Golden-headed lion tamarin

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND BEHAVIOR

Wild golden-headed lion tamarins live in groups of about five individuals, excluding infants, and have been documented in the wild in groups as large as nine (Dietz et al. 1996). One or two adults of both sexes are usually present in the group, but there are usually more adult males than females. If there are two adult females within the group, only one is reproductively active. Also within the group are the offspring of various ages from two to three litters of the reproductive female (Dietz et al. 1994; Raboy 2002; Raboy & Dietz 2004). No genetic tests have been done to analyze paternity in groups of wild tamarins and it is unknown if the female breeds with more than one adult male. The younger group members remain in the group as they mature, sacrificing their own reproductive opportunities, and helping to raise their younger siblings in a system known as cooperative breeding. There is very little published information about dispersal rates of young males and females in the wild, but the documented pattern is that as non-reproductive adults, males and females disperse from their natal groups to avoid breeding with one of their parents and look for another group to join and in which to reproduce (Dietz et al. 1996; Raboy 2002). Golden-headed lion tamarins leave their natal groups between nine and 47 months of age and the average age of dispersal is 26.8 months, but may be closer to 38.7 months (Raboy 2002). Both males and females leave their natal groups in order to gain access to breeding opportunities, but if breeding vacancies appear within the group in which they were born and the opposite-sex parent disappears or transfers, males or females may inherit a position within their natal group (Raboy 2002). In other cases, young golden-headed lion tamarins may time transfers for when breeding vacancies are available in neighboring groups. One way the monkeys assess this is during intergroup encounters (Raboy 2002). Fluctuating between periods of stability and periods of rapid change, golden-headed lion tamarin groups remain stable for two to almost five years with no dispersal or immigration (Raboy & Dietz 1996). During periods of stability, the only increase in group size is due to new births. Turnover periods, occurring every few years, are marked by high rates of disappearance and immigration in which young golden-headed lion tamarins leave their natal groups to join another group or form their own group with a member of the opposite sex. Adult golden-headed lion tamarins may transfer between groups more than once, and changes in group composition may also be due to secondary transfer of adults (Raboy 2002). Smaller and newly formed groups are much more likely to accept immigrants; females enter groups without a resident breeding female while males enter a group with a breeding vacancy, aggressively displace breeding males, or enter a group and assume a non-breeding position (Raboy & Dietz 1996).

Some information about social behaviors must be extrapolated from studies of captive golden lion tamarins L. rosalia) simply because there is not enough data from wild or captive studies on golden-headed lion tamarins. Though the two species are closely related and likely share a repertoire of similar behaviors, using data from golden lion tamarins should be done prudently as new research on golden-headed lion tamarins will likely reveal similarities and differences between the species. Among golden lion tamarins, grooming is a major form of social activity and occurs between all family members either as they huddle in close contact during the day or evening or between pairs of individuals throughout the day (Kleiman et al. 1988). Adult females groom males more frequently than the reverse, and this may indicate that adult males are dominant over adult females within the group. Juveniles and subadults have high frequencies of grooming neonatal infants as they are interested in the youngest group members and attempt to make contact with them as often as possible. They will also groom the infants’ mother in an attempt to get closer to the newborn (Kleiman et al. 1988).

Because of their relatively large home range sizes, golden-headed lion tamarins encounter other groups less frequently than golden lion tamarins, but when they do, they exhibit territorial behavior. Intergroup behavior is aggressive and includes bouts of vocalizing, chasing, and fighting between individuals (Dietz et al. 1996; Raboy & Dietz 2004).

