Gayana 78(2): 135-143, 2014. ISSN 0717-652X
Natural history of the Chinchilla genus (Bennett 1829). Considerations of their ecology, taxonomy and conservation status
Historia natural del género Chinchilla (Bennett 1829). Consideraciones de su ecología, taxonomía y estado de conservación
PABLO VALLADARES FAÚNDEZ1*, ÁNGEL SPOTORNO OYARZÚN2 & CARLOS ZULETA RAMOS 3
1Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Tarapacá. Avenida General Velásquez 1775, Arica, Chile. 2Laboratorio de Citogenética Evolutiva, Programa de Genética Humana, Instituto de Ciencias Biomédicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 3Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de La Serena, Casilla 599, La Serena, Chile. *Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Over the last years there has been new and valuable information in both wild chinchillas, however this is still insuffi cient for effective protection. In this paper we review some fundamental aspects of its natural history, synthesizing and delivering new information about their ecology, taxonomy and conservation status, based on the review of available literature, and fi eld data collection. In relation to their ecology we have been identifi ed new colonies of both species, for scientifi c research as well as environmental technical reports. For most of these colonies we identifi ed vegetation to which they are associated, predators and other sympatric rodent species. The taxonomy of these species is controversial. A proposal was submitted to ICZN in 2003, and the recommendations were to describe a neotype for genus and species, but the original specimens described by Bennett (1829), Lichtenstein (1830) and Waterhouse (1844) are in museums from Europe and should be considered as syntypes. Conservation status of both species is critically endangered because most colonies are threatened by mining exploitation. Therefore, it is essential to explore new regions to identify new colonies and compare them with modern methods such as molecular markers. Finally, with this information we argue the need to develop a conservation programs for both species; it should consider critical areas of their biology, such as ecology, genetics and reproduction.
KEYWORDS: Chinchilla, conservation plans, critical endangered, distribution, endemism, new colonies.
RESUMEN
En los últimos años se ha generado nueva y valiosa información de las dos especies silvestres de chinchillas; sin embargo ésta sigue siendo insufi ciente para una protección efectiva. En este trabajo hacemos una revisión de algunos aspectos fundamentales de su historia natural, sintetizando y entregando nuevos antecedentes de su ecología, taxonomía y estado de conservación, en base a la revisión de la literatura disponible, y toma de datos en el campo. En relación a su ecología, hemos identifi cado nuevas colonias de ambas especies, tanto por investigación científi ca como por reportes técnicos ambientales. Para la mayoría de esas colonias se ha identifi cado la vegetación a la que están asociadas, depredadores y otras especies de roedores simpátridos. La taxonomía de ambas especies ha sido controversial. Una propuesta fue sometida a la ICZN en el 2003 y las recomendaciones fueron describir un neotipo para el género y ambas especies; sin embargo, los especímenes originales descritos por Bennett (1829), Lichtenstein (1830) y Waterhouse (1844) existen en museos de Europa y deben ser considerados como los respectivos sintipos. Finalmente, el estado de conservación de estas especies ha sido catalogado como críticamente en peligro tanto por instituciones nacionales como internacionales, esto debido a que la mayoría de las colonias son pequeñas, fragmentadas y aisladas, sin embargo, ahora la mayor amenaza es la relación geográfi ca de las nuevas colonias con áreas de explotación minera. Se argumenta con esta información la necesidad de desarrollar un programa de conservación de ambas especies, que considere ámbitos fundamentales de la biología de la especie, tales como la ecología, genética y reproducción.
PALABRAS CLAVES: Chinchilla, conservation plans, critical endangered, distribution, endemism, new colonies.
