International Journal of Primatology

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 830–848

Taxonomic Implications of a Field Study of Morphotypes of Hanuman Langurs (Semnopithecus entellus) in Peninsular India

  • K. S. Chetan Nag
  • P. Pramod
  • K. Praveen Karanth
Article

Abstract

The Hanuman langur is one of the most widely distributed and morphologically variable non-human primates in South Asia. Even though it has been extensively studied, the taxonomic status of this species remains unresolved due to incongruence between various classification schemes. This incongruence, we believe, is largely due to the use of plastic morphological characters such as coat color in classification. Additionally these classification schemes were largely based on reanalysis of the same set of museum specimens. To bring greater resolution in Hanuman langur taxonomy we undertook a field survey to study variation in external morphological characters among Hanuman langurs. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain the number of morphologically recognizable units (morphotypes) of Hanuman langur in peninsular India and to compare our field observations with published classification schemes. We typed five color-independent characters for multiple adults from various populations in South India. We used the presence-absence matrix of these characters to derive the pair-wise distance between individuals and used this to construct a neighbor-joining (NJ) tree. The resulting NJ tree retrieved six distinct clusters, which we assigned to different morphotypes. These morphotypes can be identified in the field by using a combination of five diagnostic characters. We determined the approximate distributions of these morphotypes by plotting the sampling locations of each morphotype on a map using GIS software. Our field observations are largely concordant with some of the earliest classification schemes, but are incongruent with recent classification schemes. Based on these results we recommend Hill (Ceylon Journal of Science, Colombo 21:277-305, 1939) and Pocock (Primates and carnivora (in part) (pp. 97–163). London: Taylor and Francis, 1939) classification schemes for future studies on Hanuman langurs.