REPRODUCTION

The social structure of golden-lion tamarins indicates they employ a monogamous mating system, but the presence of non-reproductive adult males and females indicates that the mating system is flexible and may also change over time depending on a number of factors that have not yet been tested (De Vleeschouwer et al. 2000). Furthermore, while it is thought that only one adult female per group breeds and she suppresses reproductive behavior in other females in the group through aggression and other mechanisms, no genetic tests have been done on wild golden-headed lion tamarins to confirm genetic relatedness of the young and other group members (De Vleeschouwer et al. 2001). Very few reports of polygynous groups of golden-headed lion tamarins have been published, but there are more instances documented in captive than in wild animals. When a second female does breed, she is often not successful in raising her infants. Captive studies have revealed that she either gives birth to stillborn infants or if they are live, the infants are often targeted by severe aggression from the dominant breeding female and they may be killed (Diego & Ferrari 1996; De Vleeschouwer et al. 2001). Some theories about what may lead to the tolerance of a second breeding female in some groups and not others include the presence of an unrelated male, a large number of helpers, or a relative richness in important food resources (De Vleeschouwer et al. 2001). It is in the dominant breeding female’s interest to limit the number of infants in the group at one time through reproductive suppression because caregivers are vitally important to the survival of infants, and she may not want her mate to spend time caring for another female’s infants, or, because pregnancy and lactation are such energetically taxing feats, resources are not abundant enough to support more than one lactating female (De Vleeschouwer et al. 2001).

In the wild, females can reproduce for the first time before two years of age, but given the small sample size of females of known age, it is difficult to conclude if this is normal as other females first gave birth after 2.5 years (Raboy 2002). Young females reach puberty at age 16 months and non-reproductive, sexually mature females exhibit normal ovarian cycles, which last about 21 days, even though they do not reproduce within their groups (French et al. 2002). One component of this reproductive suppression is the behavior of the reproductive female in the group that can include aggressive interactions such as biting, hitting, or pushing or can be more indirect and involve sending chemical cues by scent marking surfaces (Chaoui & Hasler-Gallusser 1999). Young males are also somewhat reproductively suppressed, though they are much less frequently studied than females. In captivity, if they remain in their natal group, male golden-headed lion tamarins do not reach sexual maturity until 28 months, but if they are removed from a group containing their mother and sisters, they will reach sexual maturity at 17 months (Chaoui & Hasler-Gallusser 1999). One explanation for this pattern of development could be that it is an adaptation against inbreeding; to avoid mating with his close relatives, a young male that does not immigrate into a new group is reproductively inhibited but if he leaves his natal group, he becomes sexually mature and may assume a breeding position in his new group.

There are no external signs of ovulation, therefore reproductive females attract attention from breeding males by presenting their rumps toward the male and slightly lifting the tail. The male responds to this behavior by inspecting and sniffing the female’s genitals, evaluating her attractiveness and reproductive status (De Vleeschouwer et al. 2000). The highest occurrence of sexual behavior is during the peak of female receptivity, and once a female conceives, gestation lasts about four months (129 days) (French et al. 2002). Golden-headed lion tamarins exhibit birth seasonality even though they live in an area in which resources are equally abundant year-round. Most births occur from October through April and there is a significant absence of births from May to September (Bach et al. 2001). Most primates that exhibit birth seasonality do so because reproductive events are energetically expensive, and to maximize likelihood of infant survival, breeding, birth, and lactation occur during times of high resource abundance (Sussman 2000). Golden-headed lion tamarins seem to exhibit birth seasonality in accordance with photoperiod. This may be an adaptation because there may be behavioral advantages of raising offspring during longer days (Bach et al. 2001). In captivity, golden-headed lion tamarins can have one or two litters per year but in the wild they usually only have one per year (De Vleeschouwer et al. 2001). Rates of twinning are similar in captivity and in the wild, with more than half of the births resulting in twins rather than singletons (Bach et al. 2001).

INTERNATIONAL STATUS

For individual primate species conservation status, please search the IUCN Red List.
Also search the current scientific literature for primate conservation status (overall as well as for individual species), and visit CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora).