135 Gayana 78(2), 2014
INTRODUCTION METHODS
The Chinchilla genus (Bennett 1829) comprises two wild and To evaluate the ecology and conservation status of both endemic species of Chile, Chinchilla chinchilla (Lichtenstein species, we revisited scientifi c information (e.g. Jiménez 1830) commonly known as short-tail or andean chinchilla, 1987, 1989, 1994, 1995, 1996; Spotorno et al. 1998; Cortés and C. lanigera (Molina 1782), commonly known as the et al. 2002; Spotorno et al. 2004a,b; Valladares 2012; long-tail or coastal chinchilla. Both chinchillids species had Valladares et al. 2012; Tirado et al. 2012) and technical and a wide distributions; short tail chinchilla includes historical public reports. In other hand, we took fi eld data to assess distribution from Chile, Argentina, Peru and Bolivia (Chacón the vegetation associated with the colonies of chinchillas, 1892; Walle 1914; House 1953; Grau 1986; Jiménez 1996; as well as the sympatric species of rodents and predators Anderson 1997; Eisenberg & Redford 2000; Parera 2002; (Valladares et al. 2014). Woods & Kilpatrick 2005) and coastal chinchilla ranges from Choapa river (32°S) to north Potrerillos (26°S) (Grau To evaluate the taxonomy, we assessed old papers and collect 1986; Jiménez 1996). Actually the distribution is restricted specifi c information from curators of European and South to few, small and fragmented colonies (Valladares 2012; American collections, for example the National Museum of Valladares et al. 2012). Natural History, Leiden, Holland; Natural History Museum of London, England, and Museum für Naturkunde, Leibniz In relation to ecology, the knowledge for both species is Institut for Research on Evolution and Biodiversity at the very poor (Jimenez 1996). Studies conducted during the Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, Museo Argentino last few decades have been restricted to ecophysiology de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”, Argentina. (Cortés et al. 2000; Ostojic et al. 2002; Cortés et al. 2003), diet (Cortés et al. 2002; Tirado et al. 2012) and distribution (Valladares 2012; Valladares et al. 2012; Valladares et al. RESULTS 2014). There are little information about social behavior, predators, competitive species and null information about ECOLOGY temporal abundance. Colonies from Las Chinchillas National Reserve were characteristic by ranging between 0,9 to 10.7 individuals/ About the taxonomy, the major biological questions is ha. Most of the scattered colonies were located on steep and the number of species of chinchillas to be recognized dry equatorial-facing slopes, where long-tail chinchillas eat (Anderson 1997), one (Osgood 1941, 1943, Allen 1942); the succulent bromeliad Puya berteroniana. Their refuges two (Cabrera &Yepes 1960; Cabrera 1961; Spotorno et corresponded to rock crevices and boulder piles (Jiménez al. 2004a), or three (Prell 1934a; Bidlingmaier 1937), but 1987, 1989, 1994, 1995, 1996). The main plant species according to Miller et al. (1983) this taxonomic issue could eaten by C. lanigera was the perennial graminoid Nassella never be resolved because there were no wild colonies. chilensis, and secondarily Heliotropium stenophyllum, Other unresolved topics in taxonomy is the determination of Lobelia polyphylla, Bridgesia incisifolia and Adiantum a neotype for the Chinchilla genus (Bennet 1829), lanigera chilense (Cortés et al. 2002). They coexisted with a diverse (Molina 1782) and chinchilla (Lichtenstein 1830) species, assemblage of rodents such as Abrocoma bennetti, Abrothrix to contribute to the taxonomic stability suggested by the olivaceus, A. longipilis and Octodon degus (Muñoz- International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Pedreros & Gil 2009). The main predators of the chinchillas (ICZN - case 3278; Valladares & Spotorno 2003). in Coquimbo region were the foxes Lycalopex culpaeus and L. griseus (Muñoz-Pedreros & Gil 2009). Other biological The critical conservation status for both species is derived aspects such as reproduction, growth, and dispersion are by the more than 20 million specimens that were killed unknown. The diet as well as predators of the small and only in Chile at the beginning of twentieth century (Albert isolated colony at La Higuera are unkown. In relation to 1900, 1901; Iriarte & Jaksic 1986). Although both species the Atacama colony, it was located 44 km from the coast, were considered extinct during 1960´s, C. chinchilla was and inhabits in the middle of a very arid hill, approximately rediscovery by Spotorno et al. (1998) and Valladares et al. 1150 m in height, and surrounded by extensive dunes of the (2012); and C. lanigera by Mohlis (1983) and Spotorno et Atacama Desert (Valladares et al. 2014). Forty two points al. (2004a). with feces, footprints and/or wallows were identifi ed, nine of them showing recent activity. The vegetation was identifi ed In this work we present a timely update on past reviews of as Heliotropium sclerocarpum, Tetragonia microcarpa, information, which will be a useful tool for both planning Gymnophytum fl exuosum, Nolana sp., and particularly future conservation efforts and mitigation of human– Eriocyse aurata, probably the main source of water and wildlife confl icts, such as the mining exploitation. food, with 87% of its cactus gnawed by rodents. No other
