AN{ELiIOAN.iOLiRNAL OF I'HYSI(IAL ANTHROPOLO(iY105:,181-.11}1 (191),e)
CaptureTechniques and Morphological Measurements of the MonaMonkey (Cercopithecus mona\ on the lsland of Grenada,West lndies
MARY E. cLENNi'aun KIITH J. BENSEN Wi rt tl u, a rd. I s I an rls rRcst: KEY WORDS guenon; Calibbean; morphometrics; sexual dimorphism; Ketaset; Rompun ABSTRACT Morphological measurements were collected from 12 wild and 12 captive mona rnonkeys(Cercopithecus rnona) on the Caribbean island of Grenada. Mona monkeys were introduced to Grenada from Africa approxi- mately 200 to 300 years ago during the slavc trade era. Wild monkeys were captured using either 1) a baited treadle-doortrap and anesthetic-filleddarts fired from a blowpipe, or 2) rifle-fired anesthetic-filled darts. All wild monkeys were released back into the forest after capture and were seen with their original groups within 24 hours of release. Captive rnonkeys were anesthe- tized using blowpipe-fired darts. A Ketaset/Rornpun mixture was bhc rnost effec:tiveanesthetic for wild monkeys while Ketaset alone was suitable for captive monkeys. Responses to and recovery times from both drugs varied among individuals. Data on eight linear body measurements,canine length, testicle size,and weight were collectedfrom all monkeys.Adult monkeyswerer significantly sexually dimorphic across all measurements. Mean adult male weight (i - 4.7, SD - 0.9, n - 13) was almost twice that of adult females (- : 2.8, SD - 0.8, n : 7). No significant dill'erencesin weight or measure- ments were found between adult wild and captive males. Preliminary comparisons with morphometrics for African C. mtnta from the literature showedthe upper limit of Grenada mona bod.vlength and weight to be smaller than that of African monas for both sexes. These differences may be due to genetic divergence, ecological adaptation, inter-African geogrrrphicvariation, and/or small sample sizes.Am J PhysAnthropol 105:481-491,1998. " 11)l)SWik,r, Liss. lrr. The mona monkey (.Cerutpithecusmona) 1996). During this time, the transport of' is a little studied, mediun-sized arboreal exotic animals from Africa for trade as pets guenon whose range in mainland AIi'ica lies was cornmon, although usually only a small between eastern Ghana and southwest Cam- number of'animals were carried as cargo at eroon (Booth, 1955, 1956; Hill, 1966; Oates, 1988). Introduced populations of C. mona are found on the African islands of SAoTom6 (llntlact glanl sponsors: Windward lslands Resctrch and and Principe in the Gulf of Guinea (Frade, IJducation Foundation; Thc Rockr:foller lJnivtrrsity; The Yerkcs Regional Primatc Research Oenter; l'he Foundation (br Field 1958). The rnona monkey was also intro- Resealcll Sigma Xi: Thc Scientific Research Society;'l'he Rc- search (lt ants Conrnrittec ofNorthwcslern lJniversitri duced to the Caribbean island of Grenada 'i'Correspondence to: Mary Fl. (llenn, Windward Islands (Fig. 1) sometime betweenthe late 17th and Rescareh and Ilducation Foundalion,11 East Main Slreet, Suile 15.1, IJayshore. NY 11706. Fax: (516) 968-1321. 18th centuries during the height of the E-mail: N'Ttrry1i1"nni, sgu.edu African slave trade to the Americas (Glenn. Rcceived l lt April ) 997; accept.t'd 22 November 1997. .r 1lrllsWILE)- LISS. IN('. 492 M.E. GLENN AND K.J. BENSEN onetime (Eaden,1931; Denham, 1982,1987). monkeys (13 adult males, 3 subadult males, Since its introduction to Grenada, the mona 7 adult females, and 1 subadult female) monkey has becomenaturalized and greatly between 28 April 1993 and 19 March 1995. increased in number on the island (Glenn, in Eight wild monkeys were captured near the press). field research station, a small house sur- No comprehensive studies of the mona rounded by forest and located in the center monkey had been made, either in its original of the 1,540-ha Grand Etang National Park African range or in its introduced island and Forest Reserve (12'6' N, 67"42' S\ ranges,previous to the authors'study ofthe (Fig. 1). Grenada C. mona population (e.g., Glenn Three of the wild monkeys were captured and Bensen, 1993; Glenn, 1996, 1997).The by placing a treadle-door trap baited with morphology of mona monkeys on Grenada bananas near the edge of the forest at the had never before been described, and mor- field research station. Once inside the trap, phological data from African populations of monkeys were anesthetized with 0.8 to 1.0 C. nutna are scattered and few. None of the ml Ketaset (ketamine hydrochloride, 100 infbrmation