Conservation information last updated in 2005 follows, for comparison:

Some of the problems contributing to their status in the wild include massive deforestation for commercial agriculture crops, habitat fragmentation, and encroaching human populations. Export for the international pet trade may also be a factor contributing to declining golden-headed lion tamarin populations.

CONSERVATION THREATS & POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

Threat: Human-Induced Habitat Loss and Degradation

The extensive forests that used to blanket the state of Bahia, Brazil have been decreased to about 2% of their former range, being cleared for human activities including farming, ranching, mining, and urban sprawl (Mallinson 2001). In the western part of the state, cattle ranching dominates the economy and has resulted in widespread elimination of golden-headed lion tamarin habitat (de S. Pinto & Rylands 1997; Rylands et al. 2002b). In the eastern part of the state, where the majority of the remaining population survives, habitat destruction for agricultural crops is rampant. Traditionally, cocoa plantations dominated this region and many cocoa farmers continued to maintain more old growth forest than cocoa trees on their farms because of a method of growing cacao trees called cabruca. This is a system of shade cropping in which the middle and understory trees of intact forests are removed and replaced with cacao trees. While this reduces the number of lianas and eliminates much of the forest level where golden-headed lion tamarins live, there are still old growth trees that harbor sleeping sites and some foraging opportunities (Rylands et al. 2002b; Raboy et al. 2004). In the late 1970s, high prices of cocoa resulted in rapid expansion of cacao plantations. Unfortunately, high prices did not last and from 1986 to 1992, international cocoa prices bottomed out at the same time as witch’s broom disease began to spread through existing plantations. In 1989, the epidemic of witch’s broom disease, a fungus that attacks the cocoa and can only be combated by pruning the affected branches or burning the entire tree, forced farm owners to abandon their plantations, log the existing old growth on their land, and switch to alternative crops not grown in the same shade-cropping system (Rylands et al. 2002b). Old growth forest in cacao plantations that once was still useful to golden-headed lion tamarins was being destroyed either to harvest the trees for lumber, clear land for cattle ranching, or was replaced by other crops including coconut palms, African oil palms and peppers (Rylands et al. 2002b).

Potential Solutions

The rapid rate of habitat destruction within the range of the golden-headed lion tamarins indicates that their numbers will not remain high for long and suggests that forest fragmentation will continue to whittle away at the existing population much like the pattern seen in golden lion tamarins (L. rosalia) (Oliver & Santos 1991; Rylands 1993-1994; de S. Pinto & Rylands 1997). Actions must be taken immediately to stop habitat destruction and begin to reconnect patches of forest that still harbor golden-headed lion tamarins (Oliver & Santos; de S. Pinto & Rylands 1997).

The only significant protected area in which golden-headed lion tamarins are found is Una Biological Reserve, a 94 km² (36.3 mi²) park created specifically for their protection in 1980. Though the original governmental decree was for an area of 114 km² (44.0 mi²), this amount of land was not purchased immediately and for the last 25 years, the park has been growing incrementally as the government continues to acquire land (de S. Pinto & Rylands 1997; Cruz pers. comm.). Forests surrounding Una are still relatively intact and it should be a priority to purchase them and integrate them into the biological reserve because, as it exists now, Una is not large enough to support a self-sustaining population of golden-headed lion tamarins (Rylands 1993-1994; de S. Pinto & Rylands 1997). If purchase and integration is not possible, it will be essential to work with land owners to persuade them to initiate tamarin-friendly land use patterns. Existing programs to educate private land owners in the areas around the reserve should continue while corridors should be grown connecting remaining old growth forests on private lands with Una forests. (de S. Pinto & Rylands 1997; Mallinson 2001). The Landowners’ Environmental Education Programme began in the early 1990s and focused on educating the community surrounding the reserve about the importance of protecting not only the reserve itself but contiguous forests. On over 70% of the farms in the area, conservation activities have been undertaken including sustainable agricultural practices that focus on preserving forests and golden-headed lion tamarin habitat (Mallinson 2001). School children, farm workers, hunters, and forest guards have been involved in the education program focusing on conservation, property rights, and land use as well as developing alternative sustainable economic undertakings (Mallinson 2001). As land is purchased for more forest reserves or protected areas in areas other than Una, programs like this should certainly be part of the transition from private to reserve land so that communities neighboring new reserves understand the importance of their actions on the golden-headed lion tamarin’s habitat and ultimate survival.