136 Natural history of the Chinchilla genus: PABLO VALLADARES FAÚNDEZ ET AL. sympatric species were reported, but Phyllotys darwini major Trouessart (1898), Chinchilla boliviana Brass was collected near there (Valladares 2012). An owl Bubo (1911), Chinchilla intermedia Dennler (1939), Chinchilla magallanicus was observed as the unique predator (Table lanigera boliviana and Chinchilla lanigera brevicaudata 1), although foxes were occasionally observed by mining- Allen (1942), Chinchilla chinchilla and Chinchilla workers (Valladares et al. 2014). boliviana Prell (1934b), Chinchilla c. chinchilla and C. c. boliviana Osgood (1941, 1943), Chinchilla brevicaudata Colonies of C. chinchilla from Antofagasta region brevicaudata and C. brevicaudata boliviana (Cabrera 1961) are associated to Parasthrephia lepydophylla, P. but nobody designated a type specimen. Cabrera (1960, quadrangularis, Baccharis incarum, Chuquira gaulicina 1961), Ipinza (1969), Tamayo & Frassinetti (1980) and and Adesmia horrida (Spotorno et al. 1998), Baccharis Woods (1993); Redford & Eisenberg (1992) and Spotorno tola, Adesmia caespitosa, A. erinacea, Fabiana byroides, et al. (2004a,b) recognized C. lanigera Molina (1782) and Stipa chrysophylla and Cristaria andicola (Tirado et al. C. brevicaudata Waterhouse (1848); but Anderson (1997) 2012), with preferences in diet to S. chrysophylla (59,1%). and Valladares (2002) recognized C. chinchilla Lichtenstein Its colonies are sympatric with Abrocoma cinerea, Phyllotis (1830) for the “short tail” chinchilla species. Valladares cf xanthopygus, Abrothix andinus dolichonyx and Lama (2002) and Spotorno et al. (2004a) recognized two species guanicoe (Spotorno et al. 1998; Tirado et al. 2012). The based in molecular divergence from part of cytocrome b habitat for the Atacama colonies corresponded to a stream gene sequences. Tate (1935) recognized Chinchilla as the with boulders, and medium-sized caves, with sparse scrub genotype and the species lanigera Molina, but he was not vegetation of Stipa frigida and Senecio volckmannii (Table sure about the taxonomic position of Chinchilla chinchilla 1). Other species of rodents were Phyllotis cf xanthopygus and Chinchilla brevicaudata. and Abrothrix andinus (Valladares et al. 2012). A second colony was detected at a northern site, in Santa Rosa According to Smeenk (in litt), Waterhouse (1848) described lagoon (26º49’11”S and 69º05’67”W), corresponding to the C. brevicaudata based in three specimens identifi ed as northern area of the National Park, where remains of a jaw Eriomys chinchilla, one at the Berlin Museum (not seen by and feces were found. The principal predator identifi ed in him) and two at the Leyden Museum, which he measured the three recognized colonies is Lycalopex culpaeus (Lagos himself. Both specimens were collected or obtained by et al. 2012). D´Orbigny and Prévost and described as a new species by Waterhouse. D´Orbigny collected in Bolivia between July 1830 and June 1833. He stayed in La Paz from 19 April to 27 TAXONOMY June 1833; he arranged and packed his collections amassed during his various expeditions in the country. La Paz may Both actually recognized species (C. lanigera y C. have been only the place where the specimens were acquired chinchilla) has had a controversial taxonomy. Bennett or shiped rather than the exact collecting locality. Specimens (1829) commented the original description of lanigera by obtained by Prévost from Chile are not further documented; Molina, saying that it had “much error and few thruth”. the Leiden Museum received some mammals from him in Nevertheless, the original descriptions were not in doubt, 1835 and 1839. According to Smeenk, both specimens were until Prell (1934a,b). He rejected Molina’s name as determined as syntypes (RMNH.MAM.39393 y RMNH. ambiguous, unidentifi able, or even applicable to a different MAM.39394). On the other hand, the specimen reviewed by animal of the genus Abrocoma or “chinchilla rat”, which Lichtenstein was deposited in the Museum für Naturkunde, lives in the same territory. The acceptance of this latter Leibniz Institut for Research on Evolution and Biodiversity interpretation would alter the nomenclature of that genus, at the Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, with number because lanigera of Molina would be an older name than BZN1878; on the label is determined as Eriomys chinchilla, names now used for species of Abrocoma. In such case, collected by Salmin in Perú. Finally, the specimen reviewed the chinchilla of the Andes and coastal mountains south to by Bennett is deposited on Collection of Department Illapel would be without specifi c name, and he proposed of Zoology (Mammals sections) of the Natural History Chinchilla velligera. On other hand, Lichtenstein (1830) Museum of London (code GMCM 54a1). described Eriomys chinchilla from Perú, near Lima (Prell 1934a; Osgood 1941, 1943), or probably north of Chile In the absence of consensus on the priority of the species (Allen 1942). Waterhouse (1848) described Chinchilla name, the matter was referred to the International brevicaudata from Perú, but according with Osgood (1943), Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN - case it was based on the same specimens as Eriomys chinchilla 3278), appealing to Article 23 of the Code of Zoological Lichtenstein, evidently a renaming to avoid tautonomy. Nomenclature (4th Edition) establishing the Law of Priority The northern chinchilla has received several names, over the name most commonly used. This request was Callomys aureus d´Orbignyi & Geoffroy (1830), Chinchilla answered on September 1, 2003, stating that the specifi c
