Subspecific Variation in the Long Calls of the Tamarin, Saguinus fusckollis

Abstract

Long call vocalizations were recorded in the field from four adjacent subspecies of the saddle‐back tamarin, Saguinus fusckollis ssp. Quantitative measurements of several call parameters were analyzed and four variables were found to be significantly different across subspecies. Each of the four subspecies had a distinctive set of long call parameters. One animal's call was a mosaic of its own subspecies call and that of the subspecies found directly across the river. Recordings of captive hybrids of the same two subspecies showed components of only one of the parental calls, and of calls of another subspecies with which they were housed. Long call structures of subspecies of Saguinus fusckollis are useful for studies of vocal ontogeny and identification of subspecies. Zusammenfassung Aus 4 einander benachbarten Unterarten des Krallenaffen Saguinus fuscicollis wurden „Lang‐Rufe” aufgenommen und quantitativ analysiert. In 4 Ruf‐Parametern unterscheiden sich alle Unterarten voneinander. Ein Tier äußerte eine Mischform des Rufes zwischen seiner eigenen und einer anderen, in Hörweite lebenden Unterart. Gefangenschafts‐Hybriden zwischen diesen beiden Unterarten zeigten diese Mischform nicht; sie besaßen einige Rufkomponenten einer weiteren Unterart, mit der sie zusammen wohnten. S. fuscicollis eignet sich gut zur Untersuchung der Ruf‐Ontogenese bei Affen. Die Unterschiede zwischen Unterarten eignen sich als taxonomisches Merkmal und lassen den Grad der Aufsplitterung erkennen.

Dialects in pygmy marmosets? Population variation in call structure

“…However, less evidence exists of similar processes in nonhuman primates [Egnor & Hauser, 2004;Janik & Slater, 1997]. Variation in vocal structure between populations has been described only in few primate species, wild chimpanzees Pan troglodytes [Crockford et al, 2004;Marshall et al, 1999;Mitani & Brandt, 1994;Mitani et al, 1999], wild silvery gibbons Hylobates moloch [Dallmann & Geissmann, 2001], captive Barbary macaques Macaca sylvanus [Fischer et al, 1998], provisioned Japanese macaques M. fuscata [Green, 1975;Masataka, 1992] and between subspecies of squirrel monkeys Saimiri oerstedi and of saddle-back tamarins Saguinus fuscicollis [Boinski & Newman, 1988;Hodun et al, 1981]. This raises the question of what has led to such flexible communication in birds and in humans in contrast to the relatively inflexible vocal development of nonhuman primates.…”

Mammalian Diversity and Matses Ethnomammalogy in Amazonian Peru Part 1: Primates

“…10 Subsequent primatological surveys suggest that the nominotypical race (S. f. fuscicollis) inhabits the area between the right bank of the upper Tapiche and the left bank of the Río Blanco (Hodun et al, 1981). Between the Río Napo and the Río Curaray (part of the Marañ ó n-Napo interfluve).…”

Species-Specificity in Communication Calls of Tree Shrews (Tupaia: Scandentia)

“…The conspicuous differences in the acoustic contour of the chatter call among all 3 species are on a level on which species status is suggested for members in other mammalian groups, such as nocturnal and diurnal primates, birds, or frogs (e.g., Ambrose 2003;Anderson et al 2000;Braune et al 2005;Hodun et al 1981;Macedonia and Taylor 1985;Nevo et al 1987;Oates et al 2000;Olivieri et al 2007;Page et al 2002;Patten et al 2004;Pröhl et al 2006;Snowdon et al 1986;Zimmermann et al 1988Zimmermann et al , 2000. Because in mammals dialectal acoustic differences are subtle variations of the same acoustic contour, not easily detectable by listening (e.g., see Hafen et al [1998] for this situation in nocturnal lemurs), this phenomenon does not seem to explain our results.…”

“…Species-or subspecies-specific differences in vocalizations used for intraspecific communication have been identified as an important taxonomic supplement to traditional morphological and more recent molecular systematic data sets for species diagnosis and discrimination (e.g., nocturnal primates [Ambrose 2003;Anderson et al 2000;Braune et al 2005;Olivieri et al 2007;Zimmermann et al 2000], diurnal primates [Hodun et al 1981;Macedonia and Taylor 1985;Oates et al 2000;Snowdon et al 1986], mole rats [Nevo et al 1987], fur seals [Page et al 2002], song sparrows [Patten et al 2004], and túngara frogs [Pröhl et al 2006]). Furthermore, comparative bioacoustical analyses according to the methods of phylogenetic systematics helped to assess phylogenetic affinities among different species of a genus (orangutans [Davila Ross and Geissmann 2007], sportive lemurs [Méndez-Cardenas et al 2008], felids [Peters and Tonkin-Leyhausen 1998], and bushbabies [Zimmermann 1990]).…”