Research on the use of cabruca by golden-headed lion tamarins indicates that they will use this forest type more frequently than secondary forests as there are higher abundances of fruit, flowers, animal prey, and sleeping sites in cocoa plantations than in degraded, successional ecosystems (Raboy et al. 2004). Farmers that maintain cabruca with primary forest as the shade source rather than converting their land to a monoculture system provide better habitat for golden-headed lion tamarins. A reasonable compromise between farmers and conserving habitat might include economic incentives in order to maintain this system as opposed to logging the primary forest and converting the land to cattle ranching, in which no available habitat is left for the tamarins. Alternative economic opportunities in and around Una involve the establishment of an ecotourism facility. Trails, a canopy walkway, and a visitors’ education center have all been built for tourists to enjoy Una and the unique flora and fauna found there (Mallinson 2001). Responsible expansion of this program and stronger marketing both within Brazil and abroad might make it a more profitable venture for community members.

Threat: Harvesting (hunting/gathering)

In the early 1980s, large numbers of golden-headed lion tamarins were illegally exported from Brazil to countries like Belgium, France, French Guiana, and Japan in order to supply the booming pet trade and exotic animal collectors (Mallinson 2001; Rylands et al. 2002a; b). The Brazilian environmental agency IBAMA concentrated efforts on recovery of illegally exported tamarins and, in 1986, was able to begin a captive breeding colony with seized animals (Mallinson 2001). The large numbers of recovered animals helped establish a genetically diverse founder population from which to begin captive breeding programs in Brazil, Europe, Japan, and the United States (Ballou et al. 2002). Seizures of golden-headed lion tamarins continue today, though not nearly at as high of a rate as was seen in the 1980s. The international demand for these animals as pets still exists, and though it is not nearly as high, coupled with the other threats to the population, it may affect the future potential of the population to survive.

Generally hunters in this region are either leisure hunters or subsistence hunters and though golden-headed lion tamarins are seldom hunted for food, there are a few reports that hunters kill and eat them (Oliver & Santos 1991; dos Santos & Blanes 1997).

Potential solutions

Administrators of Una Biological Reserve continue to confiscate illegally kept golden-headed lion tamarins and, in 1999, the captive population was over 600 individuals (Ballou et al. 2002). One effort to decrease the number of animals taken as pets or killed for food is education. When poachers or hunters are encountered, they receive information about the importance of conservation and the Brazilian laws that forbid the activity (Padua et al. 2002). This simple message has been successful in decreasing hunting rates by 50% according to IBAMA (dos Santos & Blanes 1997; Padua et al. 2002). Not only are hunters directly confronted if caught, education programs for all land owners and community members have been aimed at educating people about the endemism present in nearby the forests (dos Santos & Blanes 1997). Armed with information about conservation of their unique surroundings, community members begin to see golden-headed lion tamarins not as food or a potential source of income, but as an important part of the ecosystem and part of the local heritage.

Threat: Accidental Mortality

There is scant data available on accidental mortality but there have been some unpublished reports of golden-headed lion tamarins getting caught in snare traps set for other animals and accidentally being killed (Oliver & Santos 1991).

Threat: Natural Disasters

In the eastern half of their range, golden-headed lion tamarin habitat is characterized by wet conditions throughout the year, but in 1995, a severe drought occurred and resulted in a serious wildfire that threatened Una Biological Reserve (Anonymous 1995). The fire was started when neighboring farmers lost control of a fire they started to help clear their fields, a common technique used in South America to clear land of growth and add nutrients to the soil before planting crops.

