Muriqui

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND BEHAVIOR

In addition to affecting their diet, the geographic dispersal of resources influences the grouping patterns and social structure of muriquis. At the two study sites where muriquis have been studied systematically, Montes Claros and Barreiro Rico, the structure of social groups varies (Strier 1987b). At Montes Claros, where large fruiting trees are more abundant and closely spaced, muriquis live in social groups of 20 to more than 80 individuals which travel and feed together throughout the day. In contrast to the large social groups present at Montes Claros, muriquis live in small groups at Barreiro Rico, where fruit trees are scarcer and widely dispersed. The only permanent associations at this site are between adult females and their offspring, and social groups consist of three to five adult females and their dependent offspring. These units travel alone and are joined, on occasion, by subadult and adult males (Milton 1984). The female groups remain in discrete home ranges. The males travel alone or in groups of up to eight individuals, joining different groups of females for short periods to mate and then moving on to find other estrous females. Associations between adult males and females at Barreiro Rico last between a few minutes to over a week (Milton 1984).

The abundance of feeding sites at Montes Claros might allow larger groups to form and stay together without costly competition for resources at feeding sites (Strier 1989; Strier et al. 1993). In fact, after several years of growth resulting in an almost doubling of group size, the study group at Montes Claros shifted its behavior from maintaining a large, cohesive group, to two smaller groups that come together often, but frequently travel separately. Unlike the small groups at Barreiro Rico, the groups come together regardless of female receptivity (Strier et al. 1993). This change in behavior was accompanied by a widening of the home range size, indicating that there is a positive relationship between resource availability and muriqui social group size and home range size (Strier 1989; Dias & Strier 2003). As of 2006, there were four muriqui groups in this forest and a total population of 226 individuals (Strier et al. 2006).

Information about the social structure of muriquis comes chiefly from the long-term research at Montes Claros. Muriquis exhibit male philopatry, staying in the groups where they were born while females leave their natal groups between five and seven years of age to join another group, where they will stay and mate for life (Strier 1991b; 1996). Young females often leave their natal group shortly after an agonistic encounter with a neighboring group (Strier 1993). They are not forced out by older females, as is seen in some other primates such as the callitrichines, but seem to part from their group amicably (Strier & Ziegler 2000). Aggression in muriquis is exceptionally rare, but when a female attempts to join a social group, she is chased and displaced by the adult females in the group (Strier 1991b; 1992b). Adult resident females frequently displace young immigrants at quality feeding sites and young females remain on the periphery of the social group (Printes & Strier 1999). Young female immigrant muriquis gain acceptance by playing and interacting with juvenile or subadult females of the group, and eventually the adult females will tolerate their presence (Strier 1991b; 1992b; 1996).

Males within the same group are likely to be related, because of the dispersal patterns exhibited by muriquis, and do not behave agonistically to one another, even in the presence of reproductive females (Strier et al. 2002). There is little evidence of dominance relationships either between females, between males, or between females and males (Strier 1992b). Embracing or affiliative hugging is one way in which social relationships are strengthened among male muriquis while social grooming is rare (Strier 1994; Strier et al. 2002). Though muriquis of the same group have egalitarian relationships, interactions between males of neighboring groups are hostile. Vocal displays, threat displays, and chasing characterize interactions between males of two groups which come into contact with one another. This agonistic behavior may be to prevent intruder males from coming into contact with females of a social group (Strier 1994). Related males of a social group work together to keep strange males from entering the group; when males cannot prevent outsiders from coming into contact with females, the new males often copulate with group females (Strier 1994).

REPRODUCTION

Muriquis are promiscuous and exhibit a polygamous mating system in which both males and females mate with multiple partners (Milton 1985; Strier 1986). At Montes Claros, females mate with an average of eight different males during the mating season and males mate with an average of 14 different females (Strier 1997). Mating is concentrated during the months from September through March and births occur primarily during the peak dry months, June through August (Strier 1991b; 1996; 1997). Reproduction is correlated with rainfall and thus availability of new leaves, an important food source for muriquis after the dry season shortages (Strier 1996). In the dry season, when day ranges are shorter, muriqui mothers with highly dependant infants may benefit because they do not have to expend extra energy traveling long distances while carrying an infant. As fruiting begins, the infant has grown and is less awkward to carry because it is larger and has more strength and the female can travel the longer distances seen during the wet season (Strier 1986; 1996).