137 Gayana 78(2), 2014 epithet chinchilla is the oldest available for the species C. lanigera has been classifi ed as “Endangered” by CONAF and is therefore valid. It was also suggested to determine a (1988), but they specify that it is considered “Extinct” in neotype for the Chinchilla genus (Bennet 1829), lanigera the Antofagasta and Atacama regions, and as “Endangered” (Molina 1782) and chinchilla (Lichtenstein 1830) species to in the Coquimbo region. By the Regulation of the Law of contribute to taxonomic stability. Hunting (Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero 2012), it has been evaluated as “Endangered” for north and central Chile, CONSERVATION STATUS and “Critically Endangered” by IUCN (D’Elia & Ojeda In relation to the conservation status, Cofré & Marquet 2008b), due to “a drastic past and an ongoing declination (1999), based on a Priority Conservation Index, cataloged C. of the population, estimated to be more than 90% over the chinchilla in an ‘Endangered’ category. According to these past three generations (15 years). This species has been authors, C. chinchilla had features such as geographical reduced to a fraction of the original distribution and is under distribution of 85.000 km2, with a local abundance of 63.1 continuing pressures due to illegal hunting and reduction of ind/km2, inhabit two countries and is mentioned in another habitat quality”. C. lanigera was evaluated as “Critically list of conservation as “rare”, “undetermined or inadequately Endangered” by the Evolutionary Distinct & Globally known.” In light of the background found in the literature, Endangered program (EDGE, www.edgeofexistence.org/ there are still doubts about its range, as it can be restricted mammals/top_100.php), without conservation attentions just to three colonies (Valladares et al. 2012). The short tail and further surveys to establish the location of wild chinchilla was considered extinct in Peru and Bolivia (Honaki populations of this species with urgent conservation actions et al. 1982; Bernal & Silva 2003), but today in Bolivia this (Table 2). Both species were evaluated by Ministerio del species is considered “Critically Endangered”, since it is still Medio Ambiente of Chile as Critically Endangered for C. possible to fi nd wild populations. This position is supported chinchilla and Endangered for C. lanigera. by information from residents of the southern department of Potosi (Tarifa 2009). In Perú, it was recently listed as Currently, the greatest threat to these species is the proximity “Critically Endangered” by Supreme Decree N º 034-2004- of their colonies to mining exploitation areas. In the case of AG, although there is no data supporting the presence of this C. lanigera, colonies of “Las Chinchillas” National Reserve species in this country. Meanwhile in Argentina, the species and other external colonies of the reserve, are near to the has been listed as “Critically Endangered” (Díaz & Ojeda mineral project “El Espino” in the Coquimbo region (see 2000; Chébez & Olivera 2008). In Chile, C. chinchilla http://seia.sea.gob.cl), but the base line of this project did not has been evaluated as “Endangered” by the Regulation of recognized the presence of chinchillids in the infl uence area, the Law of Hunting (Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero 2012). although the National Reserve “Las Chinchillas” is only to 8 CONAF published in 1988 the Red Book of Vertebrates in kms south. A colony reported by a mining company “Cerro Chile, cataloging this species as “Endangered”. The species Blanco” from White Mountain Titanium Corporation, is “Extinguished” in the Tarapacá region, and “Endangered” near to Vallenar, Atacama region, where in their line base in the Antofagasta and Atacama regions (Muñoz-Pedreros mentioned a record of C. lanigera in winter, 2012 (see & Gil 2009). In any case, the short tail chinchilla has been http://seia.sea.gob.cl). On the other hand, colonies of C. classifi ed as “Critically Endangered” by CITES (http:// chinchilla from Atacama region were reported nearly to a cites.org/eng/resources/species.html), by IUCN (D’Elia & mineral project (Valladares et al. 2012; Lagos et al. 2012), Ojeda 2008a), and by the Evolutionary Distinct & Globally but other new colonies were recently identifi ed by others Endangered program (EDGE, www.edgeofexistence.org/ companies, for example the prospection and exploration of mammals/top_100.php) (Table 2), without conservation the “Salares 7” from Salares Lithium Company (see http:// attentions and further surveys to establish the location seia.sea.gob.cl), where in their line base of vertebrates show of wild populations of this species as well as urgent a photography of footprints of C. brevicaudata [sic], and conservation actions. C. chinchilla is currently classified as “Salares Norte Mining” from Gold Fields Salares Norte “Endangered” or “Critically Endangered”, but not Extinct Company (see http://seia.sea.gob.cl), where in their base by Perú, Bolivia and Argentina. Interestingly, the absence of line show photograph’s of short tail chinchilla. wild living specimen’s collection has not been documented along this extensive area.