Potential solutions

The Landowners’ Environmental Education Programme needs to incorporate information about burning fields and the potential harm that can be done to neighboring forests, especially under certain environmental conditions. While the newly established buffer zone between the reserve and other lands might decrease the chance of a fire spreading too quickly to the center of the reserve, in some situations, Una, and the golden-headed lion tamarins that live there, might be subject to serious natural disasters.

Threat: Intrinsic Factors

The limited data available on fecundity and mortality in golden-headed lion tamarins suggests that the population grows more slowly and is subject to higher levels of predation compared to golden lion tamarins (L. rosalia) (Dietz 1997). Wild golden-headed lion tamarins have never been seen producing more than one litter per year, so population growth is relatively slow. Furthermore, disappearance rates are high within the population at Una Biological Reserve and may be attributed to density of predators. Mammalian and avian predators are a threat to these small animals, and when forest conditions are right, the predator population can thrive and have a negative effect on golden-headed lion tamarins (Dietz 1997). Unidentified disease is another contributor to mortality at Una. Certain illnesses can sweep through a group and kill all of the members within a few days (Dietz 1997).

The nature of habitat fragmentation throughout the golden-headed lion tamarin’s range will probably lead to problems associated with inbreeding including inbreeding depression, genetic drift, lack of genetic diversity, and lower recruitment rates. The total population at Una is estimated to be between 240 and 460 individuals. Though there is a wide discrepancy between estimates, the population is still thought to be less than the 500 breeding individuals necessary to maintain genetic diversity over the long term (Dietz et al. 1996). Additionally, the population at Una represents the largest population in the most intact forest in the entire range of the golden-headed lion tamarin, so it is clear that other subpopulations are subject to loss of genetic diversity over time.

Potential solutions

Having a healthy predator population within Una is essential for the functioning of the ecosystem, but other efforts to decrease golden-headed lion tamarin mortality have been undertaken. Current studies require that habituated animals be captured every six months to replace radio transmitter batteries. At this semiannual event, veterinary care is provided for the animals as a routine way to check their health and evaluate any concerns (Dietz et al. 1996). By monitoring the health of the animals over time, changes can be noted and care can be provided in certain circumstances. Monitoring and attempting to provide care for sick tamarins is an expensive and relatively futile process compared to eliminating sources of inbreeding depression that might cause certain individuals to be at higher risk for health problems. It is essential that Una does not become an island of forest, cutting off dispersing golden-headed lion tamarins from entering new territories, starting new groups, or immigrating into the breeding position of existing groups. Efforts to connect patches of forest throughout the range will increase the likelihood of gene flow in the population and will help to decrease the chances of the loss of genetic diversity (Dietz et al. 1996). Currently, studies to evaluate and prioritze areas for forest linkage are underway and will hopefully lead to management strategies and eventual reconnection of forest fragments (Raboy pers. comm.).

Threat: Human Disturbance

Following the drop in cocoa prices and the spread of witch’s broom disease, unemployment rates soared in the region surrounding Una Biological Reserve. Displaced workers swarmed to the forests, both protected and unprotected, clearing the land for subsistence agriculture because of their lack of economic prospects (Padua et al. 2002). Additionally, cocoa plantation owners began to cut the primary forests of the cabruca and sell the lumber to supplement income. This resulted in an increased rate of forest fragmentation both within Una and in the surrounding areas and directly impacting the golden-headed lion tamarin (Padua et al. 2002).

Potential solutions

Economic opportunity that does not involve resource extraction and deforestation of Una needs to be created or sustainable use of resources needs to be highlighted in education programs for community members. One solution that has been implemented is the establishment of a buffer zone surrounding the reserve. This 10 km (6.21 mi)-wide strip of vegetation borders the perimeter of the reserve and serves to protect the inner park from invasion of squatters, hunters and poachers through environmental education, agricultural outreach, and studies of land use in the region (Mallinson 2001; Raboy pers. comm.).