Females reach puberty after transferring from their natal group and experience a delay in the normalization of their ovarian cycle which lasts about 14 months after transferring, or at least one breeding season (Strier & Ziegler 2000). Females do not cycle throughout the year but rather only during the mating season (Strier & Ziegler 1994). The ovarian cycle lasts an average of 21 days, but can range between 16 and 38 days, and there are no external signs of ovulation (Strier & Ziegler 1997). Females copulate at 20 day intervals during the mating season and may mate over several reproductive cycles (Strier & 1997). The age at first reproduction for females has only been documented in only a few females whose birth dates are known and occurs between 7.5 and nine years of age (Strier 1996; Martins & Strier 2004). Gestation lasts about seven months (averaging 216 days) and there is a long interbirth interval, averaging 36 months (Strier 1996; Strier & Ziegler 1997).

Males begin to reproduce around five or six years of age (Strier 1996). Aggression or physical competition for access to mates has not been documented among muriquis, and one hypothesis is that physical adaptations in males reduce the need for overt competition and instead, sperm competition is practiced (Strier 1992a; 1997). Male muriquis have large testicles compared to their body size and larger testes result in higher levels of sperm production (Strier 1992a). Among animals in which males and females mate with multiple partners, there is potentially an advantage to a male that can produce the largest amount of sperm; he has a higher chance of successfully fertilizing a female compared to other males (Dixson & Anderson 2002).

PARENTAL CARE

Infants are born with light fur and dark faces and they begin to lose their natal coat and skin pigmentation between three and four years of age. They do not reach adult size until they are between five and seven years of age (Strier 1993). Female muriquis are the sole caregivers of their offspring, carrying and nursing their infants as they slowly gain independence and are eventually weaned (Strier 1993). Adult males have been characterized as indifferent to infants within their group and rarely come into contact with them. Interactions are friendly but brief, and are always initiated by the infants (da Oliveira Guimarães & Strier 2001).

For the first year of life, muriqui infants are almost fully dependent on their mother for transportation and food. During the first six months, the infant clings to the fur on its mother’s belly and sides and is awkward to carry for the mother. As the infant matures, it begins to ride jockey-style on its mother’s back, wrapping its prehensile tail around its mother’s tail for added support (Strier 1992a; 1993). The two remain in almost constant contact during the early months, and gradually decrease contact time. The mother may leave her infant on a thin branch while she feeds next to it but will always gather it up before moving to the next feeding or resting site. Six to 12-month old infants are never more than a few feet from their mothers, and spend time tentatively exploring while their mother is feeding or resting (Strier 1992a).

After the first year, young muriquis gain more independence from their mothers and are able to travel short distances without the help of their mother. Groups of infants are often parked together and socialize through play while the mothers feed (Strier 1992a). In some instances, young muriquis require the assistance of their mothers to negotiate large gaps in the canopy. In these cases, the mother will form a bridge, using her long, prehensile tail and her front legs, stretching the length of the gap and allowing her young to cross over her (Strier 1992a).

Weaning occurs between 18 and 24 months, though experimentation with solid foods occurs months before. The weaning process is often a traumatic time for the juvenile muriqui. Mothers refuse nursing attempts of their juvenile offspring by hitting or nipping at them when they try to suckle, and young muriquis may throw tantrums, screeching and whining until they are allowed to nurse or grow tired (Strier 1991b; 1992a). Young muriquis begin to forage completely on their own at around two years of age (Strier 1992a). In the breeding season after her infant is weaned, the mother will begin to copulate and will likely conceive. The interbirth interval is about 36 months, but the average interval between parturition and resumption of copulation is 23.5 months (Strier 1996). A young muriqui is about three years old when its sibling is born, and by this time is completely independent from its mother (Strier 1992a).

COMMUNICATION

Muriquis communicate through vocalizations, postural behavior, and chemical communication. One common vocal call is the “neigh,” which is a loud, horse-like call given frequently in the early morning, during travel, and at the end of the day before entering the sleeping tree. One function may be to inform other animals of an individual’s location and maintaining group unity throughout the day when muriquis cannot see one another (Torres de Assumpção 1984; Strier 1986; Nishimura et al. 1988). It may also serve as a spacing function for other muriqui groups in the area, communicating the location of the one group to another (Strier 1986). When two muriqui groups come into contact, the most common vocalization is the “bark.” Much like the hoarse-sounding bark of a dog, adult male and female muriquis bark at two- to three-second intervals before, during, and after an intergroup encounter (Milton 1984; Strier 1986; Nishimura et al. 1988). Mild anxiety among muriquis is expressed by “hoots,” and can be heard after long barking bouts. Females traveling with young can be heard giving “cluck” calls, a soft smacking call that may be a reassuring sound to infants or juveniles left in one part of the tree while the mother forages elsewhere in the tree (Strier 1986). The common feeding call given by both adult males and females is the “chirp.” Infants and juveniles make calls when they are upset, during weaning and when they are left behind by the group. These include “screams” and “whines,” both of which usually result in a response from their mothers (Strier 1986).