138 Natural history of the Chinchilla genus: PABLO VALLADARES FAÚNDEZ ET AL. -
Park WPA Llullaillaco Nevado Tres Nevado Tres National Park Las Chinchillas Cruces National National Reserve ed - ed fi fi
mining mining mining road and HREATHENED exploitation exploitation exploitation no identi T edidenti no fi
REDATORS P no identi Galictis cuja . Bubo magallanicus Buteo melanoleucus WPA: Áreas Silvestres Protegidas. WPA: Spotorno et al. 1998, Spotorno et al. 2004a,b, Mohlis 1983, Valladares Valladares Spotorno et al. 1998, 2004a,b, Mohlis 1983, Spotorno et al. 1998, Spotorno et al. 2004a,b, Mohlis 1983, Valladares Valladares Spotorno et al. 1998, 2004a,b, Mohlis 1983, RODENTS
dolichonyx dolichonyx longicaudatus Olygoryzomys Abrothrix andinus Abrothrix Abrothrix andinus Abrothrix Abrothrix olivaceusAbrothrix Buteo polyosoma Phyllotys cf xanthopygus Puma concolor IET OTHER
D unknow unknow unknow B. incisfolia bennetti Abrocoma griseus Lycalopex Jiménez 1987, 1989, 1995, 1996, Jiménez 1987, 1989, 1995, 1996, , cited by , citado por Lagidium viscacia Lagidium
EGETATION brevifolium V Stipa frigida lepydophylla stenophyllum Heliotropium Heliotropium Parasthrephia Parasthrephia Baccharis tola A. erinacea cinerea Abrocoma Balsamocarpon Adesmia horrida Fabiana byroides Eligmodontia puerulus Porlieria chilensis Nassella chilensis N. chilensis Octodon degus culpaeus Lycalopex P. quadrangularisP. Phyllotis rupestris Puma concolor Senecio volkmanii andinus Abrothrix culpaeus Lycalopex Adiantum chilensestenophylum H. Cristaria andicola Adesmia erinacea Phyllotis rupestris C. lanigera Stipa chrysophylla Puya berteroniana Phyllotis darwini Lobelia polyphylla chilensis P. longipils Abrothrix Galictis cuja Baccharis incarum Eligmodontia puerulus
Chuquiraga ulicina cinerea Abrocoma Adesmia caespitosa S. chrysophylla Bridgesia incisifolia L. polyphylla olivaceus Abrothrix C. lanigera y and IGH 800 3500 H over 4000 over 4000 400 - 1900 C. chinchilla C. chinchilla
27º28’S, 23º44’S, 25º00’S, 31°30´S, 29°53´S, 69º00’W 67º28’W 68º45’W 71°06´W 70°52´W OORDINATES C
Aucó, region OCALITY El Laco, Higuera, L 1. Características ecológicas de 1. Ecological characteristics of Morro Negro, Lindas, Atacama Coquimbo region Quebrada Piedras Coquimbo region* Antofagasta region Antofagasta region Chinchilla lanigera Corral de Piedras, La ABLA ABLE Chinchilla chinchilla T 2012, Valladares et al. 2012, Cortés et al. 2002, Lagos et al. 2012, Tirado et al. 2012, * este trabajo. **pruebas indirectas. Tirado et al. 2012, Cortés 2002, Lagos Valladares 2012, 2012, Valladares et al. 2012, Cortés et al. 2002, Lagos et al. 2012, Tirado et al. 2012, * this work. WPA: Wild Protected Areas Protected Wild WPA: et al. 2012, * this work. Tirado et al. 2012, Cortés 2002, Lagos Valladares 2012, T
139 Gayana 78(2), 2014 - - Area WPA Private Protected
mining mining mining HREATHENED exploitation exploitation exploitation T REDATORS P Lycalopex griseus Lycalopex RODENTS
longicaudatus Olygoryzomys Phylotys darwini Bubo virginianus Phyllotis darwini Abrocoma bennettiAbrocoma Galictis cuja Abrocoma bennettiAbrocoma Bubo magellanicus IET OTHER
D unknow unknow unknow EGETATION V exuosum fl Nolana sp. Heliotropium Heliotropium Acacia caven sclerocarpum Gymnophytum Senna cumingii Senna cumingii Eulychnia acida Eriocyse aurata Eulychnia acida Lagidium viscacia culpaeus Lycalopex Eulychnia acida
Adesmia confusa Adesmia confusa Phyllotis darwini culpaeus Lycalopex Maytenus boaria Cordia decandraCordia Phyllotis darwini Galictis cuja Ephedra chilensis culpaeus Lycalopex Ephedra chilensis Adesmia argentea Octodon degus Buteo melanoleucus Puya berteroniana Octodon degus griseus Lycalopex Krameria cistoidea Bridgesia incisifolia Octodon degus Conepatus chinga Bridgesia incisifolia longipils Abrothrix Buteo melanoleucus Bridgesia incisifolia Spalacopus cyanus griseus Lycalopex Flourensia thurifera Flourensia Flourensia thurifera Flourensia Colliguaja odorifera Echinopsis chiloensis Spalacopus cyanus Buteo melanoleucus Echinopsis chiloensis olivaceus Abrothrix colocolo Leopardus Echinopsis chiloensis Tetragonia microcarpa microcarpa Tetragonia sp Lycalopex IGH H 706 700 1135 OORDINATES 29°16´S, 29°88´S, 26°55´S, 65°39´W 65°07´W 70°21´W C