LINKS TO MORE ABOUT CONSERVATION

CONSERVATION INFORMATION

• Leontopithecus chrysomelas  (Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust)
• Links for all species

CONSERVATION NEWS

• Invasive primates threaten Atlantic Forest natives  (Mongabay; March 19, 2012)
• Brazilian rare tamarins arrive at Birmingham Nature Centre  (BBC News; June 28, 2011)
• Links for all species

Content last modified: July 20, 2005

Written by Kristina Cawthon Lang. Reviewed by Becky Raboy.

Cite this page as:
Cawthon Lang KA. 2005 July 20. Primate Factsheets: Golden-headed lion tamarin (Leontopithecus chrysomelas) Conservation. Accessed 2020 July 23.

The following references were used in the writing of this factsheet. To find current references for Leontopithecus chrysomelas, search PrimateLit.

REFERENCES

Bach A, Raboy B, Dietz J. 2001. Birth seasonality in wild golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas) in Una Reserve, Bahia State Brazil (Abstract). Am J Primatol 54(Suppl.): 69.

Baker AJ, Bales K, Dietz JM. 2002. Mating system and group dynamics in lion tamarins. In: Kleiman DG, Rylands AB, editors. Lion tamarins: biology and conservation. Washington DC: Smithsonian Inst Pr. p 188-212.

Ballou JD, Kleiman DG, Mallinson JJC, Rylands AB, Valladares-Padua CB, Leus K. 2002. History, management, and conservation role of the captive lion tamarin populations. In: Kleiman DG, Rylands AB, editors. Lion tamarins: biology and conservation. Washington DC: Smithsonian Inst Pr. p 95-114.

Boinski S, Moraes E, Kleiman DG, Dietz JM, Baker AJ. 1994. Intra-group vocal behaviour in wild golden lion tamarins, Leontopithecus rosalia: honest communication of individual activity. Behaviour 130(1-2): 53-75.

Chaoui NJ, Hasler-Gallusser S. 1999. Incomplete sexual suppression in Leontopithecus chrysomelas: a behavioural and hormonal study in a semi-natural environment. Folia Primatol 70(1): 47-54.

de Oliveira MS, Lopes FA, Alonso C, Yamamoto ME. 1999. The mother’s participation in infant carrying in captive groups of Leontopithecus chrysomelas and Callithrix jacchus. Folia Primatol 70(3): 146-53.

da Silva JMC, Casteleti CHM. 2003. Status of the biodiversity of the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. In: In: Galindo-Leal C, de Gusmão Câmara I, editors. The Atlantic Forest of South America: biodiversity status, threats, and outlook. Washington DC: Island Pr. p 43-59.

de S. Pinto LP, Rylands AB. 1997. Geographic distribution of the golden-headed lion tamarin, Leontopithecus chrysomelas: implications for its management and conservation. Folia Primatol 68(3-5): 161-80.

de S. Pinto LP, Tavares LI. 1994. Inventory and conservation status of wild populations of golden-headed lion tamarins, Leontopithecus chrysomelas. Neotrop Prim 2(Suppl.): 24-7.

De Vleeschouwer K, Heistermann M, Van Elsacker L, Verheyen RF. 2000. Signaling of reproductive status in captive female golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas). Int J Primatol 21(3): 445-65.

De Vleeschouwer K, Van Elsaker L, Leus K. 2001. Multiple breeding females in captive groups of golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas): causes and consequences. Folia Primatol 72(1): 1-10.

Diego VH, Ferrari SF. 1996. Infanticide in a captive group of golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas). Neotrop Prim 4(3): 86-7.

Dietz J. 1997. Report from the field: golden-headed lion tamarins in Una. Tamarin Tales 1:6.