LISTEN TO VOCALIZATIONS

• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Long neigh #1  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Long neigh #2  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Long neigh #3  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Long neigh #4  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Neigh sequence  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Short neigh #1  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Short neigh #2  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Staccato #1  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Staccato #2  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)

Some vocalizations are accompanied by physical displays. Adult male muriquis often embrace both as a friendly gesture and during times of extreme excitement. “Clucks” are given during friendly embraces, but sometimes embracing escalates when males are agitated, such as after an intergroup encounter, and several males will frantically embrace each other and emit “warbles,” throaty gurgling calls (Strier 1986). Another greeting gesture seen between adult males and adult females, but not between members of the opposite sex, is a ritualized embrace in which the two animals emit “staccato chutter-whinnies” and hug forcefully, both animals pulling their lips back over their teeth into a grimace (Milton 1984). Other display behaviors include slapping leaves and branches with the hands, forcefully pulling branches back and letting them go, lunging, and defecating (Milton 1984).

Adult male and female muriquis use chemical communication to convey sexual receptivity and interest to members of the opposite sex. Both males and females communicate via urine washing; they urinate directly onto the hands, feet, or tail, and rest the coated appendage on branches, leaving a trail as they walk or hang by their tails for other animals to encounter (Milton 1985).

Content last modified: August 30, 2006

Written by Kristina Cawthon Lang. Reviewed by Karen Strier.

Cite this page as:
Cawthon Lang KA. 2006 August 30. Primate Factsheets: Muriqui (Brachyteles) Behavior . <http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/muriqui/behav>. Accessed 2020 July 16.

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 2006 follows, for comparison:

The most serious threats to muriqui conservation include habitat loss and fragmentation as well as illegal hunting. While Brazilian law protects remaining stands of Brazilian Atlantic forest and many muriqui populations exist on private lands, land clearing and hunting continue to threaten their survival (Strier 1992). It is estimated that there are fewer than 2000 muriquis left in the wild (Strier 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2005).

CONSERVATION THREATS & POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

Threat: Human Induced Habitat Loss and Degradation

The loss of the Brazilian Atlantic forest dates back to the 1500s, when Portuguese explorers first entered Brazil and began to establish ports and trading posts. The forest was first cleared for sugar cane, an important export crop, but other natural resources such as gold and diamonds were soon discovered and extracted (da Fonseca 1985). As the economy boomed, human populations grew and more land was cleared for agriculture, an industry that has continued to expand in this region of Brazil since the 17th century. The human population of Brazil is concentrated in this area and as a result of centuries of forest clearing and land exploitation, only a fraction of the Brazilian Atlantic forest remains (da Fonseca 1985; Morellato & Haddad 2000). Endemic fauna and flora of this region have either been pushed to extinction or, like muriquis, are in serious threat of disappearing because the unique forest in which they evolved has been all but eliminated (Morellato & Haddad 2000). Ongoing human activities with a major impact on muriqui habitat loss and destruction include sprawling coffee plantation and cattle grazing, both of which occur on land cleared by fires, small-scale timber extraction, hydroelectric dams, and road development. Another human-induced cause of habitat degredation is palm heart harvesting, an important export resource (Rylands et al. 1998).

Agriculture continues to be an important part of the economy in this region of Brazil and the land has been parceled out for centuries. While some plantation owners have stands of primary and secondary growth which can support muriqui groups, there is uncertainty in the future ability of landowners to protect these stands for muriquis as economic incentives to either clear the land for timber or additional pasture and crop land still exist. Furthermore, because so much of the land in the region is privately owned, acquiring land for parks and reserves is nearly impossible as it would mean buying multiple adjacent properties to establish one suitable plot for forest regeneration (da Fonseca 1985).

