The Diversity of The New World Primates

Chapter 2
The Diversity of the New World Primates

(Platyrrhini): An Annotated Taxonomy
Anthony B. Rylands and Russell A. Mittermeier
2.1 Introduction
The modern taxonomy of the Infraorder Platyrrhini is deeply influenced by the

numerous publications of the late Philip Hershkovitz (1909–1997). This has meant
that in many aspects platyrrhine taxonomy has been extraordinarily stable over the
last two decades, while his work has at the same time provided the wherewithal for
considerable refinement and adjustments. Hershkovitz laid the foundation for the
modern taxonomy of the New World primates first in his monumental treatise on
the Families Callitrichidae and Callimiconidae (1977) (supplemented with revisions
of the emperor tamarins, Saguinus imperator [1979] and black-mantle tamarins,
S. nigricollis [1982]), and subsequently with a number of papers, results of his
revisions of the systematics of most of the remaining extant platyrrhines that he
lumped in a third family, the Cebidae: the saki monkeys Pithecia (1987a); the night
monkeys, Aotus (1983); the squirrel monkeys, Saimiri (1984); the bearded sakis,
Chiropotes (1985); the uacaris, Cacajao (1987b); and the titi monkeys, Callicebus
(1988, 1990). Hershkovitz was working on the remaining genera for the second
volume of his treatise, but his findings were never published. The foundations for the
modern taxonomies of the capuchin monkeys (Cebus), howling monkeys (Alouatta),
spider monkeys (Ateles), woolly monkeys (Lagothrix) and muriquis (Brachyteles)
have had to depend, therefore, on studies such as those Kellogg and Goldman (1944)
for the spider monkeys, Hershkovitz (1949) for Cebus in particular, Cabrera (1957)
and Hill (1960, 1962) who covered all the platyrrhines, and Fooden (1963) for the
woolly monkeys.
It may well be that the legacy of Hershkovitz is the cause of there currently being
more species and subspecies of primates in the New World than in Africa or Asia,
providing as he did the capacity to compare findings with what is known, both in
terms of the physiognomy of the primates under scrutiny and their supposed distri-
butions. The latest taxonomies of the non-human primates indicate approximately
A.B. Rylands (B)

Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Arlington, VA 22202, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
P.A. Garber et al. (eds.), South American Primates, Developments in Primatology: 23

Progress and Prospects, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-78705-3 2,

C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
24 A.B. Rylands and R.A. Mittermeier
657 species and subspecies in 71 genera and 16 families. Of these, we list here
five families, 19 genera and 199 species and subspecies in the Neotropics—31%
of the primates. At present, Africa has 169 species and subspecies, Asia 186 and
Madagascar 100 (Grubb et al. 2003, Brandon-Jones et al. 2004, Mittermeier et al. in
press).
Two further tendencies deserve mention. The first is associated with the desire
to conserve the full diversity of primates, an aspect which drags taxonomy from
the realm of cataloguing and academic pursuit into the applied sciences. It is of
paramount importance that the full diversity of primates be recognized and mapped.
The second is related to our increased knowledge of the geography of the pheno-
types we observe in situ that has made it increasingly difficult to accept single defi-
nitions or dichotomies of species and subspecies. This and the new insights resulting
from molecular genetics and chromosome studies have promoted the adoption of the
Phylogenetic Species Concept, and the gradual rejection of the often arbitrary inter-
pretations of variation using the category of subspecies (see Groves 2001, 2004).
The basis for the taxonomy we present here can be found in two recent compi-
lations. The first is that of Rylands et al. (2000); the result of the workshop “Pri-
mate Taxonomy for the New Millennium,” organized by the IUCN/SSC Primate
Specialist Group and held in Orlando, Florida, 25–29 February 2000. The second
is the remarkable and timely revision of the taxonomy of the Order Primates by
Groves (2001, 2005). Our concern in this chapter is not merely to present a tax-
onomic list, but to indicate the scientific sources and reasoning upon which it is
based, and to indicate, if only summarily, changes or divergences from the hypothe-
ses of other authors, most notably those of Groves (2001), due to new studies and
information.
2.2 Families, Subfamilies and Genera

Previously considered to comprise just two families (the Callitrichidae, formerly
Hapalidae [marmosets and tamarins], and Cebidae [the rest]), credit is due to
Rosenberger (1980, 1981) for breaking with tradition and suggesting an arrange-
ment based on morphological affinity and phylogenetic relationships. While the
callitrichines, pitheciines (Chiropotes, Pithecia, Cacajao), and atelines (Alouatta,
Ateles, Lagothrix, Brachyteles) continued as well-defined groupings, revolution-
ary was his demonstration of the affiliation of the titi monkeys (Callicebus) with
the pitheciines and, likewise, the capuchin (Cebus) and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri)
with the callitrichines (placed in a redefined, family Cebidae). Confirmed by the
genetic evidence, Rosenberger’s (1981) proposal provided the basis of platyrrhine
systematics at the family and subfamily level as accepted today (Schneider and
Rosenberger 1996, Rylands et al. 2000, Groves 2001, 2005).
Groves (2001) argued for the priority of the following family and subfam-
ily names: Hapalinae Gray, 1821 for the marmosets and tamarins; Chrysotrichi-
nae Cabrera, 1900 for the squirrel monkeys; Nyctipithecidae Gray, 1870 for the
2 The Diversity of the New World Primates (Platyrrhini) 25
Table 2.1 Families, subfamilies and genera of New World primates—the taxonomy of
Groves (2001, 2005) and that proposed here
Rylands and
Groves (2001) Mittermeier (this paper)
Family Cebidae Gray, 1821 Family Callitrichidae
Subfamily Callitrichinae Gray, 1821
Callithrix Erxleben, 1777 Callithrix
(Cebuella) Gray, 1866 Cebuella
(Callibella) Van Roosmalen & Van Roosmalen, 2003 Callibella
(Mico) Lesson, 1840 Mico
Saguinus Hoffmannsegg, 1807 Saguinus
Leontopithecus Lesson, 1840 Leontopithecus
Callimico Miranda-Ribeiro, 1911 Callimico
Family Cebidae
Subfamily Cebinae Bonaparte, 1821 Subfamily Cebinae
Cebus Erxleben, 1777 Cebus
Subfamily Saimiriinae Miller, 1812 Subfamily Saimiriinae
Saimiri Voigt, 1831 Saimiri
Family Aotidae Elliott, 1913 Family Aotidae
Aotus Illiger, 1811 Aotus
Family Pitheciidae Mivart, 1865 Family Pitheciidae
Subfamily Pitheciinae Mivart, 1965 Subfamily Pitheciinae
Pithecia Desmarest, 1804 Pithecia
Chiropotes Lesson, 1840 Chiropotes
Cacajao Lesson, 1840 Cacajao
Subfamily Callicebinae Pocock, 1925 Subfamily Callicebinae
Callicebus Thomas, 1903 Callicebus
Family Atelidae Gray, 1825 Family Atelidae
Subfamily Alouattinae Trouessart, 1897 Subfamily Alouattinae
Alouatta Lacepede, 1799 Alouatta
Subfamily Atelinae Gray, 1825 Subfamily Atelinae
Ateles É. Geoffroy, 1806 Ateles
Brachyteles Spix, 1823 Brachyteles
Lagothrix É. Geoffroy, 1812 Lagothrix
Oreonax Thomas, 1927 Oreonax
night monkeys, and Mycetinae Gray, 1825 for the howling monkeys. These he
later retracted (Brandon-Jones and Groves 2002), and Callitrichinae, Saimiriinae,
Aotidae, and Alouattinae were the respective names used by Groves (2005). The tax-
onomy at the family level that we maintain here (Table 2.1) is that of Groves (2001,
2005), except that we place the marmosets and tamarins in their own family,
Callitrichidae, rather than as a subfamily of the Cebidae.
Hershkovitz (1977) placed Callimico in its own family, Callimiconidae, and oth-
ers have since placed it in its own subfamily within the Callitrichidae. Cronin and
Sarich (1978), Seuánez et al. (1989), Schneider et al. (1993), Pastorini et al. (1998),
Chaves et al. (1999) and Canavez et al. (1999) have demonstrated that Callimico is
more closely related to Callithrix than it is to the tamarins, Saguinus. Placing Cal-
limico in its own subfamily, therefore, is no longer correct, unless, Leontopithecus
and Saguinus are independently separated from Callithrix by their own subfamily.
Regarding genera, there is also concordance between our vision and that of
Groves (2001, 2005), except for his use of subgenera for the marmosets. Cebuella,
Callibella and Mico he lists as subgenera of Callithrix Erxleben, 1777 (see Table 2.1).
Silva Jr. (2001, 2002) argued that the tufted capuchins and the untufted capuchins
(sensu Hershkovitz 1949, 1955) are distinct in their morphology and should be con-
sidered separate genera. Cebus Erxleben, 1777 is referable to the untufted group,
and Sapajus Kerr, 1792 is the name available for the tufted capuchins.
2.3 Species and Subspecies

We emphasize that the taxonomic list we present here (Table 2.2) will change con-
siderably, even in the near future, with further discoveries of new forms, genetic
and phylogenetic analyses, and the revision of genera and species groups based on
morphology and the study of museum specimens. We use the Phylogenetic Species
Concept (see Groves 2001, 2004) as the basis for our determination of the taxonomic
status of each of the forms we list, but have not changed subspecies to species
automatically. We are doing so only when we can take recourse to a recent revi-
sion of the group combining a careful review of the taxonomic characters and clear
explanations as to why the forms are to be considered “good species” rather than
geographic variants or subspecies. Gregorin (2006) recently eliminated subspecies
from the taxonomy of the Brazilian howler monkeys (Alouatta), fruit of some years
of detailed morphological studies, geographical analyses, and investigation of the
taxonomic history, types and type localities. Likewise, Silva Jr. (2001) proposed a
taxonomy of Cebus without the use of subspecies. Genetic research on the tamarins
(Saguinus) and some major revisions underway for the sakis (Pithecia) and uacaris
(Cacajao), combined with genetic research and discoveries of new forms will also
result in changes in the taxonomy of these groups in the near future. The taxonomy
we present here is certainly not definitive, it is merely a working hypothesis, based
on the information we can muster.
Space, unfortunately, does not allow for a detailed analysis of the history and
issues concerning the systematic arrangements and the taxonomy of the species and
subspecies we recognize here. We present some notes and mention the principal
literature we have at hand for each of the genera that justifies or has influenced
the taxonomy we present. More details and discussion can be found particularly in
Rylands, Coimbra-Filho and Mittermeier (1993, Rylands et al. 2000, 2006, Rylands,
Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho in press) and Groves (2001, 2005), but there can
certainly never be any justification for not referring to older literature and past major
works such as those of Elliott (1913), Lawrence (1933), Cruz Lima (1945), Kellogg
and Goldman (1944), Hershkovitz, Cabrera (1957), and Hill (1957, 1960, 1962).
2.3.1 Pygmy and Dwarf Marmosets, Cebuella and Callibella

Although Hershkovitz (1977) recognized no subspecific forms for Cebuella, Napier
(1976) and Van Roosmalen and Van Roosmalen (1997) argued that a southerly
2
Table 2.2 A taxonomy of Neotropical primates

Species Gen. Sp. Common name
Family Callitrichidae
1. Cebuella pygmaea pygmaea (Spix, 1823) 1 1 Pygmy marmoset
2. Cebuella pygmaea niveiventris (Lönnberg, 1940)
3. Callibella humilis (Van Roosmalen, Van Roosmalen, Mittermeier & Fonseca, 1998) 2 2 Black-crowned dwarf marmoset
4. Mico argentatus (Linnaeus, 1771) 3 3 Silvery marmoset
5. Mico leucippe (Thomas, 1922) 4 Golden-white bare-ear marmoset
6. Mico melanurus (É. Geoffroy, 1812) 5 Black-tailed marmoset
7. Mico intermedius (Hershkovitz, 1977) 6 Aripuanã marmoset
8. Mico emiliae (Thomas, 1920) 7 Snethlage’s marmoset
9. Mico cf. emiliae 8 Rondônia marmoset
10. Mico nigriceps (Ferrari & Lopes, 1992) 9 Black-headed marmoset
11. Mico marcai (Alperin, 1993) 10 Marca’s marmoset
12. Mico humeralifer (É. Geoffroy, 1812) 11 Black and white tassel-ear marmoset
13. Mico chrysoleucus (Wagner, 1842) 12 Golden-white tassel-ear marmoset
The Diversity of the New World Primates (Platyrrhini)
14. Mico mauesi (Mittermeier, Schwarz & Ayres, 1992) 13 Maués marmoset
15. Mico saterei (Silva Jr. & Noronha 1998) 14 Sateré marmoset
16. Mico manicorensis Van Roosmalen, Van Roosmalen, Mittermeier & Rylands, 2000 15 Manicoré marmoset
17. Mico acariensis. Van Roosmalen, Van Roosmalen, Mittermeier & Rylands, 2000 16 Rio Acarı́ marmoset
18. Callithrix jacchus (Linnaeus, 1758) 4 17 Common marmoset
19. Callithrix penicillata (É. Geoffroy, 1812) 18 Black-tufted-ear marmoset
20. Callithrix kuhlii Coimbra-Filho, 1985 19 Wied’s black-tufted-ear marmoset
21. Callithrix geoffroyi (É. Geoffroy, 1812) 20 Geoffroy’s tufted-ear marmoset
22. Callithrix aurita (É. Geoffroy, 1812) 21 Buffy-tufted-ear marmoset
23. Callithrix flaviceps (Thomas, 1903) 22 Buffy-headed marmoset
24. Callimico goeldii (Thomas, 1904) 5 23 Goeldi’s monkey, callimico
27
Table 2.2 (continued)
28