Dietz JM, de Sousa SN, Billerbeck R. 1996. Population dynamics of golden-headed lion tamarins Leontopithecus chrysomelas in Una Reserve, Brazil. Dodo J Wildl Preserv Trusts 32: 115-22.

Dietz JM, de Sousa SN, da Silva JRO. 1994. Population structure and territory size in golden-headed lion tamarins, Leontopithecus chrysomelas. Neotrop Prim 2(Suppl.): 21-3.

dos Santos GR, Blanes J. 1997. Environmental education programme with the community surrounding Una Biological Reserve, Bahia, Brazil. Dodo J Wildl Preserv Trust 33:118-26.

French JA, de Vleeschouwer K, Bales K, Heistermann M. 2002. Lion tamarin reproductive biology. In: Kleiman DG, Rylands AB, editors. Lion tamarins: biology and conservation. Washington DC: Smithsonian Inst Pr. p 133-56.

Groves C. 2001. Primate taxonomy. Washington DC: Smithsonian Inst Pr. 350 p.

Hankerson SJ, Dietz JM, Raboy BE. In press. Mixed-species associations between wild golden-headed lion tamarins and the bird community at Una Biological Reserve. Int J Primatol.

Kierulff MCM, Raboy BE, de Oliveira PP, Miller K, Passos FC, Prado F. 2002. Behavioral ecology of lion tamarins. In: Kleiman DG, Rylands AB, editors. Lion tamarins: biology and conservation. Washington DC: Smithsonian Inst Pr. p 157-87.

Kinzey WG. 1997. Synopsis of New World primates (16 genera). In: Kinzey WG, editor. New World primates: ecology, evolution, and behavior. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. p 169-324.

Kleiman DG, Hoage RJ, Green KM. 1988. The lion tamarins, Genus Leontopithecus. In: Mittermeier RA, Coimbra-Filho AF, da Fonseca GAB, editors. Ecology and behavior of neotropical primates, Volume 2. Washington DC: World Wildl Fund. p 299-347.

Leigh SR. 1994. Relations between captive and noncaptive weights in anthropoid primates. Zoo Biol 13(1): 21-43.

Mallinson JJC. 2001. Saving Brazil’s Atlantic rainforest: Using the golden-headed lion tamarin Leontopithecus chrysomelas as a flagship for a biodiversity hotspot. Dodo 37:9-20.

Oliver WLR, Santos IB. 1991. Threatened endemic mammals of the Atlantic Forest region of south-east Brazil. Wildlife Preservation Trust, Special Scientific Report No. 4. Channel Islands (UK): Jersey Wildl Preserv Trust. 126 p.

Padua SM, Dietz LA, Rambaldi DM, de Souza MDG, dos Santos GR. 2002. In situ conservation education and the lion tamarins. In: Kleiman DG, Rylands AB, editors. Lion tamarins: biology and conservation. Washington DC: Smithsonian Inst Pr. p 315-35.

Peres CA. 1991. Intergroup interactions, movements, and use of space in wild golden lion tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia). In: Rylands AB, Bernardes AT, editors. A Primatologia no Brasil, Volume 3. Belo Horizonte (Brazil): Fundação Biodiversitas. p 173-89.

Raboy BE. 1998. Update from the field: golden-headed lion tamarins lead the way in mixed-species associations. Tamarin Tales 2:13-4.

Raboy BE. 2002. The ecology and behavior of wild golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas). Ph.D dissertation, University of Maryland. 161 p.

Raboy BE, Christman MC, Dietz JM. 2004. The use of degraded and shade cocoa forests by endangered golden-headed lion tamarins Leontopithecus chrysomelas. Oryx 38(1): 75-83.

Raboy B, Dietz J. 1996. Immigration patterns and group stability in wild golden-headed lion tamarins in Southern Bahia, Brazil (Abstract). Am J Primatol 54(Suppl. 1): 52.

Raboy BE, Dietz JM. 2004. Diet, foraging, and use of space in wild golden-headed lion tamarins. Am J Primatol 63(1):1-15.