OCALITY L new locality, new locality, Atacama región* Quebrada Curico Fundo El Durazno Coquimbo región* Coquimbo región**
140 Natural history of the Chinchilla genus: PABLO VALLADARES FAÚNDEZ ET AL.
Table 2. Conservation status of both C. lanigera and C. chinchilla species by national and international institutions. Tabla 2. Estado de conservation de ambas especies, C. lanigera y C. chinchilla tanto por instituciones nacionales como internacionales.
CONAF (1988) ICP*** IUCN (2010) SAG (2012) CITES EDGE C. chinchilla Endangered Endangered Critically Endangered Endangered Appendix I** Critically Endangered C. lanigera Endangered* Critical Critically Endangered Endangered Appendix I** Critically Endangered * Extinct in Antofagasta and Atacama regions,
Chile ** Lists species that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants
*** Cofre and Marquet (1999)
DISCUSSION corresponds to the oldest geographic range of sympatry. On the other hand, it is still pending identifi cation of wild The past distributions of both wild species were indeed colonies of Chinchilla in bordering countries, particularly in extensive. In the case of C. chinchilla, it was distributed Bolivia where in the past were described as different species from southern Perú, Bolivia, to northern Argentina and from those recognized here. Chile (Grau 1986); however, it has not been recorded in these countries in the last 50 years and should be We accept the existence of syntype specimens in museums determinate as extinct (Valladares et al. 2014). The actual from Europe, particularly the specimen reviewed by Bennett identifi ed colonies are smaller and restricted to highland of (code GMCM 54a1) because it represents a syntype of the Antofagasta and Atacama regions, Chile. In the case of C. Genus and lanigera species. lanigera, it is an endemic species of Chile living in coastal Atacama and Coquimbo regions (Grau 1986). However, Colonies near to mining exploitation areas is a threat never after their main extermination, the distribution was restricted discussed in the bibliography before. It has a great importance to Las Chinchillas National Reserve (Mohlis 1983), and a on the conservation topics because mining is associated little colony northern of Coquimbo region (Spotorno et al. to toxicity for heavy metals and very large territorial 2004a); but recently it was determinate a new colony for interventions. It will be important to develop a conservation Atacama region. Both species has been reduced to more than plan for these species in the north of Chile, with goals and 95% of their original distribution, and the actual colonies objectives clearly defi ned, seeking funds for scientifi c haven´t been evaluated in fundamental biological variables research on diverse topics such as distribution, abundance, for their conservation. ecology, reproduction, behavior, and genetic diversity. We consider that under this background, effectively both C. In relation to their ecology, the colony of C. lanigera from lanigera and C. chinchilla are in critical condition. Atacama (Valladares et al. 2014) was found in the Priority Conservation Site “Desierto Florido” (Squeo et al. 2008), where the effects of ENSO are very strong, with a signifi cant ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS increase in rainfall and consequent increase vegetation, generating strong population fl uctuations (Gutiérrez et al. We thanks to Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG) for 2008). Given that both chinchillas have medium body sizes, permission to capture wild specimens (Resolution 306/2013 relatively long life cycles, and long gestation periods among and 