25. Saguinus nigricollis nigricollis (Spix, 1823) 6 24 Spix’s black-mantle tamarin
26. Saguinus nigricollis graellsi (Jiménez de la Espada, 1870) Graell’s black-mantle tamarin
27. Saguinus nigricollis hernandezi Hershkovitz, 1982 Hernández-Camacho’s black-mantle tamarin
28. Saguinus fuscicollis fuscus (Lesson, 1840) 25 Lesson’s saddle-back tamarin
29. Saguinus fuscicollis fuscicollis (Spix, 1823) Spix’s saddle-back tamarin
30. Saguinus fuscicollis avilapiresi Hershkovitz, 1966 Ávila Pires’ saddle-back tamarin
31. Saguinus fuscicollis cruzlimai Hershkovitz, 1966 Cruz Lima’s saddle-back tamarin
32. Saguinus fuscicollis leucogenys (Gray, 1866) Andean saddle-back tamarin
33. Saguinus fuscicollis lagonotus (Jiménez de la Espada, 1870) Red-mantle saddle-back tamarin
34. Saguinus fuscicollis primitivus Hershkovitz, 1977 Hershkovitz’s saddle-back tamarin
35. Saguinus fuscicollis illigeri (Pucheran, 1845) Illiger’s saddle-back tamarin
36. Saguinus fuscicollis nigrifrons (I. Geoffroy, 1850) Geoffroy’s saddle-back tamarin
37. Saguinus fuscicollis weddelli (Deville, 1849) Weddell’s saddle-back tamarin
38. Saguinus melanoleucus melanoleucus (Miranda Ribeiro, 1912) 26 White saddle-back tamarin
39. Saguinus melanolecus crandalli Hershkovitz, 1966 Crandall‘s saddle-back tamarin
40. Saguinus tripartitus (Milne-Edwards, 1878) 27 Golden-mantle saddle-back tamarin
41. Saguinus mystax mystax (Spix, 1823) 28 Spix’s mustached tamarin
42. Saguinus mystax pileatus (I. Geoffroy, 1848) Red-cap mustached tamarin
43. Saguinus mystax pluto (Lonnberg, 1926) White-rump mustached tamarin
44. Saguinus labiatus labiatus (É. Geoffroy, 1812) 29 Southern red-bellied tamarin
45. Saguinus labiatus thomasi (Goeldi, 1907) Thomas’s red-bellied tamarin
46. Saguinus labiatus rufiventer (Gray, 1843) Northern red-bellied tamarin
47. Saguinus imperator imperator (Goeldi, 1907) 30 Black-chinned emperor tamarin
48. Saguinus imperator subgrisescens (Lönnberg, 1940) Bearded emperor tamarin
49. Saguinus midas (Linnaeus, 1758) 31 Golden-handed tamarin
50. Saguinus niger (É. Geoffroy, 1803) 32 Black-handed tamarin
51. Saguinus inustus (Schwarz, 1951) 33 Mottled-face tamarin
52. Saguinus bicolor (Spix, 1823) 34 Pied bare-face tamarin
53. Saguinus martinsi martinsi (Thomas, 1912) 35 Martin’s bare-face tamarin
54. Saguinus martinsi ochraceus Hershkovitz, 1966 Ochraceous bare-face tamarin
55. Saguinus leucopus (Günther, 1877) 36 Silvery-brown tamarin
A.B. Rylands and R.A. Mittermeier
56. Saguinus oedipus (Linnaeus, 1758) 37 Cotton-top tamarin

2

57. Saguinus geoffroyi (Pucheran, 1845) 38 Geoffroy’s tamarin
58. Leontopithecus rosalia (Linnaeus, 1766) 7 39 Golden lion tamarin
59. Leontopithecus chrysomelas (Kuhl, 1820) 40 Golden-headed lion tamarin
60. Leontopithecus chrysopygus (Mikan, 1823) 41 Black lion tamarin
61. Leontopithecus caissara Lorini & Persson, 1990 42 Black-faced lion tamarin
Family Cebidae
62. Saimiri oerstedii oerstedii (Reinhardt, 1872) 8 43 Black-crowned Central American squirrel monkey
63. Saimiri oerstedii citrinellus Thomas, 1904 Grey-crowned Central American squirrel monkey
64. Saimiri boliviensis boliviensis (I. Geoffroy & de Blainiulle, 1834) 44 Bolivian squirrel monkey
65. Saimiri boliviensis peruviensis Hershkovitz, 1984 Peruvian squirrel monkey
66. Saimiri vanzolinii Ayres, 1981 45 Vanzolini’s squirrel monkey
67. Saimiri sciureus sciureus (Linnaeus, 1758) 46 Common squirrel monkey
68. Saimiri sciureus albigena (Von Pusch, 1941) Colombian squirrel monkey
69. Saimiri sciureus cassiquiarensis (Lesson, 1840) Humboldt’s squirrel monkey
70. Saimiri sciureus macrodon (Elliot, 1907) Ecuadorian squirrel monkey
71. Saimiri ustus I. Geoffroy, 1843 47 Golden-backed squirrel monkey
72. Cebus apella apella (Linnaeus, 1758) 9 48 Guianan brown tufted capuchin
73. Cebus apella margaritae Hollister, 1914 Margarita Island tufted capuchin
74. Cebus macrocephalus Spix, 1823 49 Large-headed tufted capuchin

75. Cebus libidinosus Spix, 1823 50 Bearded capuchin
76. Cebus nigritus (Goldfuss, 1809) 51 Black-horned capuchin
77. Cebus robustus Kuhl, 1820 52 Crested capuchin
78. Cebus cay Illiger, 1815 53 Hooded capuchin
79. Cebus flavius (Schreber, 1774) 54 Marcgraf’s capuchin, blond capuchin
80. Cebus xanthosternos Wied-Neuwied, 1826 55 Yellow-breasted capuchin
81. Cebus albifrons albifrons (Humboldt, 1812) 56 White-fronted capuchin
82. Cebus albifrons cuscinus Thomas, 1901 Shock-headed capuchin
83. Cebus albifrons cesarae Hershkovitz, 1949 César Valley white-fronted capuchin
84. Cebus albifrons malitiosus Elliot, 1909 Brown white-fronted capuchin
85. Cebus albifrons versicolor Pucheran, 1845 Varied capuchin
86. Cebus albifrons trinitatis Von Pusch, 1941 Trinidad white-fronted capuchin
29
87. Cebus albifrons aequatorialis Allen, 1914 Ecuadorian white-fronted capuchin

30

88. Cebus capucinus capucinus (Linnaeus, 1758) 57 White-faced capuchin
89. Cebus capucinus limitaneus Hollister, 1914 Honduran white-throated capuchin
90. Cebus capucinus imitator Thomas, 1903 Panamanian white-throated capuchin
91. Cebus capucinus curtus Bangs, 1905 Gorgona Island white-throated capuchin
92. Cebus olivaceus olivaceus Schomburgk, 1848 58 Guianan wedge-capped capuchin
93. Cebus olivaceus nigrivittatus Wagner, 1848 Wedge-capped capuchin
94. Cebus olivaceus apiculatus Hershkovitz, 1949 Pale weeper capuchin
95. Cebus olivaceus brunneus Allen, 1914 Brown weeper capuchin
96. Cebus olivaceus castaneus I. Geoffroy, 1851 Chestnut wedge-capped capuchin
97. Cebus kaapori Queiroz, 1992 59 Ka’apor capuchin
Family Aotidae
98. Aotus lemurinus (I. Geoffroy, 1843) 10 60 Colombian or lemurine night monkey
99. Aotus griseimembra Elliot, 1912 61 Grey-legged night monkey
100. Aotus zonalis Goldman, 1914 62 Panamanian night monkey
101. Aotus brumbacki Hershkovitz, 1983 63 Brumback’s night monkey
102. Aotus trivirgatus (Humboldt, 1811) 64 Douroucouli, owl monkey, night monkey
103. Aotus vociferans (Spix, 1823) 65 Noisy night monkey
104. Aotus miconax Thomas, 1927 66 Andean night monkey
105. Aotus nancymaae Hershkovitz, 1983 67 Nancy Ma’s night monkey
106. Aotus nigriceps Dollman, 1909 68 Black-headed or Peruvian night monkey
107. Aotus azarae azarae (Humboldt, 1811) 69 Azara’s night monkey
108. Aotus azarae boliviensis Elliot, 1907 Bolivian night monkey
109. Aotus azarae infulatus (Kuhl, 1820) Feline night monkey
Family Pitheciidae
110. Callicebus modestus Lönnberg, 1939 11 70 Beni titi
111. Callicebus donacophilus (D’Orbigny, 1836) 71 Reed titi, D’Orbigny’s titi
112. Callicebus pallescens Thomas, 1907 72 Paraguayan yellow titi
113. Callicebus olallae Lönnberg, 1939 73 Ollala’s titi
114. Callicebus oenanthe Thomas, 1924 74 Andean titi, Isabelline titi
115. Callicebus cupreus (Spix, 1823) 75 Red titi, coppery titi
116. Callicebus discolor (I. Geoffroy & Deville, 1848) 76 Red-crowned titi
117. Callicebus ornatus (Gray, 1866) 77 Ornate titi

2

118. Callicebus caligatus (Wagner, 1842) 78 Chestnut-bellied titi
119. Callicebus dubius Hershkovitz, 1990 79 Doubtful titi
120. Callicebus stephennashi Van Roosmalen, Van Roosmalen & Mittermeier, 2002 80 Stephen Nash’s titi
121. Callicebus cinerascens (Spix, 1823) 81 Ashy titi
122. Callicebus hoffmannsi Thomas, 1908 82 Hoffmann’s titi
123. Callicebus baptista Lönnberg, 1939 83 Lago do Baptista titi
124. Callicebus moloch (Hoffmannsegg, 1807) 84 Orabassu titi
125. Callicebus brunneus (Wagner, 1842) 85 Brown titi
126. C. bernhardi Van Roosmalen, Van Roosmalen & Mittermeier, 2002 86 Prince Bernhard’s titi
128. Callicebus aureipalatii Wallace, Gómez, A. M. Felton & A. Felton, 2006 87 Madidi titi
127. Callicebus medemi Hershkovitz, 1963 88 Medem’s collared titi
128. Callicebus torquatus (Hoffmannsegg, 1807) 89 White-collared titi
129. Callicebus lugens (Humboldt, 1811) 90 Widow monkey, white-chested titi
130. Callicebus lucifer Thomas, 1914 91 Rufous-tailed collared titi
131. Callicebus purinus Thomas, 1927 92 Red-bellied collared titi
132. Callicebus regulus Thomas, 1927 93 Juruá collared titi
133. Callicebus personatus (É. Geoffroy, 1812) 94 Northern masked titi
134. Callicebus nigrifrons (Spix, 1823) 95 Black-fronted masked titi

135. Callicebus melanochir Wied-Neuwied, 1820 96 Southern Bahian masked titi,
black-handed masked titi
136. Callicebus barbarabrownae Hershkovitz, 1990 97 Northern Bahian blond titi
137. Callicebus coimbrai Kobayashi & Langguth, 1999 98 Coimbra’s titi
138. Pithecia pithecia pithecia (Linnaeus, 1758) 12 99 White-faced saki
139. Pithecia pithecia chrysocephala I. Geoffroy, 1850 Golden-faced saki
140. Pithecia monachus monachus (É. Geoffroy, 1812) 100 Geoffroy’s monk saki
141. Pithecia monachus milleri Allen, 1914 Miller’s monk saki
142. Pithecia monachus napensis Lönnberg, 1938 Napo monk saki
143. Pithecia irrorata irrorata Gray, 1842 101 Gray’s bald faced saki
144. Pithecia irrorata vanzolinii Hershkovitz, 1987 Vanzolini’s bald-faced saki
145. Pithecia albicans Gray, 1860 102 Buffy saki
31
32

146. Pithecia aequatorialis Hershkovitz, 1987 103 Equatorial saki
147. Chiropotes albinasus (I. Geoffroy & Deville, 1848) 13 104 White-nosed bearded saki
148. Chiropotes satanas (Hoffmannsegg, 1807) 105 Black bearded saki
149. Chiropotes chiropotes (Humboldt, 1811) 106 Guianan bearded saki
150. Chiropotes utahickae Hershkovitz, 1985 107 Uta Hick’s bearded saki
151. Chiropotes israelita (Spix, 1823) 108 Rio Negro bearded saki
152. Cacajao calvus calvus (I. Geoffroy, 1847) 14 109 White bald-headed uacari
153. Cacajao calvus ucayalii (Thomas, 1928) Ucayali bald-headed uacari
154. Cacajao calvus novaesi Hershkovitz, 1987 Novaes’ bald-headed uacaris
155. Cacajao calvus rubicundus (I. Geoffroy and Deville, 1848) Red bald-headed uacari
156. Cacajao melanocephalus (Humboldt, 1811) 110 Humboldt’s black-headed uacari
157. Cacajao ouakary (Spix, 1823) 111 Spix’s black-headed uacari
Family Atelidae
158. Alouatta seniculus (Linnaeus, 1766) 15 112 Red howler monkey
159. Alouatta arctoidea Cabrera, 1940 113 Ursine howler monkey
160. Alouatta macconnelli Elliot, 1910 114 Guianan red howler monkey
161. Alouatta juara Elliot, 1910 115 Juruá red howler monkey
162. Alouatta puruensis Lönnberg, 1941 116 Purús red howler monkey
163. Alouatta sara Elliot, 1910 117 Bolivian red howler monkey
164. Alouatta nigerrima Lönnberg, 1941 118 Black howler monkey
165. Alouatta belzebul (Linnaeus, 1766) 119 Red-handed howler monkey
166. Alouatta discolor (Spix, 1823) 120 Spix’s red-handed howler monkey
167. Alouatta ululata Elliot, 1912 121 Maranhão red-handed howler monkey
168. Alouatta guariba guariba (Humboldt, 1812) 122 Northern brown howler monkey
169. Alouatta guariba clamitans Cabrera, 1940 Southern brown howler monkey
170. Alouatta caraya (Humboldt, 1812) 123 South American black howler monkey
171. Alouatta palliata palliata (Gray, 1849) 124 Golden-mantled howler monkey
172. Alouatta palliata mexicana (Merriam, 1902) Mexican howler monkey
173. Alouatta palliata aequatorialis (Festa, 1903) Ecuadorian mantled howler monkey
174. Alouatta palliata coibensis Thomas, 1902 Coiba Island howler monkey
2