Land fragmentation has been particularly devastating to the northern muriqui, whose populations are isolated from each other, compared to the southern muriqui, which survives in one of the largest tracts of Brazilian Atlantic forest remaining, Serra do Mar in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo (Strier 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2005). In addition to losing places to establish home ranges, habitat destruction can cause ecological stress and influence the way in which muriquis forage and the overall composition of their diet. This can lead to lower rates of reproduction and slower population growth (Strier 1992a).

Potential Solutions

The single most important factor in conserving muriquis is protecting forest from further destruction and fragmentation (Brooks & Rylands 2003). One solution is the private faunal refuge system administered by the Brazilian Institute of Forest Development (IBDF) in which private land owners have legal backing to prohibit hunting on their lands. Small, adjacent private reserves can be useful in preserving connecting tracts of regenerating forest and provide refuge for endangered species such as muriquis (da Fonseca 1985; Strier 1992). Despite historical habitat destruction, in areas where forests are allowed to regenerate through protection such as at Montes Claros, muriqui populations show marked growth. Given larger areas of suitable habitat, muriquis have been able to expand their home ranges and increase their overall population size, indicating that habitat protection is a sensible and worthwhile endeavor (Strier 1992; 2000).

One incentive for private landowners to curb habitat destruction and create economic opportunity is through ecotourism. By protecting forests and creating ecotourism destinations on their lands, private landowners can personally gain from having muriquis on their land (Strier 1992a). Montes Claros is a popular tourist site, with income from visitors contributing to continuing research (Strier 1992a). At other sites, income could be split between researchers and land owners, or could solely benefit landowners.

Threat: Harvesting (hunting/gathering)

Muriquis are the largest of the New World primates and are prized trophies for hunters. Not only are they sought after because of their large body size, they may also experience heightened risk because they are easily spotted by hunters (Pinto et al. 1993). Where they are found in state parks and reserves, there are too few guards to effectively protect against poaching. Private landowners are more successful in preventing trespassers from hunting muriquis living on their land, but illegal hunting still occurs (Strier 1992a). Hunting is particularly devastating for small populations in isolated forest fragments where poachers can essentially drive a group to local extinction either through directly killing adults or disrupting the population structure so significantly that the group cannot rebound (Chiarello 2003).

Potential Solutions

Hunting of muriquis is illegal, and prosecution of poachers is one way to deter hunting, but apprehension of hunters is necessary if they are to be prosecuted. Eliminating illegal harvesting of muriquis is a near-impossible endeavor as parks and private lands are scarcely patrolled by guards and forests are often difficult to effectively patrol. One method of decreasing poaching is to accentuate the cultural or economic value to the muriquis through education or ecotourism. For example, while the muriqui has become a flagship species of the region, appearing on postage stamps, telephone directories, t-shirts, and posters, continuing education and information dissemination is critical to teach people about the unique resource found in nearby forests (Strier 1992a). Ecotourism, which often gives an economic value to protecting wildlife, is another option for involving local people in conservation measures. Providing alternate sources of income as field guides or other service related jobs could change attitudes about hunting muriquis and create incentives to protect them (Strier 1992a).

Threat: Changes in Native Species Dynamics

While habitat loss is a serious concern for muriqui populations, one side effect of fragmentation is the depletion or local extinction of predator species, many of which require large, continuous forests in which to hunt (González-Solís et al. 2001). Heavy predation pressure is therefore not a factor in conserving small, isolated subpopulations of muriquis (Lemos de Sá & Strier 1992).

Threat: Intrinsic Factors

One serious concern for animals living in small, fragmented populations that are isolated from each other is that inbreeding depression can make groups vulnerable to extinction. Low birth rates and high mortality rates characterize populations with limited gene flow and result in dwindling populations over time (Strier 2000). Furthermore, smaller populations with low genetic diversity are more vulnerable to stochastic events such as drought and disease outbreaks. While many muriqui populations are separated from each other and gene flow is limited, ill-effects have not been noted up to this point (Strier 1991; 1993/1994; 2000). For example, the muriquis at Montes Claros have been successfully reproducing and the group has steadily increased in size since Karen Strier began her work there in the early 1980s. With continued protection on private land and future forest regeneration on adjacent land, the population is projected to survive in the next 100 years (Strier 1993/1994).

Another intrinsic factor that may affect muriqui conservation is their slow rate of population growth which can be attributed to long interbirth intervals and late onset of sexual maturity and age at first parturition (Strier 1991b).