Keywords

Classification schemes Colobines Morphological characters Subspecies 

References

  1. Baldwin, L. A., Kavanagh, M., & Teleki, G. (1975). Field research on langur and proboscis monkeys: An historical, geographical, and bibliographical listing. Primates, 16, 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishop, N. H. (1978). Langurs living at high altitudes. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 74, 518–520.Google Scholar
  3. Bradley, B. J., & Mundy, N. I. (2008). The primate palette: The evolution of primate coloration. Evolutionary Anthropology, 17, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandon-Jones, D. (2004). A taxonomic revision of the langurs and leaf monkeys (Primates: Colobinae) of South Asia. Zoos’ print journal, 19, 1552–1594.Google Scholar
  5. Choudhury, A. U. (2007). The eastern limit of distribution of the hanuman langur Semnopithecus entellus dufresene. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 104, 199–200.Google Scholar
  6. Daniels, R. J. R. (1992). The Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve and its role in conserving India’s biodiversity. Current Science, 64, 706–708.Google Scholar
  7. Daniels, R. J. R. (1996). The Nilgiri biosphere reserve: A review of conservation status with recommendations for a holistic approach to management (India). UNESCO South-South Cooperation Program.Google Scholar
  8. Dunn, C. P. (2003). Keeping taxonomy based in morphology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Easa, P. S., & Shaji, C. P. (1997). Freshwater fish diversity in Kerala part of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. Current Science, 73, 180–182.Google Scholar
  10. Ellerman, J. R., & Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. (1966). Checklist of palaearctic and Indian mammals, 1758–1946 (2nd ed.). London: Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History).Google Scholar
  11. Groves, C. P. (2001). Primate taxonomy. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hijmans, R. J., Guarino, L., Bussink, C., Mathur, P., Cruz, M., Barrentes, I., et al. (2004). DIVA-GIS. Vsn. 5.0. A geographic information system for the analysis of species distribution data (Manual available at: http://www.diva-gis.org).
  13. Hill, W. C. (1938). The mode of carrying the tail in leaf-monkeys. Ceylon Journal of Science (B), 21, 66–67.Google Scholar
  14. Hill, W. C. (1939). An annotated systematic list of the leaf-monkeys. Ceylon Journal of Science, Colombo, 21, 277–305.Google Scholar
  15. Hrdy, S. B. (1977). The langurs of Abu-female and male strategies of reproduction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Karanth, P. K., Singh, L., Collura, R., & Stewart, C.-B. (2008). Molecular phylogeny and biogeography of langurs and leaf monkeys of South Asia (Primates: Colobinae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 46, 683–694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karanth, P. K., Singh, L., & Stewart, C.-B. (2010). Mitochondrial and nuclear markers suggest Hanuman langur (Primates: Colobinae) polyphyly: Implications for their species status. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 54, 627–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kumara, H. N., & Singh, M. (2004). Distribution and abundance of primates in rain forests of the Western Ghats, Karnataka, India and the conservation of Macaca silenus. International Journal of Primatology, 25(5), 1001–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kumara, H. N., Kumar, S., & Singh, M. (2010). Of how much concern are the ‘least concern’ species? Distribution and conservation status of bonnet macaques, rhesus macaques and Hanuman langurs in Karnataka, India. Primates, 51, 37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kurup, G. U. (1981). Report on the census surveys of rural and urban populations of non-human primates of South India. Calicut: Zoological Survey of India.Google Scholar
  21. Kurup, G. U. (1984). Census survey and population ecology of Hanuman langur, Presbytis entellus (Dufresne 1797) in south India. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, 50, 245–256.Google Scholar
  22. Martin, R. D. (2003). In: Field and laboratory methods in primatology: A practical guide (pp. xv– xxv). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. McCann, C. (1933). Observations on some of the Indian langurs. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 36, 618–628.Google Scholar
  24. Napier, J. R., & Napier, P. H. (1967). A handbook of living primates. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Oates, J. F., Davies, A. G., & Delson, E. (1994). The diversity of living colobines. In A. G. Davies & J. F. Oates (Eds.), Colobine monkeys: Their ecology, behaviour and evolution (pp. 45–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Osterholz, M., Walter, L., & Roos, C. (2008). Phylogenetic position of the langur genera Semnopithecus and Trachypithecus among Asian colobines, and genus affiliations of their species groups. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 8, 58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pennell, F. W. (1934). How field study can modify older taxonomic concepts. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 61, 85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pocock, R. I. (1928). The langurs or leaf monkeys of British India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 32(472–504), 660–672.Google Scholar
  29. Pocock, R. I. (1939). Primates and carnivora (in part) (pp. 97–163). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  30. Roonwal, M. L. (1979). Field study of geographical, sub specific and clinal variations in tail carriage in the Hanuman langur, Presbytis entellus (primates) in South Asia. Zoologischer Anzeiger, Jena, 202, 235–255.Google Scholar
  31. Roonwal, M. L. (1984). Tail form and carriage in Asian and other primates, and their behavioral and evolutionary significance. In M. L. Roonwal, S. M. Mohnot, & N. S. Rathore (Eds.), Current primate research (pp. 93–151). Jodhpur, India: Jodhpur University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Roonwal, M. L., & Mohnot, S. M. (1977). Primates of South Asia: Ecology, sociobiology, and behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Srinivasulu, C., & Nagulu, V. (2001). Status of primates in Andhra Pradesh. Envis Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas, 1(1), 109–112.Google Scholar
  34. Swofford, D. (2001). PAUP*– Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and other methods, Version 4. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Wheeler, Q. D. (2004). Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B, 359, 571–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woodbury, A. M., Ricker, W. E., Cottam, C., Taber, R. D., & Pendleton, R. C. (1956). Uses of marking animals in ecological studies. Ecology, 37, 665–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang, Y. P., & Ryder, O. A. (1998). Mitochondrial cytochrome b gene sequences of Old World monkeys: With special reference on evolution of Asian colobines. Primates, 39, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. S. Chetan Nag
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. Pramod
    • 2
  • K. Praveen Karanth
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Ecological SciencesIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural HistoryCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations