The ecological role of the prehensile tail in white‐faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus)

Abstract

Prehensile tails appear to have evolved at least twice in platyrrhine evolution. In the atelines, the tail is relatively long and possesses a bare area on the distal part of its ventral surface that is covered with der-matoglyphs and richly innervated with Meissner's corpuscles. In contrast, the prehensile tail of Cebus is relatively short, fully haired, and lacks specialized tactile receptors. Little is currently known regarding tail function in capuchins, and whether their prehensile tail serves a greater role in feeding or traveling. In this paper we examine patterns of positional behavior, substrate preference, and tail use in wild white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus) inhabiting a wet tropical forest in northeastern Costa Rica. Observational data were collected over the course of 3 months on adult capuchins using an instantaneous focal animal time sampling technique. Differences in the frequency and context of tail use, and the estimated amount of weight support provided by the tail relative to other appendages during feeding/foraging and traveling were used as measures of the ecological role of this specialized organ in capuchin positional behavior. During travel, quadrupedal walking, leaping, and climbing dominated the capuchin positional repertoire. The capuchin tail provided support in only 13.3% of travel and was principally employed during below branch locomotor activities. In contrast, tail-assisted postures accounted for 40.6% of all feeding and foraging records and occurred primarily in two contexts. The tail was used to suspend the individual below a branch while feeding, as well as to provide leverage and weight support in above-branch postures associated with the extraction of prey from difficult to search substrates. A comparison of tail use in Cebus, with published data on the atelines indicates that both taxa possess a grasping tail that is capable of supporting the animal's full body weight. In capuchins and howling monkeys, the tail appears to be used more frequently and serves a greater weight-bearing role during feeding than during traveling. In Ateles, and possibly Brachyteles, and Lagothrix, however, the prehensile tail serves a dual role in both feeding and forelimb suspensory locomotion. Additional relationships between white-faced capuchin feeding, positional behavior, extractive foraging techniques, and prehensile tail use are discussed.

Locomotor Diversification in New World Monkeys: Running, Climbing, or Clawing Along Evolutionary Branches

“…Concerning Cebus , modern species appear to be rather consistent in their patterns (Table 3). The four species for which data are available indicate increased quadrupedal activities, coupled with variably significant rates of leaping and variably moderate climbing/clambering (Fleagle and Mittermeier,1980; Gebo,1992; Youlatos,1998; 1999; Garber and Rehg,1999; Wright,2007; Bezanson,2009). These behaviors seem to suit the adaptive profile of this generalist genus as a particularly agile and destructive omnivore which exploits all forest strata, ground included, in a remarkable variety of habitats, resulting in nearly one of the most expanded geographical range among all NWMs (Janson and Boinski,1992; Rosenberger,1992).…”

Osteological correlates of tail prehensility in carnivorans

“…Among mammals, tail prehensility has been principally studied in the prehensile-tailed neotropical monkeys involving Cebus and the monophyletic Atelinae (Alouatta, Lagothrix, Ateles, Brachyteles). In these monkeys, behavioural studies have associated the use of prehensile tails with the negotiation of large body size on small branches (Grand, 1972), the use of palm fronds and the relatively fragile * E-mail: dyoul@bio.auth.gr branches in neotropical forests (Emmons & Gentry, 1983), and the accommodation of suspensory foraging for fruit and flowers on the extremities of tree crowns (Grand, 1972;Cant, 1986;Garber & Rehg, 1999;Youlatos, 1999). These behaviours are further reflected in some morphological specializations exhibited by convergence in Cebus and the Atelinae: a developed area in the cortex, an expanded sacroiliac joint and long proximal caudal region, a powerful caudal flexor musculature and well-developed mm.…”

Functional Correlates of Fiber Architecture of the Lateral Caudal Musculature in Prehensile and Nonprehensile Tails of the Platyrrhini (Primates) and Procyonidae (Carnivora)

“…Field and laboratory studies of positional and locomotor behavior have documented taxon‐specific patterns of tail‐use in platyrrhines and procyonids; however, only a few studies have examined tail‐use behavior among taxa (Kaufmann, 1962; Fleagle and Mittermeier, 1980; Cant, 1986; Fontaine, 1990; McClearn, 1992; Bergeson, 1996, 1998; Bezanson, 1999, 2006; Garber and Rehg, 1999; Turnquist et al, 1999; Schmitt et al, 2005). These studies have systematically documented differences in tail‐use behavior between primates and procyonids with fully prehensile tails on the one hand (ateline primates— Alouatta , Ateles , Lagothrix , Brachyteles —and the procyonid Potos ), and those with semiprehensile tails on the other ( Cebus ).…”

“…These studies have systematically documented differences in tail‐use behavior between primates and procyonids with fully prehensile tails on the one hand (ateline primates— Alouatta , Ateles , Lagothrix , Brachyteles —and the procyonid Potos ), and those with semiprehensile tails on the other ( Cebus ). In the former, tail‐suspension is frequently employed during bouts of feeding and locomotion (Fleagle and Mittermeier, 1980; Cant, 1986; Fontaine, 1990; McClearn, 1992; Bergeson, 1996, 1998; Turnquist et al, 1999; Schmitt et al, 2005), whereas in the latter, tails are coiled around substrates most frequently during above‐ and below‐branch feeding bouts (the so‐called “tripodal posture”) and less frequently during locomotion or to fully suspend the body (Fleagle and Mittermeier, 1980; Fontaine, 1990; Garber and Rehg, 1999; Bergeson, 1996, 1998). Both of these types of tail‐use (prehensile and semiprehensile) contrast markedly with the tail postures used by nonprehensile‐tailed platyrrhines and procyonids (e.g., Kaufmann, 1962; Fleagle and Mittermeier, 1980; McClearn, 1992), where tails are employed most frequently to aid in balance during locomotor and stationary postures, but are unable to wrap around substrates.…”