Potential Solutions

While the lower extinction probability for the population at Montes Claros is heartening, long-term viability of other muriqui populations cannot be extrapolated from their success. Further research is necessary to understand how small home ranges, fluctuations in habitat quality, and low population densities affect muriquis at other sites and ongoing efforts to secure contiguous primary or regenerating forest is necessary (Strier 2000). The size of the group at Montes Claros increased steadily as home ranges increased in association with forest regeneration and land protection (Strier 1991b; 1992a). If the data from Montes Claros can be applied to other study sights, the most important consideration for increasing population size is increasing available habitat.

In addition to land protection, intensive management of small populations may be necessary to avoid inbreeding depression. Translocation of muriquis between isolated forests would be one way to introduce new individuals to the breeding population and decrease the risk of close relatives mating. This process is risky for individual animals, and the costs should be weighed against the potential benefits (Strier 1992a).

Threat: Human Disturbance

Forest fires are rare in moist tropical forests, but the impact of logging and clearing of land can contribute to an unnaturally high risk of fires. While this has been greatly studied elsewhere in South America, there are no data regarding the impact of human-caused forest fires on muriquis (Chiarello 2003). At Montes Claros, Strier (1992a) documented one forest fire that was potentially catastrophic for the muriqui population when a fire used to clear land for a garden burned out of control. The threat of fires coupled with small populations means there is potential for even small forest fires to destroy entire muriqui populations.

LINKS TO MORE ABOUT CONSERVATION

CONSERVATION INFORMATION

• No current links for Brachyteles
• Links for all species

CONSERVATION NEWS

• Surprising demographic shifts in endangered monkey population challenge conservation expectations  (University of Wisconsin – Madison News; September 18, 2012)
• Global warming cycles threaten endangered primate species  (EurekAlert; October 27, 2009)
• Links for all species

Content last modified: August 30, 2006

Written by Kristina Cawthon Lang. Reviewed by Karen Strier.

Cite this page as:
Cawthon Lang KA. 2006 August 30. Primate Factsheets: Muriqui (Brachyteles) Conservation . <http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/muriqui/cons>. Accessed 2020 July 16.

REFERENCES

Brooks T, Rylands AB. 2003. Species on the brink: critically endangered terrestrial vertebrates. In: Galindo-Leal C, de Gusmão Cámara I, editors. The Atlantic forest of South America: biodiversity status, threats, and outlook. Washington DC: Island Pr. p 360-71.

Chiarello AG. 2003. Primates of the Brazilian Atlantic forest: the influence of forest fragmentation on survival. In: Marsh LK, editor. Primates in fragments: ecology and conservation. New York: Kluwer Acad/Plenum Pr. p 99-121.

da Fonseca GAB. 1985a. Observations on the ecology of the muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides E. Geoffroy 1806): implications for its conservation. Prim Cons 5: 48-52.

da Fonseca GAB. 1985b. The vanishing Brazilian Atlantic forest. Biol Cons. 34(1): 17-34.

da Oliveira Guimarães V, Strier KB. 2001. Adult male-infant interactions in wild muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides hypoxanthus). Primates 42(4): 395-9.

de Carvalho Jr. O, Ferrari SF, Strier KB. 2004. Diet of a muriqui group (Brachyteles arachnoides) in continuous primary forest. Primates 45(3): 201-4.

de Moraes PLR, de Carvalho O, Strier KB. 1998. Population variation in patch and party size in muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Int J Primatol 19(2): 325-37.

Dias LG, Mendes CL, Barbosa EF, Moreira LS; Melo FR; Strier KB. 2005. Monitoring progress in the habituation of the muriqui Brachyteles hypoxanthus to the presence of the researchers [abstract] (in Portuguese). In: Bicca-Marques JC, editor. Programa e livro de resumos XI Congresso Brasileiro de Primatologica. Porto Alegre (Brazil): Soc Brasil Prim. p 96.

Dias LG, Strier KB. 2003. Effects of group size on ranging patterns in Brachyteles arachnoides hypoxanthus. Int J Primatol 24(2): 209-21.

Dixson A, Anderson M. 2002. Sexual selection and the comparative anatomy of reproduction in monkeys, apes, and human beings. Ann Rev Sex Res 12: 121-44.

Gaulin SJC. 1979. A Jarman/Bell model of primate feeding niches. Hum Ecol 7(1): 1-20.

