Archive for the ‘Callitrichids’ Category

Admittedly, I’ve been a little too pre-occupied with other things than blogging right now. I found out a few weeks ago I’d be losing my position at the primate library I work at because we lost a major grant that sustained our department, so I’ve been busy with trying to find a job and getting ready to move into a new apartment. That said, I don’t have anything extremely insightful for anyone and probably won’t until classes get started up again in September. Until then, enjoy!


Read Full Post »

It’s World Cup time, baby!

Despite the fact that most people focus on the games themselves (I’m rooting for the Dutch, myself), I’d like to bring focus to something more primate-oriented in South Africa–the International Primate Rescue. The International Primate Rescue (IPR) is an organization based out of South Africa is a sanctuary that accepts any sort of primate from international sources. Their first primate rescued was a common marmoset named “Cheeky,” and its gone from there.

What I think is great (and extremely clever, at that!) is that this organization has managed to tap into the inevitable economic situation to come from the World Cup. Because there is a housing shortage in South Africa, the IPR is £25 with meals and board for any one interested–but this cheap rate also comes with volunteering at the sanctuary as well. This is genius not just because of tapping into the economics of the international sports extravaganza, but also because it exposes potential takers to the importance (and fun, and awesome-ness, and cute, and badassery, and etc., etc.) of primates. I want to believe that people that have the opportunity and take the IPR up on their offer get their money’s worth in funding, but also in learning and contributing to nature and the significance of conservation efforts like sanctuaries–and not to mention, why having a monkey as a pet would be a terrible idea. (Personally, after working with rhesus macaques, I could never fathom the idea of owning a monkey unless I could keep it outside for the majority of the time.)

But there’s other ways that primates have gotten involved with the World Cup as well. It turns out, orangutans make great referees!

Read Full Post »

I recently finished off my Primate Conservation course and it really opened my eyes a lot. I’m really, really grateful for having the ability to have taken that class and for the professor for teaching that class. She’s a fantastic primatologist and someone I really admire for all she’s accomplished. As a result, I find it fitting to write about captive breeding today because I think it’s a subject worth considering as a conservation method for population management, at the very least.

It’s not uncommon for a lot of captive breeding programs to fail miserably when it comes to primates; they’re very expensive to maintain (especially as you go towards the greater apes), they’re social animals, and because we can’t understand some of the communication methods primates use, we can’t fully tend to their needs. Moreover, captive breeding programs that exist to eventually release subjects into the wild also have to be careful about domestication, genetic inbreeding, potential disease transmission, and even the politics of the country of habitat they intend to release individuals back into as to avoid possible slaughter for hungry troops if there’s a war going on. And most importantly: captive breeding staff must be careful to not entirely domesticate and desensitize the individuals from not being able to recognize predators (which includes humans).

Another consideration is the captive environment itself and how it contributes to the potential setback of captive breeding programs.  In strictly captive settings where the primates are kept in a caged or enclosed environment, the potential for disease transmission increases as there are less places to avoid the ill individual. In a study performed by Willete et al. (2007) in a captive setting, rhesus macaques who were injected with lipopolysaccharides were discovered to have a strong leukocyte response (which isn’t surprising, since they act as endotoxins and call for a strong immune response). Also, in this study (and here’s where it’s pertinent to captive breeding programs), they measured the cortisol levels of the macaques at certain points; the one that raised the highest cortisol was when they used the human-intruder paradigm.

Why is that significant? Because the human-intruder paradigm may mirror zoo-goers in a given day. Particularly when its crowds of people and they all may not be gearing their attention towards the primates in question. So if there’s even more people rather than just the one, maybe it’s possible that the increased cortisol can limit reproductive abilities. But that’s just a postulate and may not be applicable to all primates; some may even like the crowds because it gives them something to look at–I’ve seen this with chimpanzees watching the crowds at the Henry Vilas Zoo here.

So my jury is still out on zoos as an effective captive breeding program (sure, it works with golden lion tamarins, but I’m not sure how well it might work out with those primates with slower life histories who are more specialized; if there are any other success stories, I’d love to hear them though!). But, I do think there’s something with semi-captive breeding programs, specifically when they’re in the country of origin.

Specifically, I am thinking of the Peignot et al. (2008) study on the first successful translocation of mandrills in Gabon.  In a released group of 36 captive-bred mandrills who were raised in a semi-captive environment, the mortality rate of the first year was 33% with infants being the most affected individuals.  However, in the second year, the number decreased to 4%.  From what I understood, Peignot et al. attributes this to the mandrills becoming more acclimated to their new environment and becoming accustomed to food availability during seasonal shifts; additionally, the provisioning was eventually reduced and taken away.

So why the success? I think it a lot of it contributes to the fact that mandrills are extremely plastic: they’re opportunistic omnivores and will generally eat anything. However, I’m willing to bet that the consideration to where and how these individuals were raised also plays a part. For instance, these mandrills were raised in semi-captive conditions as opposed to cages or enclosures which allowed for more foraging, more exploration of the environment, and they were able to acclimate to both the temperature and environment since they were raised in the CIMRF (Centre International de Recherches Médicales de Franceville) in Gabon, where they were translocated as well. And because they didn’t have to go through the stressor of being placed on a plane and being shipped to a different country or anything else that may contribute such as that, the program saved themselves a pretty penny and were able to reroute the funds elsewhere.

So, I’m still not sold on the fact that captive breeding is a waste of time and resources. I think there’s legitimacy to the idea that captive breeding can contribute to enhancing populations; I just think there needs to be more considerations given pre-translocation/release to ensure that the released population can be viable.




Peignot, P., Charpentier, M.J.E., Bout, N., Bourry, O., Massima, U., Dosimont, O., Terramorsi, R., & Wickings, E.J.  (2008).  Learning from the first release project of captive-bred mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx) in GabonOryx, 42(1), 122-131.

Willete, A.A., Lubach, G.R., & Coe, C.L.  (2007).  Environmental context differentially affects behavioral, leukocyte, cortisol, and interleukin-6 responses to low doses of endotoxin in the rhesus monkeyBrain, Behavior, and Immunity, 21(6), 807-815.

Read Full Post »