Rosenberger AL, Coimbra-Filho AF. 1984. Morphology, taxonomic status and affinities of the lion tamarins, Leontopithecus (Callitrichinae, Cebidae). Folia Primatol 42(3-4): 149-79.

Rowe N. 1996. The pictorial guide to the living primates. East Hampton (NY): Pogonias Pr. 263 p.

Ruiz-Miranda CR, Kleiman DG. 2002. Conspicuousness and complexity: themes in lion tamarin communication. In: Kleiman DG, Rylands AB, editors. Lion tamarins: biology and conservation. Washington DC: Smithsonian Inst Pr. p 233-54.

Rylands AB. 1989. Sympatric Brazilian callitrichids: the black tufted-ear marmoset, Callithrix kuhli, and the golden-headed lion tamarin, Leontopithecus chrysomelas. J Human Evol 18:679-95.

Rylands AB. 1993. The ecology of the lion tamarins, Leontopithecus: some intrageneric differences and comparisons with other callitrichids. In: Rylands AB, editor. Marmosets and tamarins: systematics behaviour, and ecology. Oxford (UK): Oxford Univ Pr. p 296-313.

Rylands AB. 1993-1994. Population viability analyses of the conservation of the lion tamarins, Leontopithecus, of south-east Brazil. Prim Cons 14-15: 34-42.

Rylands AB. 1996. Habitat and the evolution of social and reproductive behavior in Callitrichidae. Am J Primatol 38(1): 5-18.

Rylands AB, Kierulff MCM, de Souza Pinto LP. 2002a. Distribution and status of lion tamarins. In: Kleiman DG, Rylands AB, editors. Lion tamarins: biology and conservation. Washington DC: Smithsonian Inst Pr. p 42- 70.

Rylands AB, Mallinson JJC, Kleiman DG, Coimbra-Filho AF, Mittermeier RA, de Gusmão Câmara I, Valladares-Padua CB, Bampi MI. 2002b. A history of lion tamarin research and conservation. In: Kleiman DG, Rylands AB, editors. Lion tamarins: biology and conservation. Washington DC: Smithsonian Inst Pr. p 3-41.

Rylands AB, Santos IB, Mittermeier RA. 1991-1992. Distribution and status of the golden-headed lion tamarin, Leontopithecus chrysomelas, in the Atlantic Forest of southern Bahia, Brazil. Prim Cons 12-13:15-23.

Sussman RW. 2000. Primate ecology and social structure. Volume 2, New world monkeys. Needham Heights (MA): Pearson Custom. 207 p.

Tardif SD, Santos CV, Baker AJ, Van Elsacker L, Feistner ATC, Kleiman DG, Ruiz-Miranda CR, Moura AC de A, Passos FC, Price EC et al. 2002. Infant care in lion tamarins. In: Kleiman DG, Rylands AB, editors. Lion tamarins: biology and conservation. Washington DC: Smithsonian Inst Pr. p 213-32.

Van Elsacker L, de Meurichy W, Verheyen RF, Walraven V. 1992. Maternal differences in infant carriage in golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas). Folia Primatol 59(3): 121-6.

Content last modified: July 20, 2005

IMAGES

	Leontopithecus chrysomelas Photo: Anne Zeller
	Leontopithecus chrysomelas Photo: Anne Zeller
	Leontopithecus chrysomelas Photo: Bryan Lenz
	Leontopithecus chrysomelas Photo: Bryan Lenz
	Leontopithecus chrysomelas Photo: Bryan Lenz
	Leontopithecus chrysomelas Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Leontopithecus chrysomelas Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Leontopithecus chrysomelas Photo: Sean Flannery
	Leontopithecus chrysomelas Photo: Sharon Savage
	Leontopithecus chrysomelas Photo: Sylvia Taylor
	Leontopithecus chrysomelas Photo: Sylvia Taylor