González-Solís J, Guix JC, Mateos E, Llorens L. 2001. Population density of primates in a large fragment of the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest. Biodiv Cons 10(8): 1267-82.

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

Hartwig W. 2005. Implications of molecular and morphological data for understanding ateline phylogeny. Int J Primatol 26(5): 999-1015.

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.

Leigh SR, Jungers WL. 1994. Brief communication: a re-evaluation of subspecific variation and canine dimorphism in woolly spider monkeys (Brachyteles arachnoides). Am J Phys Anthro 95(4): 435-42.

Lemos de Sá RM, Glander KE. 1993. Capture techniques and morphometrics for the woolly spider monkey, or muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides, E. Geoffroy 1806). Am J Primatol 29(2): 145-53.

Lemos de Sá RM, Pope TR, Struhsaker TT, Glander KE. 1993. Sexual dimorphism in canine length of woolly spider monkeys (Brachyteles arachnoides, E. Geoffroy 1806). Int J Primatol 14(5): 755-63.

Lemos de Sá RM, Strier KB. 1992. A preliminary comparison of forest structure and use by two isolated groups of woolly spider monkeys, Brachyteles arachnoides. Biotropica 24(3): 455-9.

Martins WP, Strier KB. 2004. Age at first reproduction in philopatric female muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides hypoxanthus). Primates 45(1): 63-7.

Mendes SL, Fagundes V, Paula A, Moiana D, Angonesi P. The muriqui project in the state of Espirito Santo [abstract] (in Portuguese). In: Bicca-Marques JC, editor. Programa e livro de resumos XI Congresso Brasileiro de Primatologica. Porto Alegre (Brazil): Soc Brasil Prim. p 42.

Milton K. 1984. Habitat, diet, and activity patterns of free-ranging woolly spider monkeys (Brachyteles arachnoides E. Geoffroy 1806). Int J Primatol 5(5): 491-514.

Milton K. 1985. Urine washing behavior in the woolly spider monkey (Brachyteles arachnoides). Zeit Tierpsych 67(1-4): 154-60.

Mittermeier RA, Valladares-Padua C, Rylands AB, Eudey AA, Butynski TM, Ganzhorn JU, Kormos R, Aguiar JM, Walker S. 2005. Primates in peril: the world’s 25 most endangered primates 2004-2006. Washington DC: IUCN Species Survival Commission. 48 p.

Morellato LPC, Haddad CFB. 2000. Introduction: the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Biotropica 32(4b): 786-92.

Nishimura A, Fonseca GAB, Mittermeier RA, Young AL, Strier KB, Valle CMC. 1988. The muriqui, genus Brachyteles. In: Mittermeier RA, Rylands AB, Coimbra-Filho AF, da Fonseca GAB, editors. Ecology and behavior of neotropical primates, Volume 2. Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund. p 577-610.

Peres CA. 1994. Which are the largest New World monkeys? J Hum Evol 26(3): 245-9.

Pinto LPS, Costa CMR, Strier KB, da Fonseca GAB. 1993. Habitat density and group size of primates in a Brazilian tropical forest. Folia Primatol 61(3): 135-43.

Pope TR. 1998. Genetic variation in remnant populations of the woolly spider monkey (Brachyteles arachnoides). Int J Primatol 19(1): 95-109.

Printes RC, Costa CG, Strier KB. 1996. Possible predation on two infant muriquis, Brachyteles arachnoides, at the Estação Biológica de Caratinga, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Neotrop Prim 4(3): 85-6.

Printes RC, Strier KB. 1999. Behavioral correlates of dispersal in female muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Int J Primatol 20(6): 941-60.

Rosenberger AL, Strier KB. 1989. Adaptive radiation of the ateline primates. J Hum Evol 18(7): 717-50.

Rylands AB, Mittermeier RA, Rodriguez Luna E. 1995. A species list for the New World primates (Platyrrhini): distribution by country, endemism, and conservation status according to the Mace-Land system. Neotrop Prim 3(Suppl.): 113-60.

Rylands A, Strier K, Mittermeier R, Borovansky J, Seal US, editors. 1998. Population and habitat viability assessment workshop for the muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides). Apple Valley (MN): IUCN/SSC Cons Breed Spec Group. 108 p.

Strier KB. 1986. The behavior and ecology of the woolly spider monkey, or muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides E. Geoffroy 1806). Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard Univ. 352 p.