1061/2014), especially to José Andaur and Patricia Cáceres the rodent species of the region (Meserve et al. 1995), it for permission to analyze wild chinchilla specimens and for is most probable that all colonies of chinchillids respond information on locality of capture. To Claudia Fernandez- to such environmental fl uctuations in a delayed multiyear Alarcón, Patricio Vélez and Paul Ramsay for their help in form, but we don´t have enough scientifi c information about the revision of the manuscript. To Diego Oliveras for send their actual abundance and temporal fl uctuations. me important information of C. chinchilla from Argentina. To Chris Smeenk from Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity About the number of species to be recognized, in this Naturalis, Nederlands Centrum voor Biodiversiteit Naturalis, moment we accept two species of chinchillids, C. chinchilla Holland; Nora Lange from Collection Manager of the and C. lanigera, but the new colonies should be analyzed Department of Mammals, Museum für Naturkunde, Leibniz with modern techniques as molecular markers, particularly Institut for Research on Evolution and Biodiversity at the the new colonies that represent extremes of distribution, for Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, and Olga Beatriz example the most southern colonies of C. chinchilla and the Vaccaro from Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales northern of C. lanigera, both from Atacama region, which “Bernardino Rivadavia”, Argentina, for send us important
141 Gayana 78(2), 2014 materials for taxonomy analysis. To University of Tarapacá 2010.4.
142 Natural history of the Chinchilla genus: PABLO VALLADARES FAÚNDEZ ET AL.
den original en des Zoologischen Museums der Universitätzu Atacama (F.A. Squeo, G. Arancio & J.R. Gutierrez, eds.) Berlin. Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Heft Ediciones Universidad de La Serena, La Serena, Chile 5, palte 28, plus 2 unnumbered pages of text. Königlichen (2008) 8: 137-163. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Germany. TAMAYO, M. & FRASSINETTI, D. 1980. Catálogo de los Mamíferos MESERVE, P.L., YUNGER, J.A., GUTIERREZ, J.R., CONTRERAS, L.C., fósiles y vivientes de Chile. Boletín del Museo Nacional MILSTEAD, W.B., LANG, B.K., CRAMER, K.L., HERRERA, S., de Historia Natural (Chile) 37: 323-399. LAGOS, V.O., SILVA, S.L., TABILO, E.L., TORREALBA, M.A. TARIFA, T. 2009. Chinchilla chinchilla. Pp. 457 – 459. In: Libro & JAKSIC, F.M. 1995. Heterogeneous responses of small Rojo de la fauna silvestre de vertebrados de Bolivia. mammals to an El-Nino Southern-Oscillation Event Ministerio del Medioambiente y Agua, La Paz, Bolivia. in northcentral semiarid Chile and the importance of TATE, G.H.H. 1935. The taxonomy of the genera of Neotropical ecological scale. Journal of Mammalogy 76: 580-595. hystricoid rodents. Bulletin of the American Museum of MILLER, S.D., ROTTMANN, J., RAEDEKE, K.J. & TABER, RD. 1983. Natural History 68: 295-447. Endangered mammals of Chile: status and conservation. TIRADO, C., CORTÉS, A., MIRANDA-URBINA, E., & CARRETERO, M.A. Biological Conservation 25: 335-352. 2012. Trophic preference in an assemblage of mammal MOHLIS, C. 1983. Información preliminar sobre la conservación y herbivores from Andean Puna (Northern Chile). Journal of manejo de la chinchilla silvestre en Chile. Boletín Técnico, Arid Enviroment 79: 8-12. Corporación Nacional Forestal 3: 1-41. TROUESSART, E.L. 1898. Catalogus Mammalium tam viventium MOLINA, J.I. 1782. Saggia sulla storia naturale del Chili. 1-368 pp. quam fossilium Tomus 1, 1897; tomus 2, 1898 (1 & 2, Bologna: Stamperia di S. Tommaso d’ Aquino. 1469 pags.). Quinquennale suplementum (929 pp), fasc. MUÑOZ-PEDREROS A. & GIL C. 2009. Orden Rodentia. En: 1 & 2, 1904; fasc. 3 & 4, 1905). Berlin: Frienlander. pp. Mamíferos de Chile (Muñoz - Pedreros A. & Yáñez J.eds.) 517-518. Segunda Edición, CEA Ediciones. 