175. Alouatta palliata trabeata Lawrence, 1933 Azuero howler monkey
176. Alouatta pigra Lawrence, 1933 125 Central American black howler monkey
177. Ateles geoffroyi geoffroyi Kuhl, 1820 16 126 Geoffroy’s spider monkey
178. Ateles geoffroyi azuerensis (Bole, 1937) Azuero spider monkey
179. Ateles geoffroyi frontatus (Gray, 1842) Black-browed spider monkey
180. Ateles geoffroyi grisescens Gray, 1866 Hooded spider monkey
181. Ateles geoffroyi ornatus (Gray, 1870) Ornate spider monkey
182. Ateles geoffroyi vellerosus (Gray, 1866) Mexican spider monkey
183. Ateles geoffroyi yucatanensis Kellogg & Goldman, 1944 Yucatán spider monkey
184. Ateles fusciceps fusciceps Gray, 1866 127 Brown-headed spider monkey
185. Ateles fusciceps rufiventris Sclater, 1872 Colombian black spider monkey
186. Ateles chamek (Humboldt, 1812) 128 Black-faced black spider monkey
187. Ateles paniscus (Linnaeus, 1758) 129 Red-faced black spider monkey
188. Ateles marginatus (É. Geoffroy, 1809) 130 White-whiskered spider monkey
189. Ateles belzebuth (É. Geoffroy, 1806) 131 White-bellied spider monkey
190. Ateles hybridus hybridus (I. Geoffroy, 1829) 132 Variegated spider monkey
191. Ateles hybridus brunneus Gray, 1872 Brown spider monkey
192. Lagothrix lagotricha (Humboldt, 1812) 17 133 Humboldt’s woolly monkey
193. Lagothrix cana cana (É. Geoffroy in Humboldt, 1812) 134 Geoffroy’s woolly monkey
194. Lagothrix cana tschudii Pucheran, 1857 Peruvian woolly monkey
195. Lagothrix poeppigii Schinz, 1844 135 Poeppig’s woolly monkey
196. Lagothrix lugens Elliot, 1907 136 Colombian woolly monkey
197. Oreonax flavicauda (Humboldt, 1812) 18 137 Peruvian yellow-tailed woolly monkey
198. Brachyteles arachnoides (É. Geoffroy, 1806) 19 138 Southern muriqui
199. Brachyteles hypoxanthus (Kuhl, 1820) 139 Northern muriqui
33
(south of the Rio Solimões) form niveiventris Lönnberg, 1940 was valid (see
Groves 2001, Rylands, Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho in press). A number of
studies on the phylogenetic affinity of the pygmy marmoset (Cebuella pygmaea)
to the Amazonian marmosets (Callithrix) (for example, Rosenberger 1981, Barroso
et al. 1997, Porter et al. 1997, Tagliaro et al. 1997) have indicated that it could, even
should, be considered congeneric. Groves (2001) listed Cebuella as a subgenus of
Callithrix (embracing all of the marmosets).
The black-crowned dwarf marmoset was first described in the genus Callithrix by
Van Roosmalen et al. (1998) but was subsequently placed in its own genus Callibella
by Van Roosmalen and Van Roosmalen (2003, see also Aguiar and Lacher 2003).
Groves (2001) listed Callibella as a subgenus of Callithrix. The pygmy and dwarf
marmosets are quite distinct in their size, morphology and habits when compared to
Callithrix, and we maintain them in separate genera.
2.3.2 Marmosets, Callithrix and Mico, and Goeldi’s

Monkey, Callimico
The Amazonian marmosets were formerly considered to be of the genus Callithrix
(see Hershkovitz 1977). The argument that Cebuella should be included in the genus
Callithrix centers on the conclusion, from both morphological and genetic studies,
that the pygmy marmoset is more closely related to the Amazonian marmosets (the
argentata group of Hershkovitz [1977]) than the latter are to the Atlantic forest
(non-Amazonian) marmosets (the jacchus group of Hershkovitz [1977]). Schneider
et al. (1993) and Schneider and Rosenberger (1996), however, also concluded that
their molecular genetic data are compatible with jacchus and pygmaea being con-
generic. Although closely related to the Amazonian marmosets, we believe that
Cebuella pygmaea should be maintained in a separate genus (see Groves 2004;
Rylands et al. 2000, Rylands, Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho in press). The oldest
generic name applicable to the Amazonian marmosets alone is Mico Lesson, 1840
(type species Mico argentatus).
Hapale emiliae was first described by Thomas (1904) from the Rio Irirı́, south-
ern Pará. Hershkovitz (1977) regarded it to be a dark form of Callithrix argen-
tata. Vivo (1985, 1991) revalidated it on the basis of specimens from the state of
Rondônia. The Rondônia marmoset described by Vivo should be considered dis-
tinct, however, because its distribution is disjunct—separated from that of Hapale
emiliae by M. melanurus (see Rylands, Coimbra-Filho and Mittermeier 1993).
Sena (1998) and Ferrari, Sena and Schneider (1999) found M. emiliae to be more
similar to M. argentatus than the “emiliae” from Rondônia. Alperin (1995) argued
that Mico nigriceps (Ferrari and Lopes 1992) and “emiliae” from Rondônia belong
to the same species.
To date, Callimico is a monotypic genus, although speculation persists regarding
the possibility of there being more than one species or subspecies. Vàsàrhelyi (2002)
examined the genetic structure of the founder stock of captive callimicos, and con-
cluded that more than one cryptic subspecies or species may be represented.
2.3.3 Tamarins and Lion Tamarins, Saguinus and Leontopithcus
The taxonomy of the tamarins and lion tamarins has been quite stable since the
assessments of Hershkovitz (1966, 1977, 1979, 1982) with some few modifications
we have adopted here. Except for the two subspecies of Cebuella, where a clear
geographic distinction has yet to be established, all marmosets are now listed as
species, and the question remains whether the numerous tamarin subspecies of Her-
shkovitz (1977, 1979, 1982) should also now be considered species.
Saguinus nigricollis graellsi is listed as a full species by Hernández-Camacho
and Cooper (1976) on the basis of supposed sympatry with a population of S.
nigricollis in the region of Puerto Leguı́zamo in southern Colombia. Defler (2004)
discussed the evidence concerning this and found it to be inconclusive. He listed
graellsi as a subspecies of S. nigricollis, although Groves (2001) listed it as a distinct
species following Hernández-Camacho and Cooper (1976).
The taxonomy of Saguinus fuscicollis is based on Hershkovitz (1977; see also
Cheverud and Moore, 1990), but there are some suggested modifications. In a
molecular genetic study of the phylogeny of the genus, Cropp, Larson and Cheverud
(1999) found that the form fuscus was closer to S. nigricollis than to S. fuscicollis
and gave it species status. Saguinus f. melanoleucus and S. f. crandalli were listed as
subspecies of S. melanoleucus by Coimbra-Filho (1990) and Groves (2001, 2005),
although Tagliaro et al. (2005) found that differences between melanoleucus and
weddelli were no larger than among the weddelli specimens. Saguinus f. acrensis,
listed by Hershkovitz (1977), is not considered a valid form but a hybrid S. f. fus-
cicollis × S. f. melanoleucus from the upper Rio Juruá, following Peres, Patton
and Silva (1996). Saguinus f. crandalli (listed here as a subspecies of melanoleu-
cus) is of unknown provenance (Hershkovitz 1977), and may also be a hybrid.
Hershkovitz (1977) listed the form tripartitus as a subspecies of S. fuscicollis, but
Thorington (1988) argued for its species’ status due to its supposed sympatry with S.
f. lagonotus. Rylands, Coimbra-Filho and Mittermeier (1993, Rylands et al. 2000)
and Groves (2001) listed it as a species, but a re-evaluation of the evidence for
its distribution indicates that both Hershkovitz (1977) and Thorington (1988) may
have been wrong (Heymann 2000; Rylands and Heymann in prep.), and sympatry
between S. f. lagonotus and S. tripartitus has yet to be confirmed. M. G. M. van
Roosmalen recorded a new form of saddleback tamarin in the interfluvium of the
rios Madeira and Purus; a subspecies bounded to the south by the Rio Ipixuna and
to the north by the várzeas of the Rio Solimões (Van Roosmalen 2003; described 16
August 2003).
Hershkovitz (1977) recognized three subspecies of the mustached tamarin, S.
mystax. Groves (2001), however, found that while two, mystax and pluto, were quite
similar, the form pileatus is quite distinct, and he listed it as a separate species, S.
pileatus. The problem with this is that pileatus is sandwiched between the ranges of
mystax and pluto, separating them geographically, and indicating that if pileatus is
not a subspecies of mystax, then pluto too must be a distinct species. Groves (2001)
also listed the form S. labiatus rufiventer, considered by Hershkovitz (1977) to be a
synonym of S. l. labiatus.
The black-handed tamarin (S. niger) was considered by Hershkovitz (1977) to

be a subspecies of S. midas. Melo et al. (1992) examined 20 blood genetic systems
in midas and niger and obtained results compatible with their classification as sub-
species, but Natori and Hanihara (1992) studying the postcanine dentition found S.
m. midas to be more similar to S. bicolor than to S. m. niger, and argued that niger
and midas should be considered distinct species. Tagliaro et al. (2005) came to the
same conclusion, showing a grouping of S. midas – S. bicolor with the bare-faced
tamarins of northwestern Colombia and Panama (S. oedipus, S. leucopus, and S.
geoffroyi). Vallinoto et al. (2006) found that S. midas from the Rio Uatumã had
a haplotype distinct from S. midas from the Rio Trombetas to the east, indicating
a possibility of geographical races or distinct species. Vallinoto et al. (2006) also
indicated that the Rio Tocantins may act as a barrier to gene flow for S. niger and,
as such, that there may be two taxa of black-handed tamarins. This was presaged in
the molecular genetic analysis by Tagliaro et al. (2005).
Whereas Hershkovitz (1977) placed the bare-faced tamarins ochraceus and mar-
tinsi as subspecies of S. bicolor, we here follow Groves (2001, 2005), in considering
martinsi and bicolor as distinct species, with ochraceus being a subspecies of the
former. Coimbra-Filho, Pissinatti and Rylands (1997) indicated the possibility that
ochraceus may have arisen as a natural hybrid, intermediate between bicolor to its
west and martinsi to the east. Although only one mottled-face tamarin, S. inustus,
is recognized, Hernández-Camacho and Defler (1991) and Defler (2004) have indi-
cated the probable existence of two subspecies in Colombia. Hershkovitz (1977)
considered S. geoffroyi to be a subspecies of S. oedipus, but a number of studies
have argued for them being separate species (see Rylands 1993, Groves 2001, 2005).
Finally, the lion tamarins, Leontopithecus, are considered separate species following
Rosenberger and Coimbra-Filho (1984) (see Rylands, Coimbra-Filho and Mitter-
meier, 1993). Coimbra-Filho (1990) considered L. caissara Lorini and Persson 1990
to be a subspecies of L. chrysopygus.
2.3.4 The Squirrel Monkeys, Saimiri

Saimiri taxonomy follows Hershkovitz (1984) and Groves (2001). An alterna-
tive taxonomy was presented by Thorington (1985). This for some reason never
“caught on” but, being a solid and carefully considered assessment, should not
be ignored in future studies and re-assessments of squirrel monkey systematics.
Hernández-Camacho and Defler (1991) recognized S. sciureus caquetensis Allen,
1916, given as a junior synonym of S. sciureus macrodon by Hershkovitz (1984).
Costello et al. (1993) argued for the recognition of just two species: S. sciureus
in South America and S. oerstedii in Panama and Costa Rica. The findings of
Boinski and Cropp (1999), however, strongly supported the Hershkovitz (1984) tax-
onomy, advocating four species: Saimiri sciureus, S. boliviensis, S. oerstedii and S.
ustus. Hershkovitz (1987b, footnote p.22) indicated his recognition of jaburuensis
Lönnberg, 1940 and pluvialis Lönnberg, 1940 as subspecies of S. b. boliviensis.
They are listed by Groves (2001) as synonyms. Hershkovitz (1987b) referred to

S. vanzolinii as a subspecies of S. boliviensis. Rylands et al. (2006) discussed the
taxonomy of the Central American squirrel monkeys.
2.3.5 The Tufted Capuchin Monkeys, Cebus