Strier KB. 1987b. Activity budgets of woolly spider monkeys, or muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Am J Primatol 13(4): 385-95.

Strier KB. 1987a. Ranging behavior of woolly spider monkeys, or muriquis, Brachyteles arachnoides. Int J Primatol 8(6): 575-91.

Strier KB. 1989. Effects of patch size on feeding associations in muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Folia Primatol 52(1-2): 70-7.

Strier KB. 1991b. Demography and conservation of an endangered primate, Brachyteles arachnoides. Cons Bio 5(2): 214-8.

Strier KB. 1991a. Diet in one group of woolly spider monkeys, or muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Am J Primatol 23 (2): 113-26.

Strier KB. 1992a. Faces in the forest: the endangered muriqui monkeys of Brazil. New York: Oxford Univ Pr. 138 p.

Strier KB. 1992b. Causes and consequences of nonaggression in the woolly spider monkey, or muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides). In: Silverberg J, Gray JP, editors. Aggression and peacefulness in humans and other primates. New York: Oxford Univ Pr. p 100-16.

Strier KB. 1993. Growing up in a patrifocal society: sex differences in the spatial relations of immature muriquis. In: Pereira ME, Fairbanks LA, editors. Juvenile primates: life history, development, and behavior. Chicago: Univ Chicago Pr. p 138-47.

Strier KB. 1993/1994. Viability analysis of an isolated population of muriqui monkeys (Brachyteles arachnoides): implications for primate conservation and demography. Prim Cons 14-15: 43-52.

Strier KB. 1994. Brotherhoods among atelins: kinship, affiliation, and competition. Behaviour 130(3-4): 151-67.

Strier KB. 1996. Reproductive ecology of female muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). In: Norconk MA, Rosenberger AL, Garber PA, editors. Adaptive radiations of neotropical primates. New York: Plenum Pr. p 511-32.

Strier KB. 1997. Mate preferences of wild muriqui monkeys (Brachyteles arachnoides): reproductive and social correlates. Folia Primatol 68(3-5): 120-33.

Strier KB. 2000. Population viabilities and conservation implications for muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides) in Brazil’s Atlantic forest. Biotropica 32(4b): 903-13.

Strier KB, Boubli JP. 2006. A history of long-term research and conservation of northern muriquis (Brachyteles hypoxanthus) at the Estação Biológica de Caratinga/RPPN-FMA. Prim Cons 20: 53-63.

Strier KB, da Fonseca GAB. 1996/1997. The endangered muriqui in Brazil’s Atlantic forest. Prim Cons 17: 131-7.

Strier KB, Dib LT, Figueira JEC. 2002. Social dynamics of male muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides hypoxanthus). Behaviour 138(2-3): 315-42.

Strier KB, Mendes FDC, Rímoli J, Rímoli AO. 1993. Demography and social structure of one group of muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Int J Primatol 14(4): 513-26.

Strier KB, Ziegler TE. 1994. Insights into ovarian function in wild muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Am J Primatol 32(1): 31-40.

Strier KB, Ziegler TE. 1997. Behavioral and endocrine characteristics of the reproductive cycle in wild muriqui monkeys, Brachyteles arachnoides. Am J Primatol 42(4): 299-310.

Strier KB, Ziegler TE. 2000. Lack of pubertal influences on female dispersal in muriqui monkeys, Brachyteles arachnoides. Anim Behav 59(4): 849-60.

Talebi M, Bastos A, Lee PC. 2005. Diet of southern muriquis in continuous Brazilian Atlantic forest. Int J Primatol 26(5): 1175-87.

Torres de Assumpcao C. 1983. Ecological and behavioural information on Brachyteles arachnoides. Primates 24(4): 584-93.

Zingeser MR. 1973. Dentition of Brachyteles arachnoides with reference to alouattine and ateline affinities. Folia Primatol 20: 351-90.

Content last modified: August 30, 2006

AUDIO

• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Long neigh #1  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Long neigh #2  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Long neigh #3  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Long neigh #4  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Neigh sequence  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Short neigh #1  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Short neigh #2  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Staccato #1  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)
• Brachyteles hypoxanthus: Staccato #2  (Luisa Arnedo; UW-Madison)

IMAGES

	Brachyteles arachnoides Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles arachnoides Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: John Robinson
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo
	Brachyteles hypoxanthus Photo: Luiz Claudio Marigo