Republic Do Capuchin Monkeys (Cebus apella) Deal with Tokens as They Do with Real Food? Elsa Addessi a , Alessandra Mancini a, b , Lara Crescimbene a, b , Elisabetta Visalberghi a a Unit of Cognitive Primatology and Primate Centre, Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, CNR, Rome, b Università La Sapienza, Rome, Italy E-Mail: elsa.addessi@istc.cnr.it