Abstract
The interspecific relationships of the following nine forms ofSaguinus were analyzed applying the multivariate analysis to the cranial measurements;S. oedipus, S. geoffroyi, S. leucopus, S. nigricollis, S. fuscicollis, S. labiatus, S. mystax, S. midas midas, andS. midas niger. Penrose's size distance was used to express the size factor among the nine forms; and for the shape factor, Q-mode correlation coefficients were utilized. The shape distance betweenS. oedipus andS. geoffroyi was almost equal to that betweenS. nigricollis andS. fuscicollis which are recognized as different species based on biogeographical evidence. Furthermore, the Penrose's size distance betweenS. oedipus andS. geoffroyi was quite large. Therefore, the results of this study support the hypothesis thatS. oedipus andS. geoffroyi are valid species.
The analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among the nine forms was based on the shape factor only. The forms were divided into two main clusters: (1)S. oedipus, S. geoffroyi, andS. leucopus; (2)S. nigricollis, S. fuscicollis, S. labiatus, S. mystax, S. midas midas, andS. midas niger. In the former cluster,S. oedipus was more closely related toS. geoffroyi than either was toS. leucopus. The latter cluster was subdivided in two subclusters based on the degree of their affinity: (2a)S. nigricollis, S. fuscicollis, S. labiatus, andS. mystax; and (2b)S. midas midas andS. midas niger. In the former subcluster, [S. nigricollis, S. fuscicollis] and [S. labiatus, S. mystax] were classified into clusters, respectively.
The ancestor of theS. nigricollis group differentiated intoS. oedipus, S. geoffroyi, andS. leucopus with the narrowing of the maxilla in the facial region, andS. midas midas andS. midas niger with the downward movement of rhinion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hanihara, T. &M. Natori, 1987. Preliminary analysis for numerical taxonomy of the genusSaguinus based on dental measurements.Primates, 28: 517–523.
Hershkovitz, P., 1972. The recent mammals of the Neotropical region: a zoogeographical review. In:Evolution, Mammals, and Southern Continents,A. Keast,F. Erk, &B. Glass (eds.), SUNY Press, Albany, pp. 311–431.
, 1977.Living New World Monkeys, Vol. 1. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Honachi, J. H., K. E. Kinman, &J. W. Koeppl, 1982.Mammal Species of the World. Allen Press Inc. & The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence.
Howells, W. W., 1973. Cranial variation in man.Pap. Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Ethnol., Harvard Univ., Vol. 67.
Mittermeier, R. A. &A. F. Coimbra-Filho, 1981. Systematics; species and subspecies. In:Ecology and Behavior of Neotropical Primates,A. F. Coimbra-Filho &R. A. Mittermeier (eds.), Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 29–109.
Napier, P. H., 1976.Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History) Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum of Natural History, London.
Rohlf, F. J. &R. R. Sokal, 1965. Coefficients of correlation and distance in numerical taxonomy.Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 45: 109–126.
Thorington, Jr., R. W., 1976. The systematics of New World monkeys. In:First Inter-American Conference on Conservation and Utilization of American Nonhuman Primates in Biomedical Research, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, D.C., pp. 8–18.
Wolfheim, J. H., 1982.Primates of the World. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Natori, M., Hanihara, T. An analysis of interspecific relationships ofSaguinus based on cranial measurements. Primates 29, 255–262 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381127
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381127