What is in a genus name? Conceptual and empirical issues preclude the proposed recognition of Callibella (Callitrichinae) as a genus

Garbino, Guilherme Siniciato Terra; Serrano-Villavicencio, José Eduardo; Gutiérrez, Eliécer E.

doi:10.1007/s10329-019-00714-3

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, the craniofacial evidence presented in this paper does not support classifying gracile and robust capuchin groups into different genera using the alternative framework surrounding delineations of adaptive zones based on hard tissue morphology (Wood & Collard, 1997, 1999Wood & Lonergan, 2008). Despite the genus taxonomic rank, including how to classify taxa on this basis, being discussed by numerous authors (Mayr, 1943;Simpson, 1943;Cain, 1956Cain, , 1958Clayton, 1983;Lemen & Freeman, 1984;Stevens, 1985;Atran, 1987;Garbino, 2015;Sigward et al, 2018;Garbino et al, 2019), primatologists continue to hold different opinions about what the genus level of classification represents. Future thought and consideration among researchers may be required to move towards more widespread agreement about how to best classify species into genera, which may subsequently pave the way towards consensus surrounding the number of genera represented within the cebinae.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

One Genus or Two? Evaluating Whether Gracile and Robust Capuchin Monkeys are Validly Classified as Separate Genera Based on Craniofacial Shape

Balolia

Wulff

2022

Int J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessments of whether closely related species should be classified into more than one genus have been a longstanding source of controversy in primatology. For example, researchers hold differing opinions about whether cebine species should be classified into one or two genera. In this study, we investigated whether craniofacial shape is a reliable taxonomic indicator among cebines and statistically evaluated whether the magnitude of craniofacial shape differences observed among gracile and robust capuchin species is consistent with a two-genus taxonomic framework. We quantify craniofacial shape using 3D landmark data taken from 72 surface models, representing five cebine species (Cebus albifrons, C. capucinus, C. olivaceus, C. (Sapajus) libidinosus, and C. (S.) macrocephalus). We find that although statistically significant shape differences exist between gracile and robust capuchins in all four craniofacial regions investigated (face and palate, basicranium, calvarium, and frontal region of the calvarium), the magnitude of shape differences between species pairs does not support gracile and robust species being classified into separate genera. The shape of the frontal region of the calvarium and the face and palate show the highest magnitude of shape differences between the gracile and robust capuchin groups, and both regions are good taxonomic predictors, showing correct classification rates of 97% and 96%, respectively. At the species-level, face and palate shape is the only craniofacial measure that consistently shows high classification rates among species (84-97% for combined-sex analyses). Our findings suggest that robust capuchin species that are often assigned to Sapajus may be more appropriately considered as Cebus under a single-genus framework for cebines based on craniofacial shape evidence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

One Genus or Two? Evaluating Whether Gracile and Robust Capuchin Monkeys are Validly Classified as Separate Genera Based on Craniofacial Shape

Balolia

Wulff

2022

Int J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some authors have even discussed what a genus means and have proposed some criteria to recognize and delimit genera (Allmon, 1992; Cain, 1956, 1958; Dubois, 1982, 1988a, 1988b; Garbino, 2015, 2015b; Garbino et al, 2019; Goodman et al, 1998; Groves, 2001, 2004; Hennig, 1966; Inger, 1958; Isler et al, 2013; Mayr, 1943, 1950, 1969; Michener, 1957; Simpson, 1945, 1961; Vences et al, 2013). One of the few widely accepted criteria for delimiting a genus is that the genus in question be monophyletic (Dubois, 1982; Garbino, 2015; Groves, 2001, 2004; Hennig, 1966; Isler et al, 2013; Mayr, 1969; Vences et al, 2013), the other criteria would be divergence time, phylogenetic gaps, and adaptive zone (Avise & Johns, 1999; de Queiroz, 1994; Groves, 2001, 2004; Groves & Grubb, 2011; Hennig, 1966; Mayr, 1950, 1969; Simpson, 1944, 1953; Vences et al, 2013; Wood & Collard, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are several arguments against changes in the number of Neotropical primates genera (Garbino, 2015; Rosenberger, 2012, 2020; Ruiz‐García et al, 2012, 2016), and to the callitrichids species in particular (Garbino, 2015b; Garbino et al, 2019; Garbino & Martins‐Junior, 2018). The arguments are largely based on the convenience of taxonomic stability (Garbino & Martins‐Junior, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within a zoological concept, a genus would be a well-defined and well-supported monophyletic group of closely related species that share several characters, with morphological, behavioural, and ecological diagnoses (Dubois, 1988a(Dubois, , 1988bDubois & Raffaëlli, 2009). Some authors have even discussed what a genus means and have proposed some criteria to recognize and delimit genera (Allmon, 1992;Cain, 1956Cain, , 1958Dubois, 1982Dubois, , 1988aDubois, , 1988bGarbino, 2015Garbino, , 2015bGarbino et al, 2019;Goodman et al, 1998;Groves, 2001Groves, , 2004Hennig, 1966;Inger, 1958;Isler et al, 2013;Mayr, 1943Mayr, , 1950Mayr, , 1969Michener, 1957;Simpson, 1945Simpson, , 1961Vences et al, 2013). One of the few widely accepted criteria for delimiting a genus is that the genus in question be monophyletic (Dubois, 1982;Garbino, 2015;Groves, 2001Groves, , 2004Hennig, 1966;Isler et al, 2013;Mayr, 1969;Vences et al, 2013), the other criteria would be divergence time, phylogenetic gaps, and adaptive zone (Avise & Johns, 1999;de Queiroz, 1994;Groves, 2001Groves, , 2004Groves & Grubb, 2011;Hennig, 1966;Mayr, 1950…”

Section: Phylogeny Of Tamarinsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Molecular systematics of tamarins with emphasis on genusTamarinus(Primates, Callitrichidae)

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The genus Saguinus comprises three principal clades that diverged in the Middle to Late Miocene. Their taxa are ecologically differentiated and allopatrically distributed. These clades were recently recognized as different genera, Saguinus, Tamarinus and Oedipomidas. In Tamarinus, the phylogenetic relationships among species/subspecies are poorly understood. Thus, in this study we present a comprehensive dated genomic phylogeny based on double digest restriction associated DNA for all known species and subspecies of Tamarinus. We also tested whether that Tamarinus imperator and Tamarinus subgrisescens are different species, as morphology‐based taxonomy, phenotypical divergences and mitochondrial genes recognized them as two different species. Additionally, we reconstructed time‐calibrated phylogenetics tree hypotheses of all extant species and subspecies of the genera Saguinus, Tamarinus and Oedipomidas. Our analysis robustly supported the phylogenetic hypothesis of all species/subspecies of the genus Tamarinus; strongly supported a divergence between the three clades, Saguinus, Oedipomidas and Tamarinus; and provided support for T. imperator and T. subgrisescens as distinct species. Therefore, we reiterate and ratify the division of Saguinus into three genera, supporting the taxonomic proposal for these genera.

show abstract

“…Because of the low detectability of the dwarf marmoset in the wild and the scarcity of specimens for anatomical studies, this species has never been systematically studied. Consequently, almost all aspects of its biology remain unknown (Aguiar & Lacher Jr, 2003; Garbino et al, 2019). In this study, we provide the first anatomical and histological description of C. humilis male genital organs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Male genital organs of the black‐crowned dwarf marmoset (Callibella humilis)

Vieira

Weber

Blume

et al. 2022

Anat Histol Embryol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study provides the first morphological description of the male genital organs of black‐crowned dwarf marmoset (Callibella humilis). Internal and external genital organs were similar to other species of non‐human primates. However, some shape and size differences were noted. The penile shaft was laterally flattened and comprised of two corpus cavernosus. These were split by a septum up to the level of the glans and then merged to form a single structure. The glans penis had small, keratinized spicules arising from epidermal or dermal projections. The small, fully ossified and well‐mineralized penile bone, located at the distal end of the penis, consisted of a bone matrix surrounded by sparse osteoblasts and well‐developed internal osteocytes. The penile urethra was lined with columnar pseudostratified epithelium, with areas of simple cuboidal epithelium. The testes were small relative to the body compared to other primate species. The findings of this work may support comparative studies of primate reproductive ecology.

show abstract

What is in a genus name? Conceptual and empirical issues preclude the proposed recognition of Callibella (Callitrichinae) as a genus

Cited by 5 publications

References 38 publications

One Genus or Two? Evaluating Whether Gracile and Robust Capuchin Monkeys are Validly Classified as Separate Genera Based on Craniofacial Shape

One Genus or Two? Evaluating Whether Gracile and Robust Capuchin Monkeys are Validly Classified as Separate Genera Based on Craniofacial Shape

Molecular systematics of tamarins with emphasis on genusTamarinus(Primates, Callitrichidae)

Male genital organs of the black‐crowned dwarf marmoset (Callibella humilis)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About