The taxonomy of the tufted capuchins (sensu Hershkovitz 1949, 1955) here follows
Silva Jr. (2001), who did not recognize any subspecific forms. Groves (2001) pre-
sented an alternative taxonomy for the tufted capuchins as follows: C. apella apella;
C. a. fatuellus (Linnaeus, 1766); C. a. macrocephalus; C. a. peruanus Thomas,
1901; C. a. tocantinus Lönnberg, 1939; C. a. margaritae?; C. libidinosus libidi-
nosus; C. l. pallidus Gray, 1866; C. l. paraguayanus Fischer, 1829; C. l. juru-
anus Lönnberg, 1939; C. nigritus nigritus; C. n. robustus; C. n. cucullatus Spix,
1823; and C. xanthosternos (see Fragaszy et al. 2004; Rylands, Kierulff and Mitter-
meier 2005). Groves (2001) and Silva Jr. (2001) as such differ in their definitions of
the forms Cebus apella and C. macrocephalus. Cebus a. fatuellus, C. a. peruanus,
and C. libidinosus juruanus recognized by Groves (2001) are considered synonyms
of C. macrocephalus by Silva Jr. (2001). Silva Jr. (2001) considered C. apella
tocantinus a synonym of C. apella, and C. l. juruanus from the upper Rio Juruá
a synonym of C. macrocephalus. C. libidinosus pallidus and C. l. paraguayanus are
referred to as Cebus cay by Silva Jr. (2001). Both Groves (2001) and Silva Jr. (2001)
were undecided about C. a. margaritae of the Venezuelan Island of Margarita.
Of the three subspecies of C. nigritus listed by Groves (2001), Silva Jr. (2001)
considered robustus to be a separate species, and cucullatus a synonym of C. nigri-
tus. Cebus queirozi, recently described in Pontes, Malta and Asfora (2006) is evi-
dently a junior synonym of C. flavius, or, as argued by Oliveira and Langguth (2006),
unavailable for lack of a registered type specimen. Distinct genetically (Seuánez
et al. 1986), C. xanthosternos is considered a distinct species by both Groves (2001)
and Silva Jr. (2001).
2.3.6 The Untufted Capuchin Monkeys, Cebus

Hershkovitz (1949) listed 13 subspecies of C. albifrons. Many of them were Colom-
bian, and subsequently considered in some detail by Hernández-Camacho and
Cooper (1976), Defler and Hernández-Camacho (2002), and Defler (2004).
Hernández-Camacho and Cooper (1976) concluded that: 1. C. a. malitiosus is a
well-defined subspecies of the northern slopes of the Santa Marta Mountains; 2.
the light C. a. cesarae from the Rı́o Cesar, Magdalena valley is a well-defined
subspecies; 3. C. a. versicolor is a complex of forms from the Cauca-Magdalena
interfluvium, including, besides, C. a. versicolor (intermediate phase), C. a. leuco-
cephalus Gray, 1865) (dark phase) and C. a. pleei Hershkovitz, 1949 (light phase);
4. C. a. adustus Hershkovitz, 1949 probably occurs in piedmont forests of western
Arauca, the northern tip of Boyacá and north Santander, as well as the Lake Mara-
caibo region and upper Apure basin of Venezuela. 5. C. a. unicolor Spix, 1823,
widespread in the upper Amazon, is very similar to the type species, and a junior
synonym of C. a. albifrons Humboldt, 1812 (confirmed with further study [Defler
and Hernández-Camacho 2002]).
We list here seven forms: Cebus a. albifrons and C. a. versicolor (recognized
by Groves 2001 and Defler 2004); C. a. cuscinus (recognized by Groves 2001, and
listed as C. a. yuracus Hershkovitz, 1949 by Defler 2004); Cebus a. cesarae and
C. a. malitiosus (recognized by Defler 2004, but not Groves 2001); C. a. trinitatis
(recognized by Groves 2001) and C. a. aequatorialis (recognized by Groves 2001).
Of the white-faced capuchins C. capucinus, Defler (2004) noted that three sub-
species had been recorded for Colombia: C. c. capucinus, C. c. nigripectus Elliot,
1909; and C. c. curtus of the Pacific Island of Gorgona. Neither nigripectus nor
curtus are recognized as valid by Hershkovitz (1949), Hernández-Camacho and
Cooper (1976), Groves (2001) or Defler (2004). This listing maintains C. c. curtus,
however, because it is an island population, and we believe that further studies are
necessary. Fragaszy et al. (2004) and Rylands et al. (2006) discussed the taxonomy of
the doubtfully valid Central American subspecies: C. c. limitaneus and C. c. imitator.
Hershkovitz (1949) listed five subspecies of the weeper or wedge-capped capuchin.
Their ranges are not known; Hershkovitz plotted only their type localities (see, how-
ever, Bodini and Pérez-Hernández [1987] for ranges in Venezuela). Neither Silva
Jr. (2001) nor Groves (2001) considered them valid. They continue to be listed here,
however, because a detailed, modern, study (genetic/morphological/geographical)
of the taxonomy of Cebus olivaceus has yet to be carried out. Cebus o. brun-
neus of Venezuela is definitely distinct from olivaceus in Suriname, for example.
Queiroz (1992) described Cebus kaapori from south of the Amazon in Pará and
Maranhão. It is of the weeper capuchin group in appearance, but is generally recog-
nized as a distinct species (but see Harada and Ferrari 1996). Fragaszy et al. (2004)
provided a more detailed discussion of the taxonomy of this group.
2.3.7 The Night Monkeys, Aotus
Reviewing the entire taxonomy and distributions of the night monkeys, Aotus,
Ford (1994) carried out a multivariate analyses of craniodental measures and pelage
patterns and color, and also took into consideration chromosomal data and blood
protein variations. Ford (1994) concluded that there was “good support” for just two
species north of the Rı́o Amazonas: A. trivirgatus east and north of the Rio Negro,
and the polymorphic A. vociferans to the west of the Rio Negro. Aotus vociferans,
as such, would include all the forms north of the Rı́o Amazonas/Solimões in Brazil
(west of the Rio Negro), Peru, Colombia and Ecuador, and in the Chocó, northern
Colombia and Colombian Andes, and Panama: brumbacki, lemurinus, griseimem-
bra, and zonalis.
It is doubtful, however, that the current taxonomy provides a true picture of the
diversity of the genus Aotus. Ruiz-Herrera et al. (2005) reported that cytogenetic
studies have characterized 18 different karyotypes with diploid numbers ranging
from 46 to 58 chromosomes. The taxonomy of the night monkeys here follows the
revision by Hershkovitz (1983), with some modifications for the Colombian and
Central American forms.
Hernández-Camacho and Cooper (1976) restricted both lemurinus and griseimem-
bra to Colombia, while recognizing the form zonalis as the night monkey of north-
western Colombia (Chocó) and Panama. Hershkovitz (1983) made no mention of
the name zonalis. Groves (2001) followed Hernández-Camacho and Cooper (1976)
in recognizing zonalis as the form in Panama, and listed it as a subspecies of
lemurinus along with griseimembra and brumbacki. Defler, Bueno and Hernández-
Camacho (2001) concluded that the karyotype of Aotus hershkovitzi Ramirez-
Cerquera, 1983 (from the upper Rı́o Cusiana, Boyacá, Colombia; 2n = 58) was
in fact that of true lemurinus, and that the karyotypes which Hershkovitz (1983)
had considered to be those of lemurinus were in fact of zonalis. Defler, Bueno and
Hernández-Camacho (2001, Defler and Bueno 2003, Defler 2004) concluded that A.
lemurinus of Hershkovitz (1983) is in fact three karyotypically well-defined species,
and that the night monkeys of the lowlands of Panama and the Chocó region of
Colombia belong to the species A. zonalis, and those of the Magdalena valley to A.
griseimembra, while those above altitudes of 1500 m should correctly be referred
to as A. lemurinus (see Rylands et al. 2006). The form infulatus is listed here as a
subspecies of Aotus azarae following Groves (2001), although Hershkovitz (1983)
considered it a distinct species.
2.3.8 The Titi Monkeys, Callicebus

The taxonomy of Callicebus follows Hershkovitz (1988, 1990), Groves (2001) and
Van Roosmalen, Van Roosmalen and Mittermeier (2002). Groves (2001) listed all
the titi monkeys as full species except for those in the torquatus group, for which
he recognized only two species—C. torquatus and C. medemi, and the personatus
group of the Atlantic forest in which he again recognized just two species—C. per-
sonatus and C. coimbrai. Van Roosmalen, Van Roosmalen and Mittermeier (2002)
listed all titi monkeys as full species. We continue to recognize Callicebus dubius,
although Groves (2001) considered it a synonym of C. cupreus.
Defler (2004) considered all the Colombian titi monkeys to be subspecies of
torquatus or cupreus, following the taxonomy of Hershkovitz (1990). In their kary-
ological analysis Bueno et al. (2006), however, indicated that the form ornatus
should be classified a distinct species. T. R Defler is currently investigating the long-
ignored mention by Moynihan (1976) of an apparently undescribed titi between
the rı́os Orteguaza and Caquetá, in southern Caquetá Department, near Valparaı́so,
Colombia.
Groves (2001) maintained C. medemi of the C. torquatus group as a full species

because of its geographical isolation. Defler (2004) pointed out that it was not
in fact isolated; it is “found in continuous forest which harbors (to the east),
C. torquatus lucifer” (p. 300). Defler (2004) argued that the members of the C.
torquatus group should all be considered subspecies, following Hershkovitz (1990).
Heymann, Encarnación and Soini (2002) have indicated that the taxonomy of this
group requires further study. They reported that the diagnostic features for C. lucifer
provided by Hershkovitz (1990) and repeated in Van Roosmalen, Van Roosmalen
and Mittermeier (2002) (used to distinguish it from C. medemi, for example) were
inconsistently represented in different localities in northeastern Peru.
Bonvicino et al. (2003b) argued that Callicebus lugens is a distinct species on the
basis of its morphology and karyological and molecular analyses (compared with
C. purinus and C. torquatus). Bueno and Defler (2007), agreeing that its karyotype
argues for its elevation to a full species, concluded the possibility that C. lugens
(sensu stricto) may be limited to the east of the Rio Negro, while C. torquatus
(with three subspecies) may be restricted to the west. Their data indicated the need
for further karyological studies and a re-assessment of the taxonomy of the group.
Molecular genetic studies of C. lugens on the upper Rio Negro in Brazil by Casado,
Bonvicino and Seuánez (2007) indicated an even more complex situation. The kary-
otypes are the same (2n = 16) either side of the Rio Negro, but they have distinct
haplotypes, suggesting different “evolutionary lineages”.
2.3.9 The Saki Monkeys, Pithecia

The taxonomy of the sakis, Pithecia, follows Hershkovitz (1987a), except in the
recognition of P. monachus napensis from La Coca, Rı́o Napo, Ecuador. It is evi-
dent, however, that further field, genetic, and museum studies will considerably
increase the diversity in this genus (most particularly in Hershkovitz’s [1987a]
Pithecia monachus group). (L. Marsh pers. comm. 2006). Groves (2001) follows
Hershkovitz’s (1987a) taxonomy. Marsh (2004, 2006) reported that the saki at the
Tiputini Biodiversity Station, on the Rı́o Tiputini, Yasunı́ National Park, Ecuador,
is not referable to Pithecia aequatorialis as was supposed by Hershkovitz (1987a),
and may be a new form.
2.3.10 The Bearded Saki Monkeys, Chiropotes
The taxonomy of the bearded sakis, Chiropotes, is based on the revision of the genus
by Hershkovitz (1985). The three subspecies of C. satanas (satanas, chiropotes and
utahicki) are here listed as full species following the recommendation of Silva Jr.
and Figueiredo (2002) and Figueiredo et al. (2006).
Bonvicino et al. (2003a) resurrected the name israelita for the bearded sakis dis-
covered by J. P. Boubli to the west of the Rio Branco, tributary of the Rio Negro,
Amazonas, Brazil (Boubli 2002). Genetic and pelage differences distinguish it from
the bearded sakis of the Guianas to the east of the Rio Branco. There is however,
a possible confusion concerning the correct names. Silva Jr. and Figueiredo (2002)
argue that the form west of the Rio Branco is, correctly C. chiropotes, according to
its type locality, and the form to the east of the Rio Branco, extending through the
states of Pará and Amapá, and into the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana)
is C. sagulatus (Traill, 1821) from Demerara.
2.3.11 The Uacaris, Cacajao

The taxonomy of the uacaris (Cacajao) is based on the revision by Hershkovitz
(1987b). Silva Jr. and Martins (1999) extended the range of C. c. novaesi to
the upper Juruá, along the Rio Eiru, and reported on the occurrence of a white
uacari along the Rio Jurupari, affluent of the Rio Envira, in Acre, that is distinct
from novaesi. Recent observations in the middle Rio Juruá in the municipality of
Carauari, have also revealed the presence of a white uacari, sympatric (but occu-
pying different habitats) with what is presumed to be C. c. novaesi (A. Ravetta in
litt. 31 August 2005). What relation this population might have to the Rio Juru-
pari population is not known. Genetic studies by W. Figueiredo (Museu Paraense
Emı́lio Goeldi, Belém) are indicating that C. c. calvus (interfluvium of the rios
Japurá and Solimões) and the white uacari of the Rio Juruá are genetically quite dis-
tinct and that the taxonomy of C. calvus, sensu Hershkovitz (1987b), requires revi-
sion (J. M. Cardoso da Silva pers. comm. 2005). Figueiredo et al. (2006) reported
that their genetic analysis of the two black-headed uacaris—C. m. melanocephalus
and C. m. ouakary—provided evidence that they should be considered different
species.
2.3.12 The Howler Monkeys, Alouatta