93-158. VALLADARES, P. 2002. Divergencia Molecular de las Especies OSGOOD, WH. 1941. The technical name of the Chinchilla. Journal Silvestres y Cepas Domesticadas del Género Chinchilla of Mammalogy, 22: 407 - 411. (Rodentia: Chinchillidae) Basada en el gen para citocromo OSGOOD, WH. 1943. The mammals of Chile. Field Museum of b. Mastozoología Neotropical 9: 96-98. Natural History, Zoology Series 30: 1-268. VALLADARES, P. 2012. Mamíferos terrestres de la Región de OSTOJIC, H., CIFUENTES, V. & MONGE, C. 2002. Hemoglobin affi nity Atacama. Comentarios sobre su distribución y estado de in Andean rodents. Biological Research 35 (1): 27-30 conservación. Gayana 76(1): 13-28. PARERA, A. 2002. Los mamíferos de la Argentina y la región austral VALLADARES, P. & SPOTORNO, A. 2003. Mus laniger Molina 1782, de Sudamérica. Editorial El Ateneo, Pp. 421-423. and Eriomys chinchilla Lichtenstein 1830 (currently PRELL, H. 1934a. Die gegenwärtig bekanntenarton der gattung Chinchilla lanigera and C. chinchilla, Mammalia, Chinchilla Bennett. Zoologischer Anzeiger 108: 97-104. Rodentia): Proposed conservation of the specifi c names. PRELL, H. 1934b. Ueber Mus lanigera Molina. Zoologischer International Commission of Nomenclatural Zoology, Garten, Leipzig 7: 207-209. Case 3278, Volume 60, part 3. REDFORD, K.H. & EISENBERG, J.F. 1992. Mammals of the Neotropics. VALLADARES, P., ESPINOZA, M., TORRES, M., DÍAZ, E., ZELLER, N., Volume 2, the southern cone: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, DE LA RIVA J., GRIMBERG, M. & SPOTORNO, A. 2012. Nuevo Paraguay. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, registro de Chinchilla chinchilla (Rodentia, Chinchillidae) ix + 430 pp. para la Región de Atacama. Extensión de su rango de SERVICIO AGRÍCOLA & GANADERO. 2012. La Ley de Caza y su distribución y estado de conservación. Mastozoología Reglamento. Ministerio de Agricultura (Chile). División Neotropical 19(1): 173-178. de Protección de los Recursos Naturales Renovables, VALLADARES, P., SPOTORNO, A. & ZULETA, C. 2014. Chinchilla Subdepartamento de Vida Silvestre, 96 pp. lanigera (Molina 1782) and C. chinchilla (Lichtenstein SPOTORNO, AE., ZULETA, C., GANTZ, A., SAIZ, F., RAU, J., ROSENANN, 1830). Review of their distribution and new fi ndings. M., CORTÉS, A., RUIZ, G., YATES, L., COUVE, E. & MARÍN, Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 37.1: 89-93. JC. 1998. Sistemática y adaptación de mamíferos, aves e WALLE, P. 1914. Bolivia, its people and its resources, its railways, insectos fi tófagos de la Región de Antofagasta. Revista mines, and rubber-forest. London, T. Fisher Unwin 407 pp Chilena de Historia Natural71: 501-526. + 62 plates + 4 maps. SPOTORNO, A.E., VALLADARES, P., MARÍN, J.C., PALMA, R.E. & WATERHOUSE, GR. 1848. A Natural History of the Mammalia. ZULETA, C. 2004a. Molecular divergence and phylogenetic Volume 2, Rodentia. London, Hippolyte Bailliere, 500 pp relationships among chinchillids (Rodentia, Chinchillidae). + 22 plates. Journal of Mammalogy 85: 384-388. WOODS, C.A. 1993. Suborder Hystricognathi. In Mammals of SPOTORNO, A.E., ZULETA, C., VALLADARES, P., DEANE, A.L., & the World: a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, JIMÉNEZ, J.E. 2004b. Chinchilla laniger. Mammalian 2nd Ed. D.E. Wilson & D.M. Reeder eds., pp. 771-806. Species1–9. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. SQUEO, F.A., LETELIER, L., ESTEVEZ, R.A., CAVIERES, L.A., MIHOC, WOODS, C.A. & KILPATRICK, C.W. 2005. Infraorder Hystricognathi M., LÓPEZ, D. & ARANCIO, G. 2008. Defi nición de los Sitios Pp. 1538-1600, In: Mammal Species of the World. A Prioritarios para la Conservación de la Flora Nativa de la Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (Wilson DE& Región de Atacama. En: Libro Rojo de la Flora Nativa y ReederDM, eds). Third Edition, Volumen 2. The Johns de los Sitios Prioritarios para su Conservación: Región de Hopkins University Press. Recibido: 10.03.14 Aceptado: 25.09.14
143