Apenheul Primate Park Apenheul Primate Park News
- Thread starter UntBwe
- Start date
By itself the birth of a female sifaka is a bonus for the breeding programme.
Agreed, new bloodlines will be needed. Source (only Madagascar)?
I doubt that too. I cannot remember seeing many sifak in Antananarivo Zoo. Quite a few aye-aye though ... But there are a good number of so-called wildlife experience sanctuaries where groups of sifaks are maintained in semi-captivity.
However, husbandry-wise sifakas have been around N.American and European zoos now for over a decade. It should be possible to even out sex ratios in captive sifaks with P. verreauxi and P. diadema ... with fresh imports from Madagascar. The urgency for a captive ex situ project is alas becoming the greater ...!!!
to my knowledge, Zootierliste is correct to where they are kept;
ZootierlisteHomepage
This is the same as ISIS though.
I doubt there are 19 animals... I think the numbers on ISIS are also correct, besides the fact that Apeldoorn now holds 2.2.0.1
Toddy
Well-Known Member
I would just like to point out that the sifakas in Europe are no longer considered to be a subspecies of the verreaux's sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi) but rather a species in its own right; crowned sifakas (Propithecus coronatus).
There are no crowned sifakas in any zoos on Madagascar itself and I am not sure if any crowned sifakas are kept in reserves as they have quite a limited range in the wild.
There are no crowned sifakas in any zoos on Madagascar itself and I am not sure if any crowned sifakas are kept in reserves as they have quite a limited range in the wild.
That's odd, i found the number "19" in a press release after the birth of male Daholo in 2009. This is his younger sister, perhaps a few have died since then (i'm actually quite sure at least one male died at Apenheul).
@Toddy,
That is an interesting read and thanks for pointing that out. As for Madagascar: most lemur species including the sifaks have all a rather limited distribution. I have seen both diademed and Verreaux's sifaks in captivity.
Please e-mail the relevant link to the scientific press. My CI Lemurs of Madagascar by Mittermeier et al nor Mammals of Madagascar by Garbutt show this up (to the best of my knowledge).
Toddy
Well-Known Member
Might I ask where you have seen these sifakas?
I asume you mean links to the crowned sifaka (Propithecus coronatus) as a separate species? It is treated as such in both "Mammals of Madagascar" by Garbutt (2007) and the newest edition of "Lemurs of Madagascar" from Conservation International (2010) as well is on IUCN.
Long post on lemur taxonomy. If you don't care about that you may want to proceed to next post.
@Kifaru Bwana and Toddy
Much primate taxonomy follow Colin Groves and 'allies' that are of the opinion that the phylogenetic species concept is superior to the more traditional biological species concept. This primarily started with his book 'Primate taxonomy' from 2001 but has been supplemented by later publications. Review of Lophocebus mangabeys (Groves 2007), review of sifakas (Groves and Helgen 2007), reviews of Nomascus gibbons (Geissmann several article), reviews of macaques from Mentawai islands (Kitchener and Groves 2002 and Roos, Ziegler, Hodges, Zischler and Abegg 2003), review of howler monkeys (Gregorin 2006), review of bearded sakis (Silva and Figueiredo 2002 and Bonvicino, Boubli, Otazu, Almeida, Nascimento, Coura and Seuanez 2003) et cetera. People may also notice that 30+ new primate species have been described in the last decade but only a handful of new subspecies have been described in the same time. That includes about 15 new lemur species and only 1-2 new lemur subspecies ('1-2' because one of them is treated as a species by some). If following the biological species concept the expected pattern in a relatively well known group of animals like primates (well known compared to most animal groups, e.g. bats, rodents, fish, reptiles, insects) is more equal or the opposite: subspecies described > species described.
Under the phylogenetic species concept subspecies do not exist but are considered species. Groves was also the author of the primate section in edition 3 of 'Mammal Species of the World' from 2005 and that book has been highly influential and is followed by many others. For example by IUCN which follow it but with modications in species where never publications exist.
(despite Groves being a strong proponent of that concept and saying he follows it he has actually recognized subspecies for a few species but only when he couldn't show that those subspecies were 'absolute diagnostability', i.e. if one population is different but still can't be separated from other population with 100% certainty he has kept them as subspecies. Anything that is absolutely diagnostable = species.)
This has also affected lemurs where many now use a combination of the phylogenetic species concept and the 'absolute diagnostability' system. The only ones that then still are treated as subspecies (not counting nominal subspecies) are Eulemur macaco flavifrons, Hapalemur griseus gilberti, H. g. ranomafanensis, Varecia variegata editorum, V. v. subcincta and Indri indri variegatus. Of those some believe the first two are species and some believe the last is completely invalid. That results in only 3-6 subspecies of lemurs in total. All other recognized are species.
The phylogenetic species concept has gained much ground in mammal taxonomy in the last few years. Outside primates this has been especially clear in ungulates where examples of recent proposals of changes that mainly are based on the phylogenetic species concept/'absolute diagnostability' system include 2 species of white rhinos, up to 9 species of giraffe, 3 species of Moschiola chevrotain, Cape and Hartmann's zebras as separate species, splitting Eld's deer into 2 species, 3-4 species of babirusa, splitting blue wildebeest into several species, splitting Grant's gazelle into 3 species, description of Bangweulu tsessebe as a species (only possible if you split topi/tsessebe into several species -otherwise Bangweulu tsessebe is also a subspecies), description of Upemba lechwe as a new species (only possible if you split lechwe into several species -otherwise Upemba lechwe is a also a subspecies) and much more. The next edition of 'Handbook of the Mammals of the World' is about ungulates and I have been informed it will follow the phylogenetic species concept/'absolute diagnostability' system in some groups in Suidae, Tragulidae, Moschidae, Cervidae and Bovidae.