Hill (1962) and Stanyon et al. (1995) listed nine subspecies of the red howling
monkey, A. seniculus: A. s. seniculus, A. s. arctoidea, A. s. stramineus, A. s. mac-
conelli, A. s. insulanus, A. s. amazonica, A. s. juara, A. s. puruensis, and A. s. sara.
Alouatta seniculus from Cartagena, Bolı́var, Colombia, is the red howling mon-
key from the northwestern Amazon. Alouatta s. arctoidea is recognized as a full
species because Stanyon et al. (1995) concluded that the number of chromosomal
differences between A. s. sara and A. s. arctoidea were on a similar scale to that
found previously between A. s. sara and A. s. seniculus by Minezawa et al. (1986),
which had resulted in A. s. sara being considered a full species. Groves (2001)
neverthelesss maintained it as a subspecies of A. seniculus. Alouatta s. straminea
is not a valid name for the red howling monkey because its type specimen is a
female Alouatta caraya, as demonstrated by Rylands and Brandon-Jones (1998).
Bonvicino, Fernandes and Seuánez (1995) believe that the red howler monkeys
either side of the Rio Trombetas are karyotypically distinct and should be considered
different species, and continue to use the name stramineus for the red howlers of the
Rio Negro basin west of the Rio Trombetas, while adopting the name macconnelli
(type locality Demerara) for those east of the Rio Trombetas. In contrast to Bon-
vicino, Fernandes and Seuánez (1995), Sampaio, Schneider and Schneider (1996)
concluded that the karyotypic differences between the howlers either side of the Rio
Trombetas were inconsequential. In their molecular phylogenetic study, Bonvicino,
Lemos and Seuánez (2001) found low levels of divergence between A. macconnelli,
A. stramineus (howlers from the west of the Rio Trombetas) and A. nigerrima—
lower than recorded within A. caraya and A. belzebul. A molecular genetic study
by Figueiredo et al. (1998) failed to show a difference between the red howlers
either side of the Rio Trombetas. Gregorin (2006) concluded that variation in pelage
coloration provided no evidence for more than one species in the northeastern Ama-
zon, in the Guianas, east of the Rio Negro and on both sides of the Rio Trombetas.
Alouatta macconnelli may, therefore, be the right name for the red howler monkey
of the entire northeastern Amazon and Guianas, although there are two other candi-
dates for the name: Mycetes auratus Gray, 1845 and M. laniger Gray, 1845 (Rylands
and Brandon-Jones 1998).
Alouatta s. insulanus of the Island of Trinidad, is considered to be a synonym
of A. macconnelli (see Groves 2001). Groves (2001) considered A. s. amazonica
Lönnberg, 1941 from Codajáz, north of the Rio Solimões, west of the Rio Negro,
and A. s. puruensis from the Rio Purus to be junior synonyms of A. s. juara. Gre-
gorin (2006) tentatively considered amazonica to be a junior synonym of A. juara,
extending the range of this species to the north of the Rio Solimões, but Gregorin
himself stated that this was mere speculation, and the identity of the howler mon-
keys west of the Negro in the north-central Amazon (the eastern range limits of A.
seniculus from Colombia) remains unclear. Alouatta s. juara from the Rio Juruá, is
listed here as a full species following Gregorin (2006). Groves (2001) recognized
juara as a subspecies of A. seniculus, with A. s. amazonica and A. s. puruensis (here
considered distinct) as synonyms. Alouatta s. puruensis from Jaburú, Rio Purus,
is recognized by Gregorin (2006). Alouatta s. sara is recognized as a full species
following Minezawa et al. (1986; see also Stanyon et al. 1995; Groves 2001).
Cruz Lima (1945), Langguth et al. (1987), and Bonvicino, Langguth and Mitter-
meier (1989) studied the howling monkeys that Hill (1962) had listed as subspecies
of A. belzebul. Following Cruz Lima (1945), Groves (2001), and Gregorin (2006),
the form nigerrima is here considered a full species. Cytogenetic studies have also
indicated that nigerrima is sufficiently distinct as to warrant species status (Armada
et al. 1987; Lima and Seuánez 1989), and, besides, that it is more closely related to
seniculus than to belzebul (see Oliveira 1996). Groves (2001) did not recognize any
subspecies for A. belzebul: the forms discolor, mexianae, and ululata were given as
junior synonyms. Here we follow Gregorin (2006) who recognized the forms belze-
bul, discolor, and ululata as full species, and placed mexianae as a junior synonym
of A. discolor. Nascimento et al. (2005) were unable to differentiate the disjunct pop-
ulations of A. belzebul from the Atlantic forest (Paraı́ba) and the Amazon (southern
Pará).
Rylands and Brandon-Jones (1998) and Gregorin (2006) discussed the valid-
ity or otherwise of the use of the alternative names of fusca and guariba for the
brown howling monkey of the Atlantic forest of Brazil and Argentina. Rylands
and Brandon-Jones (1998) indicated that guariba Humboldt, 1812 is the available
name, Gregorin (2006) that fusca E. Geoffroy, 1812 is correct. Gregorin (2006),
studying the morphology of the cranium and hyoid apparatus, considered that the
two brown howlers listed by Rylands et al. (2000) and Groves (2001) as subspecies
should be full species. We reserve judgment on this until genetic studies can be
brought to bear. Harris et al. (2005) found differences between populations of A.
guariba clamitans in southern Brazil—from Rio de Janeiro on the one hand and
Santa Catarina on the other. They showed that these correspond to differences in
karyotype recorded by Koiffman (1977) and Oliveira, Lima and Sbalqueiro (1995,
Oliveira et al. 1998, 2002). Maximum genetic distances found by Harris et al. (2005)
were considerably greater than those recorded for A. caraya and A. belzebul by
Nascimento et al. (2005), and they argued that further research may result in the
recognition of three species. We continue with the names and subspecific classifica-
tion as used by Rylands et al. (2000) and Groves (2001, 2005) until the taxonomy
becomes better defined.
Nascimento et al. (2005) showed that populations of Alouatta caraya from Santa
Cruz, Bolivia (Chaco) are differentiated from those in various localities in the state
of Mato Grosso and (one specimen) Goiás, further north, indicating the possibility
of two rather than one taxa of the South American black howler. The taxonomy
of the howlers of Mesoamerica and the Caribbean and Pacific coasts of Colombia
and Ecuador is based on Lawrence (1933), Hill (1962), Hall (1981), Froehlich and
Froehlich (1987), and Cortés-Ortiz et al. (2003). Groves (2001, 2005) recognized
only A. palliata (no subspecies), A. pigra, and A. coibensis (no subspecies). Rylands
et al. (2006) reviewed the taxonomy and distributions of A. palliata, A. coibensis and
A. pigra.
Cortés-Ortiz et al. (2003) found that A. palliata and A. coibensis comprise a very
closely related and monophyletic group of mtDNA lineages. Divergence between
A. palliata and A. coibensis is similar to mtDNA distances observed between
geographically-separated populations within each of these two species. Rylands
et al. (2006) maintained the taxonomy suggested by Froehlich and Froehlich (1987)
for the forms from the Azuero Peninsula (A. coibensis coibensis) and the Island of
Coiba (Panama) (A. c. trabeata), but it is evident that the findings of the molecular
genetic analyses of Cortés-Ortiz et al. (2003) would relegate them to synonyms of
A. palliata. Groves (2001) listed A. coibensis, with trabeata, as a synonym. There
is still some discussion concerning the correct name for the Central American black
howler, A. pigra. Napier (1976) referred to it as A. villosa and, revisiting the issue,
Brandon-Jones (2006) argued that A. pigra is a junior synonym.
2.3.13 The Spider Monkeys, Ateles

The taxonomy of the spider monkeys is based on Kellogg and Goldman (1944)
and Hill (1962). The forms hybridus, chamek and marginatus are listed as distinct
species, and A. fusciceps robustus Allen, 1914 is considered a junior synonym of A.

f. rufiventris, following Heltne and Kunkel (1975) (see Rylands et al. 2000, 2006).
Silva-López, Motta-Gill and Sánchez-Hernández (1996) argued that Ateles geoffroyi
pan Schlegel, 1876 was not a valid taxon. Hernández-Camacho and Defler (1991)
and Defler (2004) argued for the validity of the form brunneus, listed here as a
subspecies of A. hybridus. The taxonomy and distributions of A. geoffroyi and A.
fusciceps were reviewed by Rylands et al. (2006).
Van Roosmalen (2003) reported on the rediscovery of A. longimembris Allen,
1914, from Barão de Melgaço, headwaters of the Rio Gy-paraná, Mato Grosso,
Brazil. Cruz Lima (1945) recognized this spider monkey as a subspecies of A. panis-
cus. The description of the range given by Cruz Lima (1945; p. 127) extends west
into what is currently recognized to be that of A. chamek. Groves (2001) considered
it to be a synonym of A. chamek. Van Roosmalen described it as differing from
A. chamek by “cranial characters (i.e., proportionally heavy jaws and canines not
enabling adults to fully close their mouth), triangular pink muzzle including chin,
black face, and black triangular blaze of backwardly directed black hairs on the
forehead.”
Collins (1999) and Collins and Dubach (2000) argued strongly for the species
status of the form hybridus. Their position was reinforced by Nieves et al. (2005).
Hernández-Camacho and Defler (1991) and Defler (2004) argued for the validity of
the form brunneus from the Departments of Bolivar, Antioquia and Caldas, between
the lower Rı́os Cauca and Magdalena in Colombia. It is listed here as a subspecies
of A. hybridus, as recommended by Defler (2004).
2.3.14 The Woolly Monkeys, Lagothrix and Oreonax

The taxonomy of Lagothrix is based on Fooden (1963), but follows Groves (2001)
in recognizing cana, lugens, and poeppigii as full species rather than subspecies
of Lagotricha. Groves (2001) also recognized tschudii Pucheran, 1857 from Peru
(see Cruz Lima 1945). An isolated population of Lagothrix was discovered by Wal-
lace and Painter (1999) in Madidi National Park, Bolivia, at 1500 m. This may be
a new taxon or L. cana tschudii, and is the only modern record of Lagothrix occur-
ring in Bolivia. The provenance of a juvenile woolly monkey with orange-colored
pelage illustrated by Cruz Lima (1945) was unknown until recently. A population
was found by Carlos A. Peres on the upper Rio Jutaı́, upper Amazon (within the
supposed range of L. poeppigii) and reported by Van Roosmalen (2003).
As a result of his comparative studies of cranial morphology in the atelines,
Groves (2001, 2005) concluded that the yellow-tailed woolly monkey should prop-
erly be considered a monotypic genus, Oreonax Thomas, 1927.
2.3.15 The Muriquis, Brachyteles