The biological species concept and phylogenetic species concepts each have their strength and weakness but at least people should be aware of the basis for many of the recent changes in mammal taxonomy including the sifakas.
@Kifaru Bwana and Toddy
Much primate taxonomy follow Colin Groves and 'allies' that are of the opinion that the phylogenetic species concept is superior to the more traditional biological species concept. This primarily started with his book 'Primate taxonomy' from 2001 but has been supplemented by later publications. Review of Lophocebus mangabeys (Groves 2007), review of sifakas (Groves and Helgen 2007), reviews of Nomascus gibbons (Geissmann several article), reviews of macaques from Mentawai islands (Kitchener and Groves 2002 and Roos, Ziegler, Hodges, Zischler and Abegg 2003), review of howler monkeys (Gregorin 2006), review of bearded sakis (Silva and Figueiredo 2002 and Bonvicino, Boubli, Otazu, Almeida, Nascimento, Coura and Seuanez 2003) et cetera. People may also notice that 30+ new primate species have been described in the last decade but only a handful of new subspecies have been described in the same time. That includes about 15 new lemur species and only 1-2 new lemur subspecies ('1-2' because one of them is treated as a species by some). If following the biological species concept the expected pattern in a relatively well known group of animals like primates (well known compared to most animal groups, e.g. bats, rodents, fish, reptiles, insects) is more equal or the opposite: subspecies described > species described.
Under the phylogenetic species concept subspecies do not exist but are considered species. Groves was also the author of the primate section in edition 3 of 'Mammal Species of the World' from 2005 and that book has been highly influential and is followed by many others. For example by IUCN which follow it but with modications in species where never publications exist.
(despite Groves being a strong proponent of that concept and saying he follows it he has actually recognized subspecies for a few species but only when he couldn't show that those subspecies were 'absolute diagnostability', i.e. if one population is different but still can't be separated from other population with 100% certainty he has kept them as subspecies. Anything that is absolutely diagnostable = species.)
This has also affected lemurs where many now use a combination of the phylogenetic species concept and the 'absolute diagnostability' system. The only ones that then still are treated as subspecies (not counting nominal subspecies) are Eulemur macaco flavifrons, Hapalemur griseus gilberti, H. g. ranomafanensis, Varecia variegata editorum, V. v. subcincta and Indri indri variegatus. Of those some believe the first two are species and some believe the last is completely invalid. That results in only 3-6 subspecies of lemurs in total. All other recognized are species.
The phylogenetic species concept has gained much ground in mammal taxonomy in the last few years. Outside primates this has been especially clear in ungulates where examples of recent proposals of changes that mainly are based on the phylogenetic species concept/'absolute diagnostability' system include 2 species of white rhinos, up to 9 species of giraffe, 3 species of Moschiola chevrotain, Cape and Hartmann's zebras as separate species, splitting Eld's deer into 2 species, 3-4 species of babirusa, splitting blue wildebeest into several species, splitting Grant's gazelle into 3 species, description of Bangweulu tsessebe as a species (only possible if you split topi/tsessebe into several species -otherwise Bangweulu tsessebe is also a subspecies), description of Upemba lechwe as a new species (only possible if you split lechwe into several species -otherwise Upemba lechwe is a also a subspecies) and much more. The next edition of 'Handbook of the Mammals of the World' is about ungulates and I have been informed it will follow the phylogenetic species concept/'absolute diagnostability' system in some groups in Suidae, Tragulidae, Moschidae, Cervidae and Bovidae.
The biological species concept and phylogenetic species concepts each have their strength and weakness but at least people should be aware of the basis for many of the recent changes in mammal taxonomy including the sifakas.
Last edited:
I have revisited both publications on Lemurs and Mammals of Madagascar. Indeed, they have all been raised to species level.
You are right to suggest that the concept has gained much ground in ungulates. What is also interesting is that some like Cervus elaphus has been split in several new genus (e.g. maral, wapiti, true red deer, Central Asian deer).
You are right to suggest that the concept has gained much ground in ungulates. What is also interesting is that some like Cervus elaphus has been split in several new genus (e.g. maral, wapiti, true red deer, Central Asian deer).
Keep in mind that genetic work on Cervinae largely has been based on single genes and that makes it more difficult to detect introgression. Fully viable hybrids between wild deer are well known and it is possible, if not likely that introgression has happened. Genetic work on Cervinae has also been hampered by nodes with very poor statistic support. The final word hasn't been said on the matter but it looks like we could end up with fewer genera in Cervinae than used in edition 3 of Mammal Species of the World and it seems unlikely that members that traditionally have been included in the Cervus elaphus group (maral, wapiti, true red deer, Central Asian deer, etc) will end up in different genera. Even Pere Davids deer that most have placed in its own genus for more than 30 years could end up in Cervus together with Rusa, Przewalskium and more.
http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/Pitra deer.pdf
http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/Pitra deer.pdf
since this year the pied tamarins are on show.
But better news: Apenheul will get a new monkey species, the species name will be released tomorrow, but some hints Apenheul gave:
- they will get 3 males
- they have a special diet
- they will be imported from Asia
They will be the only one in Europe that shows this species and you can see them in about 2 months.
But better news: Apenheul will get a new monkey species, the species name will be released tomorrow, but some hints Apenheul gave:
- they will get 3 males
- they have a special diet
- they will be imported from Asia
They will be the only one in Europe that shows this species and you can see them in about 2 months.