Vieira (1944) recognized two subspecies of Brachyteles. Evidence provided by
Lemos de Sá et al. (1990), Fonseca et al. (1991) and Lemos de Sá and Glander (1993)
indicated that Vieira’s (1944) standing was valid, but that differentiation is even
more extreme and justifies the classification of the two forms as separate species
(see also Coimbra-Filho, Pissinatti and Rylands 1993). Groves (2001, 2005) listed
the two muriquis as separate species.
2.4 Discussion
A full understanding of the diversity of primates in the Neotropical region is
now an urgent task. The relentless ruination—fragmentation, degradation, and
destruction—of the forests of South and Middle America is making it increasingly
difficult to map the distributions of the primate species and subspecies currently rec-
ognized. In Mesoamerica and the eastern Brazilian Atlantic forest it is now impos-
sible to detect clines and to fully document the natural variation that is so necessary
to make judgements concerning the thresholds for determining that two populations
are consistently different, and as such species—the unit we use to prioritize conser-
vation investments. As we lose the population diversity of the neotropical primates
we lose our capacity to detect phylogenetic processes and the true nature of the
Neotropical primate radiation. It is quite possible that, what we would today judge to
be species or subspecies have already been lost in the Atlantic forest and Mesoamer-
ica, and Andean Colombia, Peru and Venezuela, where forest loss, fragmentation
and hunting are most accentuated. Complex patterns of genetic and morphological
variation are, in addition, confused irreparably by the constant transport of pets, and
their release, often in large numbers, far from where they occur naturally. Marmosets
and capuchin monkeys in the Atlantic forest are today quite severely mixed up due
to interbreeding between geographically distant forms. The possibility that species
have been, or will be, lost without us even detecting their existence is underlined
by the fact that we are still finding species never before described—14 since 1990
(Table 2.3)—and even new genera (Callibella M. G. M van Roosmalen and T.
van Roosmalen, 2003). Stranger still is the rediscovery of forms described many
years ago but forgotten, such as the distinct bearded sakis west of the Rio Branco
in the Brazilian Amazon (Boubli 2002; Bonvicino et al. 2003a), and Marcgrave’s
capuchin Cebus flavius (Schreber, 1774) on the coast of Pernambuco (see Oliveira
and Langguth, 2006).
A neatly explained taxonomy with a well-drawn map unfortunately tends to
inspire complacency. Both species’ definitions and geographic distributions are
hypotheses, which require continuous testing; evaluating the quality and quantity
of information upon which they are based. Hershkovitz (1977), for example, indi-
cated that Saguinus mystax pluto occurred between the Rios Purus and Madeira,
from the Rio Solimões south into northern Bolivia. His hypothesis was based on a
poorly defined type locality and just two other, dubious, locality records (Rylands,
Coimbra-Filho and Mittermeier 1993). Although still poorly documented, it would
seem that its true range is considerably smaller, and only to the west, not the east,
of the (lower) Purus.
Table 2.3 Species and subspecies of Neotropical primates described since 1990
Callithrix nigriceps Ferrari and Lopes, 1992 Black-headed marmoset
Callithrix mauesi Mittermeier, Ayres & Maués marmoset
Schwarz, 1992
Callithrix argentata marcai Alperin, 1993 Marca’s marmoset
Callithrix saterei Sousee Silva Jr & Noronha, 1998 Sateré marmoset
Callithrix humilis Van Roosmalen, Van Roosmalen, Black-crowned dwarf marmoset
Mittermeier & Fonseca, 1998
Callithrix manicorensis Van Roosmalen, Van Manicoré marmoset
Roosmalen, Mittermeier & Fonseca, 2000
Callithrix acariensis Van Roosmalen, Van Rio Acarı́ marmoset
Roosmalen, Mittermeier & Fonseca, 2000
Leontopithecus caissara Lorini and Persson, 1990 Black-faced lion tamarin
Callicebus bernhardi Van Roosmalen, Van Prince Bernhard’s titi monkey
Roosmalen and Mittermeier, 2002
Callicebus stephennashi Van Roosmalen, Van Stephen Nash’s titi monkey
Roosmalen and Mittermeier, 2002
Callicebus personatus barbarabrownae Blond titi
Hershkovitz, 1990
Callicebus coimbrai Kobayashi & Langguth, 1999 Coimbra-Filho’s titi monkey
Callicebus aureipalatii Wallace, Gómez, A. Felton Madidi titi monkey
& A. M. Felton, 2006
Cebus kaapori Queiroz, 1992 Ka’apor capuchin
Further research is urgently needed to verify and detail the taxonomies and
distributions of all of the Neotropical primates. Modern taxonomic and biogeo-
graphic revisions are especially needed for the woolly monkeys (Lagothrix) (the
most recent was Fooden [1963]), the sakis (Pithecia), the collared titis of the Cal-
licebus torquatus group, and the untufted capuchins, currently ascribed to just two
species, Cebus olivaceus and C. albifrons (see Hershkovitz 1949, Bodini and Pérez-
Hernández 1987, Defler 2004). It is becoming evident that the taxonomy of Pithecia
published by Hershkovitz in 1987, although a major contribution, is still very far
from reflecting the true diversity of the genus (L. Marsh, pers. comm.). Other genera
which have received much attention over recent years but are still subject to severely
divergent opinions and confusion are the night monkeys (Aotus), the tufted capuchin
monkeys (Cebus), and the squirrel monkeys (Saimiri).
2.5 Summary
The modern taxonomy of the Infraorder Platyrrhini has been deeply influenced by
the numerous publications of the late Philip Hershkovitz. This has meant that in
many aspects platyrrhine taxonomy has been extraordinarily stable over the last
three decades, while his work has at the same time provided the wherewithal for con-
siderable refinement and adjustments. It may well be that the legacy of Hershkovitz
is the cause of there being more species and subspecies of primates in the New
World than in Africa and Asia, providing as he did the capacity to compare findings
with what is known, both in terms of the physiognomy of the primates under scrutiny
and their supposed distributions. The latest taxonomies of the non-human primates
indicate approximately 630 species and subspecies in 71 genera and 17 families.
Of these, five families, 19 genera and 199 species and subspecies are Neotropical—
31% of the primates. Africa has 169 species and subspecies and Asia 186. Notably,
of the 53 “new” primates described since 1990, 15 were from the Neotropics of
which nearly half (seven) are marmosets and five are titi monkeys (two are capuchin
monkeys, and the black-faced lion tamarin, Leontopithecus caissara completes the
set). Both the titi monkeys, Callicebus, and the marmosets were extensively revised
by Hershkovitz prior to 1990. The groups that he did not revise prior to his death
were the atelines and capuchin monkeys, both of which are still confused in their
taxonomy, although the variability in the latter group particularly makes a better
understanding of their systematics the biggest challenge among all the platyrrhine
genera. Two further tendencies deserve mention. The first is associated with the
desire to conserve the full diversity of primates, an aspect which drags taxonomy
from the realm of cataloguing and academic pursuit into the applied sciences. Pre-
caution allows people to unashamedly “split.” The second is related to our increased
knowledge of the geography of the phenotypes we observe in situ, which has made
it increasingly difficult to accept single definitions or dichotomies of species and
subspecies. This and the new insights resulting from molecular genetics and chro-
mosome studies, have promoted the adoption of the Phylogenetic Species Concept
and the gradual rejection of interpretations of variation using the category of sub-
species. In this chapter, I discuss these aspects as related to the taxonomy of the
New World monkeys, indicating particularly where change has been prevalent, and
the challenges we still face in achieving an understanding of their full diversity,
not least of which are the widespread loss of their forests and the introduction and
spread of species outside of their natural ranges.
References
Aguiar, J. M., and Lacher Jr., T. E. 2003. On the morphological distinctiveness of Callithrix humilis
Van Roosmalen et al. 1998. Neotrop. Primates 11(1):11–18.
Alperin, R. 1995. Callithrix nigriceps Ferrari e Lopes, 1992: Um sinônimo júnior de Callithrix
emiliae Thomas, 1920. In Programa e Resumos: VII Congresso Brasileiro de Primatologia,
p.79, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, 23–28 July, 1995. Natal: Sociedade
Brasileira de Primatologia.
Armada, J. L. A., Barroso, C. M. L., Lima, M. M. C., Muniz, J. A. P. C., and Seuánez, H. N. 1987.
Chromosome studies in Alouatta belzebul. Am. J. Primatol. 13:283–296.
Barroso, C. M. L., Schneider, H., Schneider, M. P. C., Sampaio, I., Harada, M. L., Czelusniak,
J., and Goodman, M. 1997. Update on the phylogenetic systematics of New World monkeys:
Further DNA evidence for placing the pygmy marmoset (Cebuella) within the genus Callithrix.
Int. J. Primatol. 18(4):651–674.
Bodini, R., and Pérez-Hernández, R. 1987. Distribution of the species and subspecies of cebids in
Venezuela. Fieldiana, Zool., New Series (39):231–244.
Boinski, S., and Cropp, S. J. 1999. Disparate data sets resolve squirrel monkey (Saimiri) taxonomy:
Implications for behavioral ecology and biomedical usage. Int. J. Primatol. 20(2):237–256.
Bonvicino, C. R., Langguth, A., and Mittermeier, R. A. 1989. A study of the pelage color and
geographic distribution in Alouatta belzebul (Primates: Cebidae). Rev. Nordestina Biol. 6(2):
139–148.
Bonvicino, C. R., Fernandes, M. E. B., and Seuánez, H. N. 1995. Morphological analysis of
Alouatta seniculus species group (Primates, Cebidae): A comparison with biochemical and
karyological data. Hum. Evol. 10(2):169–176.
Bonvicino, C. R., Lemos, B., and Seuánez, H. N. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics of howler mon-
keys (Alouatta, Platyrrhini): A comparison with karyotypic data. Chromosoma 110:241–246.
Bonvicino, C. R., Boubli, J. P., Otazu, I. B., Almeida, F. C., Nascimento, F. F., Coura, J. R., and
Seuánez, H. N. 2003a. Morphologic, karyotypic, and molecular evidence of a new form of
Chiropotes (Primates, Pitheciinae). Am. J. Primatol. 61(3):123–133.
Bonvicino, C. R., Penna-Fieme, H. N., Nascimento, F. do, Lemos, B., Stanton, R., and Seuánez, H.
N. 2003b. The lowest diploid number (2n = 16) yet found in any of the primates: Callicebus
lugens (Humboldt, 1819). Folia Primatol. 74:141–149.
Boubli, J. P. 2002. Western extension of the range of bearded sakis: A possible new taxon of
Chiropotes sympatric with Cacajao in the Pico da Neblina National Park. Neotrop. Primates
19(1):1–4.
Brandon-Jones, D. 2006. Apparent confirmation that Alouatta villosa (Gray, 1845) is a senior syn-
onym of A. pigra Lawrence, 1933 as the species-group name for the black howler monkey of
Belize, Guatemala and Mexico. Primate Conserv. (21):41–43.
Brandon-Jones, D., and Groves, C. P. 2002. Neotropical primate family-group names replaced by
Groves (2001) in contravention of Article 40 of the International Code of Zoological Nomen-
clature. Neotrop. Primates 10(3):113–115.
Brandon-Jones, D., Eudey, A. A., Geissmann, T., Groves, C. P., Melnick, D. J., Morales, J. C.,
Shekelle, M., and Stewart C.-B. 2004. Asian primate classification. Int. J. Primatol. 25(1):
97–164.
Bueno, M. L., and Defler, T. R. 2007. Esta presente Callicebus lugens en Colombia? Unpublished
manuscript.
Bueno, M. L., Ramı́rez-Orjuela, C., Leibovici, M., and Torres, O. M. 2006. Información cariológica
del género Callicebus en Colombia. Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. 30(114):109–115.
Cabrera, A. 1957. Catalogo de los mamı́feros de América del Sur. Rev. Mus. Argentino de Cienc.
Nat. “Bernardino Rivadavia” 4(1):1–307.
Canavez, F. C., Moreira, M. A. M., Simon, F., Parham, P., and Seuánez, H. N. 1999. Phylogenetic
relationships of the Callitrichinae (Platyrrhini, Primates) based on beta2-microglobulin DNA
sequences. Am. J. Primatol. 48(3):225–236.
Casado, F., Bonvicino, C. R., and Seuánez, H. N. 2007. Phylogeographic analyses of Callicebus
lugens (Platyrrhini, Primates). J. Hered. 98(1):88–92.
Chaves, R., Sampaio, I., Schneider, M. P. C., Schneider, H., Page, S. L., and Goodman, M. 1999.
The place of Callimico goeldii in the callitrichine phylogenetic tree: Evidence from von Wille-
brand Factor Gene Intron II sequences. Molec. Phylogenet. Evol. 13:392–404.
Cheverud, J. M., and Moore, A. J. 1990. Subspecific variation in the saddle-back tamarin (Saguinus
fuscicollis). Am. J. Primatol. 21:1–15.
Coimbra-Filho, A. F. 1990. Sistemática, distribuição geográfica e situação atual dos sı́mios
brasileiros (Platyrrhini – Primates). Rev. Brasil. Biol. 50:1063–1079.
Coimbra-Filho, A. F., Pissinatti, A., and Rylands, A. B. 1993. Breeding muriquis (Brachyteles
arachnoides) in captivity: The experience of the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre (CPRJ-FEEMA)
(Ceboidea, Primates). Dodo, J. Wildl. Preserv. Trusts 29:66–77.
Coimbra-Filho, A. F., Pissinatti, A., and Rylands, A. B. 1997. A simulacrum of Saguinus bicolor
ochraceus Hershkovitz, 1966, obtained through hybridising S. b. martinsi and S. b. bicolor
(Callitrichidae, Primates). In A Primatologia no Brasil – 5, eds. S. F. Ferrari, and H. Schneider,
pp. 179–184. Belém: Sociedade Brasileira de Primatologia.
Collins, A. C. 1999. Species status of the Colombian spider monkey, Ateles belzebuth hybridus.
Neotrop. Primates 7(2):39–43.
Collins, A. C., and Dubach, J. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships of spider monkeys (Ateles) based
on mitochondrial DNA variation. Int. J. Primatol. 21(3):381–420.
Cortés-Ortiz, L., Bermingham, E., Rico, C., Rodriguez-Luna, E., Sampaio, I., and Ruiz-Garcia,
M. 2003. Molecular systematics and biogeography of the Neotropical monkey genus, Alouatta.
Molec. Phylogenet. Evol. 26:64–81.
Costello, R. K., Dickinson, C., Rosenberger, A. L., Boinski, S., and Szalay, F. S. 1993. Squirrel
monkey (genus Saimiri) taxonomy: A multidisciplinary study of the biology of the species.
In Species, Species Concepts, and Primate Evolution, eds. W. H. Kimbel, and L. B. Martin,
pp.177–210. New York: Plenum Press.
Cronin, J. E., and Sarich, V. M. 1978. Marmoset evolution: The molecular evidence. In Primates
in Medicine, Vol. 10, eds. N. Gengozian, and F. Deinhardt, pp.12–19. Basel: S. Karger.
Cropp, S. J., Larson, A., and Cheverud, J. M. 1999. Historical biogeography of tamarins, genus
Saguinus: The molecular phylogenetic evidence. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 108:65–89.
Cruz Lima, E. da. 1945. Mammals of Amazônia, Vol. 1. General Introduction and Primates. Belém
do Pará: Contribuições do Museu Paraense Emı́lio Goeldi de História Natural e Etnografia.
Defler, T. R. 2004. Primates of Colombia. Washington, DC: Tropical Field Guide Series, Conser-
vation International.
Defler, T. R., and Bueno, M. L. 2003. Karyological guidelines for Aotus taxonomy. Am. J. Primatol.
60(suppl. 1):134–135.
Defler, T. R., and Hernández-Camacho, J. I. 2002. The true identity and characteristics of Simia
albifrons Humboldt, 1812: Description of neotype. Neotrop. Primates 10:49–64.
Defler, T. R., Bueno, M. L., and Hernández-Camacho, J. I. 2001. Taxonomic status of Aotus her-
shkovitzi: Its relationship to Aotus lemurinus lemurinus. Neotrop. Primates 9:37–52.
Elliot, D. G. 1913. A Review of Primates, Monograph Series, American Museum of Natural His-
tory, New York.
Ferrari, S. F., and Lopes, M. A. 1992. A new species of marmoset, genus Callithrix Erxleben, 1777
(Callitrichidae, Primates) from western Brazilian Amazonia. Goeldiana Zoologia (12):1–3.
Ferrari, S. F., Sena, L., and Schneider, M. P. C. 1999. Definition of a new species of mar-
moset (Primates: Callithrichinae) from southwestern Amazonia based on molecular, ecological,
and zoogeographic evidence. In Livro de Resumos, IX Congresso Brasileiro de Primatolo-
gia, pp. 80–81, Santa Teresa, Espı́rito Santo, 25–30 July 1999. Santa Teresa, Espı́rito Santo:
Sociedade Brasileira de Primatologia.
Figueiredo, W. B., Carvalho-Filho, N. M., Schneider, H., and Sampaio, I. 1998. Mitochondrial
DNA sequences and the taxonomic status of Alouatta seniculus populations in northeastern
Amazonia. Neotrop. Primates 6:73–77.
Figueiredo, W. B., Silva, J. M., Bates, J. M., Harada, M. L, and Silva Jr., J. S. 2006. Conservation
genetics and biogeography of pitheciins. Int. J. Primatol. 27(suppl. 1):Abstract #510.
Fonseca, G. A. B. da, Lemos de Sá, R. M., Pope, T. R., Glander, K. E., and Struhsaker, T. T. 1991.
A pilot study of genetic and morphological variation in the muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides)
as a contribution to a long-term conservation management plan. Report, World Wildlife Fund –
US, Washington, DC. 58pp.
Fooden, J. 1963. A revision of the woolly monkeys (genus Lagothrix). J. Mammal. 44(2):213–247.
Ford, S. M. 1994. Taxonomy and distribution of the owl monkey. In Aotus: The Owl Monkey, eds.
J. F. Baer, R. E. Weller, and I. Kakoma, pp. 1–57. New York: Alan R. Liss.
Fragaszy, D. M., Visalberghi, E., Fedigan. L., and Rylands A. B. 2004. Taxonomy, distribution and
conservation: Where and what are they, and how did they get there? In The Complete Capuchin:
The Biology of the Genus Cebus, D. Fragaszy, L. Fedigan, and E. Visalberghi, pp. 13–35.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Froehlich, J. W., and Froehlich, P. H. 1987. The status of Panama’s endemic howling monkeys.
Primate Conserv. (8):58–62.
Gregorin, R. 2006. Taxonomy and geographic variation of species of the genus Alouatta Lacépède
(Primates, Atelidae) in Brazil. Rev. Brasil. Zool. 23(1):64–144.
Groves, C. P. 2001. Primate Taxonomy. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Groves, C. P. 2004. The what, why and how of primate taxonomy. Int. J. Primatol. 25(5):
1105–1126.
Groves, C. P. 2005. Order Primates. In Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geo-
graphic Reference, 3rd Edition, Vol. 1, eds. D. E. Wilson, and D. M. Reeder, pp. 111–184.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Grubb, P., Butynski, T. M., Oates, J. F., Bearder, S. K., Disotell, T. R., Groves, C. P., and Struhsaker,
T. T. 2003. Assessment of the diversity of African primates. Int J. Primatol. 24(6):1301–1357.
Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Harada, M. L., and Ferrari, S. F. 1996. Reclassification of Cebus kaapori Queiroz 1992 based on
new specimens from eastern Pará, Brazil. In Abstracts. XVIth Congress of the International Pri-
matological Society, XIXth Congress of the American Society of Primatologists, #729, August
11–16, 1996. Madison, Wisconsin.
Harris, E. E., Gifalli-Inghetti, C., Braga, Z. H., and Koiffman, C. P. 2005. Cytochrome b sequences
show subdivision between populations of the brown howler monkey Alouatta guariba from Rio
de Janeiro and Santa Catarina, Brazil. Neotrop. Primates 13(2):16–17.
Heltne, P. G., and Kunkel L. M. 1975. Taxonomic notes on the pelage of Ateles paniscus paniscus,
A. p. chamek (sensu Kellogg and Goldman, 1944) and A. fusciceps rufiventris (= A. f. robustus
Kellogg and Goldman, 1944). J. Med. Primatol. 4:83–102.
Hernández-Camacho, J., and Cooper, R. W. 1976. The non-human primates of Colombia. In
Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation, eds. R. W. Thorington Jr., and P. G.
Heltne, pp. 35–69. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Hernández-Camacho, J., and Defler, T. R. 1991. Algunos aspectos de la conservación de primates
no-humanos en Colombia. In La Primatologı́a en Latinoamérica, eds. C. J. Saavedra, R. A.
Mittermeier, and I. B. Santos, pp. 67–100. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.
Hershkovitz, P. 1949. Mammals of northern Colombia. Preliminary report No. 4: Monkeys (Pri-
mates), with taxonomic revisions of some forms. Proc. U. S. Natl. Mus. 98:323–427.
Hershkovitz, P. 1955. Notes on the American monkeys of the genus Cebus. J. Mammal. 36:
449–452.
Hershkovitz, P. 1966. Taxonomic notes on tamarins, genus Saguinus (Callithricidae, Primates) with
descriptions of four new forms. Folia Primatol. 4:381–395.
Hershkovitz, P. 1977. Living New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini) with an Introduction to Primates,
Vol. 1. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Hershkovitz, P. 1979. Races of the emperor tamarin, Saguinus imperator Goeldi (Callitrichidae,
Primates). Primates 20(2):277–287.
Hershkovitz, P. 1982. Subspecies and geographic distribution of black-mantle tamarins Saguinus
nigricollis Spix (Primates: Callitrichidae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 95(4):647–656.
Hershkovitz, P. 1983. Two new species of night monkeys, genus Aotus (Cebidae, Platyrrhini): A
preliminary report on Aotus taxonomy. Am. J. Primatol. 4:209–243.
Hershkovitz, P. 1984. Taxonomy of squirrel monkeys, genus Saimiri (Cebidae, Platyrrhini): A
preliminary report with description of a hitherto unnamed form. Am. J. Primatol. 7:155–210.
Hershkovitz, P. 1985. A preliminary taxonomic review of the South American bearded saki mon-
keys genus Chiropotes (Cebidae, Platyrrhini), with the description of a new subspecies. Fiel-
diana, Zool., New Series (27):iii +46.
Hershkovitz, P. 1987a. The taxonomy of South American sakis, genus Pithecia (Cebidae,
Platyrrhini): A preliminary report and critical review with the description of a new species
and new subspecies. Am. J. Primatol. 12:387–468.
Hershkovitz, P. 1987b. Uacaries, New World monkeys of the genus Cacajao (Cebidae, Platyrrhini):
A preliminary taxonomic review with the description of a new subspecies. Am. J. Primatol.
12:1–53.
Hershkovitz, P. 1988. Origin, speciation, and distribution of South American titi monkeys,
genus Callicebus (Family Cebidae, Platyrrhini). Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 140(1):
240–272.
Hershkovitz, P. 1990. Titis, New World monkeys of the genus Callicebus (Cebidae, Platyrrhini): A
preliminary taxonomic review. Fieldiana, Zool., New Series (55):1–109.
Heymann, E. W. 2000. Field observations of the golden-mantled tamarin, Saguinus tripartitus, on

the Rio Curaray, Peruvian Amazonia. Folia Primatol. 71(6):392–398.
Heymann, E. W., Encarnación C. F., and Soini, P. 2002. On the diagnostic characters and geo-
graphic distribution of the “yellow-handed” titi monkey, Callicebus lucifer, in Peru. Neotrop.
Primates 10(3):124–126.
Hill, W. C. O. 1957. Primates Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy III. Pithecoidea Platyrrhini
(Families Hapalidae and Callimiconidae). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hill, W. C. O. 1960. Primates Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy IV. Cebidae Part A. Edin-
burgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hill, W. C. O. 1962. Primates Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy V. Cebidae Part B. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Kellogg R., and Goldman, E. A. 1944. Review of the spider monkeys. Proc. U. S. Natl. Mus.
96:1–45.
Koiffman, C. P. 1977. Variabilidade Cromossômica na Famı́lia Cebidae (Primates, Platyrrhini).
Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Langguth, A., Teixeira, D. M., Mittermeier, R. A., and Bonvicino, C. 1987. The red-handed howler
monkey in northeastern Brazil. Primate Conserv. (8):36–39.
Lawrence, B. 1933. Howler monkeys of the palliata group. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. (Harvard
University) 75:314–354.
Lemos de Sá, R. M., and Glander, K. E. 1993. Capture techniques and morphometrics for the
woolly spider monkey, or muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides É. Geoffroy, 1806). Am. J. Prima-
tol. 29:145–153.
Lemos de Sá, R. M., Pope, T. R., Glander, K. E., Struhsaker, T. T., and Fonseca, G. A. B. da. 1990.
A pilot study of genetic and morphological variation in the muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides).
Primate Conserv. (11):26–30.
Lima, M. M. C., and Seuánez, H. N. 1989. Cytogenetic characterization of Alouatta belzebul with
atypical pelage coloration. Folia Primatol. 52:97–101.
Lönnberg, E. 1938. Remarks on some members of the genera Pithecia and Cacajao from Brazil.
Ark. Zool. 30A(18):1–25.
Lorini, V. G., and M. L. Persson. 1990. Uma nova espécie de Leontopithecus Lesson, 1840, do
sul do Brasil (Primates, Callitrichidae). Bol. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, nova sér. Zoologia
(338):1–14.
Marsh, L. K. 2004. Primate species at the Tiputini Biodiversity Station, Ecuador. Neotrop. Primates
12(2):75–78.
Marsh, L. K. 2006. Identification oand conservation of a new species of Pithecia in Amazonian
Ecuador. Int. J. Primatol. 27(suppl. 1):Abstract #508.
Melo, A. C. A., Sampaio, M. I., Schneider, M. P. C., and Schneider, H. 1992. Biochemical diversity
and genetic distance in two species of the genus Saguinus. Primates 33(2):217–225.
Minezawa. M., Harada, M., Jordan, O. C., and Valdivia Borda, C. J. 1986. Cytogenetics of the
Bolivian endemic red howler monkeys (Alouatta seniculus sara): Accessory chromosomes and
Y-autosome translocation related numerical variations. Kyoto Univ. Overseas Res. Rep. New
World Monkeys 5:7–16.
Mittermeier, R. A., Ganzhorn, J. U., Konstant, W. R., Glander, K., Tattersall, I., Groves, C. P.,
Rylands, A. B., Hapke, A., Ratsimbazafy, J., Mayor, M. I., Louis Jr., E. E., Rumpler, Y.,
Schwitzer, C., and Rasoloarison, R. M. In press. Lemur Diversity in Madagascar. Int. J.
Primatol.
Moynihan, M. 1976. The New World Primates: Adaptive Radiation and the Evolution of Social
Behavior, Languages, and Intelligence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Napier, P. H. 1976. Catalogue of the Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I.
Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. London: British Museum (Natural History).
Nascimento, F. F., Bonvicino, C. R.,. Silva, F. C. D. da, Schneider, M. P. C., and Seuánez, H.
N. 2005. Cytochrome b polymorphisms and population structure of two species of Alouatta
(Primates). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 108:106–111.
Natori, M., and Hanihara, T. 1992. Variations in dental measurements between Saguinus species
and their systematic relationships. Folia Primatol. 58:84–92.
Nieves, M., Ascunce, M. S., Rahn, M. I., and Mudry, M. D. 2005. Phylogenetic relationships
among some Ateles species: The use of chromosome and molecular markers. Primates 46:
155–164.
Oliveira, E. H. C. 1996. Estudos Citogenéticos e Evolutivos nas Espécies Brasileiras e Argentinas
do Gênero Alouatta Lacépède, 1799 (Primates, Atelidae). Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal
do Paraná, Curitiba.
Oliveira, E. H. de, Lima M. M. C. de, and Sbalqueiro, I. J. 1995. Chromosomal variation in Alouatta
fusca. Neotrop. Primates 3:181–182.
Oliveira, E. H. de, Lima M. M. C. de, Sbalqueiro, I. J., and Pissinatti, A. 1998. The karyotype of
Alouatta fusca clamitans from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Evidence for a Y chromosome translo-
cation. Genet. Molec. Biol. 21:361–364.
Oliveira, E. H. de, Neusser, M., Figueiredo, W. B., Nagamachi, C., Pieczarka, J. C., Sbalqueiro, I.
J., Wienberg, J., and Müller, S. 2002. The phylogeny of howler monkeys (Alouatta, Platyrrhini)
Reconstruction by multi-color cross-species chromosome painting. Chromosome Res. 10:
669–683.
Oliveira, M. M. de, and Langguth, A. 2006. Rediscovery of Marcgrave’s capuchin monkey and
designation of a neotype for Simia flavia Schreber, 1774 (Primates, Cebidae). Bol. Mus. Nac.,
nova sér., Rio de Janeiro (523):1–16.
Pastorini, J., Forstner, M. R. J., Martin, R. D., and Melnick, D. J. 1998. A reexamination of the
phylogenetic position of Callimico (Primates) incorporating new mitochondrial DNA sequence
data. J. Molec. Evol. 47(1):32–41.
Peres, C. A., Patton J. L., and Silva, M. N. F. da. 1996. Riverine barriers and gene flow in Amazo-
nian saddle-back tamarins. Folia Primatol. 67(3):113–124.
Pontes, A. R. M., Malta, A., and Asfora, P. H. 2006. A new species of capuchin monkey, genus
Cebus Erxleben (Cebidae, Primates): Found at the very brink of extinction in the Pernambuco
Endemism Centre. Zootaxa 1200:1–12. Website: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/. Accessed
11 May 2006.
Porter, C. A., Czelusniak, J., Schneider, H., Schneider, M. P. C., Sampaio, I., and Goodman, M.
1997. Sequences of the primate epsilon-globin gene: Implications for systematics of the mar-
mosets and other New World primates. Gene 205(1–2):59–71.
Queiroz, H. L. 1992. A new species of capuchin monkey, genus Cebus Erxleben 1977 (Cebidae,
Primates), from eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Goeldiana Zoologia (15):1–3.
Rosenberger, A. L. 1980. Gradistic views and adaptive radiation of platyrrhine primates. Z. Morph.
Anthrop. 71(2):157–163.
Rosenberger, A. L. 1981. Systematics: The higher taxa. In Ecology and Behavior of Neotropical
Primates, Vol. 1, eds. A. F. Coimbra-Filho, and R. A. Mittermeier, pp.9–27. Rio de Janeiro:
Academia Brasileira de Ciências.
Rosenberger, A. L., and Coimbra-Filho, A. F. 1984. Morphology, taxonomic status and affini-
ties of the lion tamarins, Leontopithecus (Callitrichinae, Cebidae). Folia Primatol. 42:
149–179.
Ruiz-Herrera, A., Garcı́a, F., Aguilera, M., Garcia, M., and Fontanals, M. P. 2005. Comparative
chromosome painting in Aotus reveals a highly derived evolution. Am. J. Primatol. 65:73–85.
Rylands, A. B. 1993. The bare-face tamarins Saguinus oedipus oedipus and Saguinus oedipus
geoffroyi: Subspecies or species? Neotrop. Primates 1(2):4–5.
Rylands, A. B., and Brandon-Jones, D. 1998. Scientific nomenclature of the red howlers from
the northeastern Amazon in Brazil, Venezuela, and the Guianas. Int. J. Primatol. 19(5):
879–905.
Rylands, A. B., Coimbra-Filho, A. F., and Mittermeier, R. A. 1993. Systematics, distributions,
and some notes on the conservation status of the Callitrichidae. In Marmosets and Tamarins:
Systematics, Behaviour and Ecology, ed. A. B. Rylands, pp. 11–77. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rylands, A. B, Kierulff, M. C. M., and Mittermeier, R. A. 2005. Some notes on the taxonomy and
distributions of the tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus, Cebidae) of South America. Lundiana
6(supl.):97–110.
Rylands, A. B., Mittermeier, R. A., and Coimbra-Filho, A. F. in press. The systematics and distri-
butions of the marmosets (Callithrix, Callibella, Cebuella, and Mico) and callimico (Callimico)
(Callitrichidae, Primates). In The Smallest Anthropoids: The Marmoset/Callimico Radiation,
eds. S. M. Ford, L. C. Davis, and L. Porter. New York: Springer.
Rylands, A. B., Schneider, H., Langguth, A., Mittermeier, R. A., Groves, C. P., and Rodrı́guez-
Luna, E. 2000. An assessment of the diversity of New World primates. Neotrop. Primates
8(2):61–93.
Rylands, A. B., Groves, C. P., Mittermeier, R. A., Cortés-Ortiz, L., and Hines, J. J. 2006. Taxonomy
and distributions of Mesoamerican primates. In New Perspectives in the Study of Mesoameri-
can Primates: Distribution, Ecology, Behavior and Conservation, eds. A. Estrada, P. Garber, M.
Pavelka, and L. Luecke, pp. 29–79. New York: Springer.
Sampaio, M. I. da C., Schneider, M. P. C., and Schneider, H. 1996. Taxonomy of the Alouatta
seniculus group: Biochemical and chromosome data. Primates 37(1):67–73.
Schneider, H., and Rosenberger A. L. 1996. Molecules, morphology, and platyrrhine systematics.
In Adaptive Radiations of Neotropical Primates, eds. M. A. Norconk, A. L. Rosenberger, and
P. A. Garber, pp. 3–19. New York: Plenum Press.
Schneider, H., Schneider, M. P. C., Sampaio, I., Harada, M. L., Stanhope, M., Czelusniak, J., and
Goodman, M. 1993. Molecular phylogeny of the New World monkeys (Platyrrhini, Primates).
Molec. Phylogenet. Evol. 2(3):225–242.
Sena, L. dos S. 1998. Filogenia do gênero Callithrix Erxleben 1777 (Callitrichinae, Platyrrhini)
Baseada em Sequências do Gene Mitocondrial da Citocromo Oxidase II (COII). Master’s the-
sis, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém.
Seuánez, H. N., Armada, J. L., Freitas, L., Rocha e Silva, R. da, Pissinatti, A., and Coimbra-
Filho, A. F. 1986. Intraspecific chromosome variation in Cebus apella (Cebidae, Platyrrhini):
the chromosomes of the yellow-breasted capuchin Cebus apella xanthosternos Wied, 1820.
Am. J. Primatol. 10:237–247.
Seuánez, H. N., Forman, L., Matayoshi, T., and Fanning, T. G. 1989. The Callimico goeldii
(Primates, Platyrrhini) genome: Karyology and middle repetitive (LINE-1) DNA sequences.
Chromosoma 98:389–395.
Silva Jr., J. de S. 2001. Especiação nos Macacos-prego e Caiararas, Gênero Cebus Erxleben, 1777
(Primates, Cebidae). Doctoral thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
377pp.
Silva Jr., J. de S. 2002. Sistemática dos macacos–prego e caiararas, gênero Cebus Erxleben,
1777 (Primates, Cebidae). In Livro de Resumos, X Congresso Brasileiro de Primatologia:
Amazônia – A Última Fronteira, p. 35, 10–15 November 2002. Bélém: Sociedade Brasileira de
Primatologia.
Silva Jr., J. S., and Figueiredo, W. M. B. 2002. Previsão sistemática dos cuxiús, genêro Chiropotes
Lesson, 1840 (Primates, Pitheciidae). In Livro de Resumos: X◦ Congresso Brasileiro de Prima-
tologia “Amazônia: A Última Fronteira”, p. 21, 10–15 de novembro de 2002. Belém: Sociedade
Brasileira de Primatologia.
Silva, Jr., J. de S., and Martins, E. de S. 1999. On a new white bald uakari population in southwest-
ern Brazilian Amazonia. Neotrop. Primates 7(4):119–121.
Silva-López, G., Motta-Gill, J., and Sánchez-Hernández, A. I. 1996. Taxonomic notes on Ateles
geoffroyi. Neotrop. Primates 4(2):41–44.
Stanyon, R., Tofanelli, S., Morescalchi, M. A., Agoramoorthy, G., Ryder, O. A., and Wienberg,
J. 1995. Cytogenetic analysis shows extensive genomic rearrangements between red howler
(Alouatta seniculus Linnaeus) subspecies. Am. J. Primatol. 35:171–183.
Tagliaro, C. H, Schneider, M. P. C., Schneider, H., Sampaio, I. C., and Stanhope, M. J. 1997. Mar-
moset phylogenetics, conservation perspectives, and evolution of the mtDNA control region.
Molec. Biol. Evol. 14(6):674–684.
Tagliaro, C. H., Schneider, H., Sampaio, I., Schneider M. P. C., Vallinoto, M., and Stan-
hope, M. 2005. Molecular phylogeny of the genus Saguinus (Platyrrhini, Primates) based on
the ND1 mitochondrial gene and implications for conservation. Genet. Molec. Biol. 28(1):
46–53.
Thomas, O. 1904. New Callithrix, Midas, Felis, Rhipidomys, and Proechimys from Brazil and
Ecuador. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 14(7):188–196.
Thorington Jr., R. W. 1985. The taxonomy and distribution of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri). In Hand-
book of Squirrel Monkey Research, eds. L. A. Rosenblum, and C. L. Coe, pp. 1–33. New York:
Plenum Press,
Thorington Jr., R. W. 1988. Taxonomic status of Saguinus tripartitus (Milne-Edwards, 1878). Am.
J. Primatol. 15:367–371.
Vallinoto, M., Araripe, J., Rego. P. S., Tagliaro, C. H., Sampaio, I., and Schneider, H. 2006.
Tocantins River as an effective barrier to gene flow in Saguinus niger populations. Genet.
Molec. Biol. 12:823–833.
Van Roosmalen, M. G. M. 2003. New species from Amazonia. Website <http:amazonnewspecies.
com>, 5 August 2003, updated 20 September 2003. Accessed 26 September 2003.
Van Roosmalen, M. G. M., and Van Roosmalen, T. 1997. An eastern extension of the geographical
range of the pygmy marmoset, Cebuella pygmaea. Neotrop. Primates 5(1):3–6.
Van Roosmalen, M G. M., and Van Roosmalen, T. 2003. The description of a new marmoset genus,
Callibella (Callitrichinae, Primates), including its molecular phylogenetic status. Neotrop. Pri-
mates 11(1):1–10.
Van Roosmalen, M. G. M., Van Roosmalen, T., and Mittermeier, R. A. 2002. A taxonomic review
of the titi monkeys, genus Callicebus Thomas, 1903, with the description of two new species,
Callicebus bernhardi and Callicebus stephennashi, from Brazilian Amazonia. Neotrop. Pri-
mates 10(Suppl.):1–52.
Van Roosmalen, M. G. M., Van Roosmalen, T., Mittermeier, R. A., and Fonseca, G. A. B. da.
1998. A new and distinctive species of marmoset (Callitrichidae, Primates) from the lower Rio
Aripuanã, state of Amazonas, central Brazilian Amazonia. Goeldiana Zoologia (22)s:1–27.
Vàsàrhelyi, K. 2002. The nature of relationships among founders in the captive population of
Goeldi’s monkey (Callimico goeldii). Evol. Anthropol. (suppl. 1):155–158.
Vieira, C. da C. 1944. Os sı́mios do Estado de São Paulo. Pap. Avuls. Zool., São Paulo 4:1–31.
Vivo, M. de. 1985. On some monkeys from Rondônia, Brasil (Primates: Callitrichidae, Cebidae).
Pap. Avuls. Zool., São Paulo (4):1–31.
Vivo, M. de. 1991. Taxonomia de Callithrix Erxleben, 1777 (Callitrichidae, Primates). Belo Hori-
zonte: Fundação Biodiversitas.
Wallace, R. B., and Painter. R. L. E. 1999. A new primate record for Bolivia: An apparently isolated
population of common woolly monkeys representing a southern range extension for the genus
Lagothrix. Neotrop. Primates 7(4):111–112.

The Diversity of The New World Primates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Diversity of The New World Primates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Diversity of The New World Primates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2

The Diversity of the New World Primates

Anthony B. Rylands and Russell A. Mittermeier

The modern taxonomy of the Infraorder Platyrrhini is deeply influenced by the

A.B. Rylands (B)

P.A. Garber et al. (eds.), South American Primates, Developments in Primatology: 23

2.2 Families, Subfamilies and Genera

2.3 Species and Subspecies

2.3.1 Pygmy and Dwarf Marmosets, Cebuella and Callibella

Table 2.2 A taxonomy of Neotropical primates

Species Gen. Sp. Common name

56. Saguinus oedipus (Linnaeus, 1758) 37 Cotton-top tamarin

Species Gen. Sp. Common name

74. Cebus macrocephalus Spix, 1823 49 Large-headed tufted capuchin

87. Cebus albifrons aequatorialis Allen, 1914 Ecuadorian white-fronted capuchin

Species Gen. Sp. Common name

117. Callicebus ornatus (Gray, 1866) 77 Ornate titi

Table 2.2 (continued)

134. Callicebus nigrifrons (Spix, 1823) 95 Black-fronted masked titi

Table 2.2 (continued)

Table 2.2 (continued)

2.3.2 Marmosets, Callithrix and Mico, and Goeldi’s

2.3.3 Tamarins and Lion Tamarins, Saguinus and Leontopithcus

The black-handed tamarin (S. niger) was considered by Hershkovitz (1977) to

2.3.4 The Squirrel Monkeys, Saimiri

They are listed by Groves (2001) as synonyms. Hershkovitz (1987b) referred to

2.3.5 The Tufted Capuchin Monkeys, Cebus

2.3.6 The Untufted Capuchin Monkeys, Cebus

2.3.7 The Night Monkeys, Aotus

2.3.8 The Titi Monkeys, Callicebus

Groves (2001) maintained C. medemi of the C. torquatus group as a full species

2.3.9 The Saki Monkeys, Pithecia

2.3.10 The Bearded Saki Monkeys, Chiropotes

2.3.11 The Uacaris, Cacajao

2.3.12 The Howler Monkeys, Alouatta

2.3.13 The Spider Monkeys, Ateles

species, and A. fusciceps robustus Allen, 1914 is considered a junior synonym of A.

2.3.14 The Woolly Monkeys, Lagothrix and Oreonax

2.3.15 The Muriquis, Brachyteles

Heymann, E. W. 2000. Field observations of the golden-mantled tamarin, Saguinus tripartitus, on

You might also like