currently available in the litera- mg/ml; Bristol Laboratories, Syracuse, NY) ture on the morphology of'A{rican mona eiected from a blowpipe (Pneu Dart, Inc., monkeys was obtained from large sample Williamsport, PA) in a 1-m1, nonbarbed, sizesor constitutes a completeset of weight disposable dart with a I2.7 nm needle. and body measurements from one popula- Keiase't was chosen because of its effective- tion. ness and safetv (more than six times the In addition, while data regarding capture dose may be given without harming an methods for Old World terrestrial monkeys animal) (Glande. et al., 1991).Further injec- (Brett et al., 1982;Pearl, 1982;Horrocksand tions of Ketaset were given if the monkey Baulu, 1988),lemurs (Glander et al., 1992), r.€coveredfrom the original dose of' anes- and New World primates (Scott et al.,7976; thetic beforehandling was complete. Glander et al., 1991; Lemos dc Sa and Five of the wild monkeys were captured Glander, 1993; Savage et al., 1993; Camp- while in trees using a .22-cay.berca.tridge- bell and Sussman, 7994; Miiller and fired da.tinsrifle and nonbarbed,anesthetic- Schildger, 1994) are numerous, only one 1illed, dispo"sablel-ml darts with 12.7 mm paper describes capture techniqucs for an needles(pneu Dart, Inc., Williamsport, pA). :rrboreal Old World monkey (Jonesand Bush, Release of' the drug (f TABLE 2. Coptttre n.cthotls,drug doses,and recouerl tintes Time to Additional fall/stop injections Age/ Weight Capturc Dosein moving (Kctaset Recovcry No. sex Status (kg) method dart (ml) (minutes) only) (ml) (hours) 01 AM w 5.70 DIT 0.8 Kctasct/Rompun None 3.3 02 AM C 5.60 PC/BP 1.0 Ketaset 6.1'r 0.8 Unknown 03 AM (l 5.40 P(YBP 1.0Ketaset 8.0 1.0 Unknown O,I AM w I-).30 TDT/BP 0.8 Kctaset 2.0 None 2.0 05 AM C 5.3t) I'C/BP 0.9 Kctasct 4.O Nonc 2.8 06 AM 5.30 Dtt 0 Kctasct/Rompun 3.0 None 2.0 07 AM w ,1.90 SH 08 AM 4.60 I)R 0 Kctasct/llompun 1.5 0.2,0.6 2.8 09 AM 4.tiO I)R 0 Kctasct/llompun 5.1-r None 4.5 10 AM cl 4.00 Ptl/tsI' 0 Ketasct 3.1-r 0.5 Unknown 1I AM (l 3.80 P(YBP 0 Kctaset 4.;) Nonc Unknown 12 AM C u.3t) I)C/BP 1.0Kt'tasct 7.0 0.5 Unknttwn 13 AM cl 3.20 PC/I]I' 1.0Ketascl, 1.0 None Unknown 14 SaM w 4.10 TDT/I]P (J.lJKct:rset t.0 Nonc 2.8 lir SaM w 4.00 DR I.0 Kcl,asot/Ronipun 2.2 Nonc 2.:l 16 SiiM w iJ.lt () TI)T/BP I.0 Kct.asct 3.1-r 0.2.0.4 1.5 t7 Al' C 4.30 PC/BP 1.0 Kctasot l-r.0 1.0 l]nknown I lJ Al' w 3.25 SH 19 AI.' w 3.00 SH 20 AF' 2.65 SH 27 AF (l 2.30 I)C/BI' 1.0 Kctasct 2.8 & unknn*t 2',2 AI.' (l 2.30 PC/tst' 1.0 Ketasot 5.t-t Nonc Unknown 2:l AI.' (l 2.10 I'(]/BP 0.8 Kct,asct 3.0 Nono l]nknown 2,1 SaF C] 1.I-r0 I'Cl/BI' 0.7 Kct,asot I .1-r 0.5 Ljnknown RESULTS Responscsto both drugs varied among (Table Capture individuals 2), but somc of this varia- 'lbble tion may be attributcd to partial injcctions 2 presents the capture methods, ofthc drug. If'a dart did not hit perpcndicu- drug doses and recovery timcs lbr each lar to the target, a complete injection of the of'0.96 monkey in the sample.A mcan dose drug would not occur.Diff'erences in immobi- (SD - n - Ketasct/Rompun ml 0.9, 5) of the lization timc also appeared to be affected by mixture causeddarted wild monkeys to fall the lr,rcationof'the target. On one occasion, from the trees in an average of 2.9 minutes thc dart missedthe well-muscledpart of the (SD - 1.5,n - 5); a mean doseo{'0.93 ml hindquarters and hit the knee of a monkey, (SD - 0.1. n - 15) of Ketaset immobilized possibly resulting in a longer immobiliza- captive and trap-captured wild monkeys in tion time (5.5 minutes, Ketaset/Rompun).In an averageof 3.9 minutes (SD - 2.2,n : 75). addition, two wild monkeysthat appearedto The differencesin mean immobilization time have been darted showed no cffect from the between straight Ketaset and the Ketaset/ mixture. These failures Rompun mixture were not significant Ketaset/Rompun in the (Z: 0.85,n - 20,p : 0.40).Additionalin- may have been due to faulty charges darts or partial injection of the drug from a .jections of Ketaset were necessary for one monkey anesthetized with Ketaset/Rompun missed target or improperly fired dart. If and for eight monkeys anesthetized with fired too hard. darts would bounce out too Ketaset only. The average time to additional quickly without having time to inject a full injections was 13.5 minutes (SD - 7.3, doseofthe anesthetic. n : 9). No significant differences were founc- The use of Ketaset alone was not effective for the effective dose of Ketaset (Z - 0.29. when darting monkeys in trees. One wild n - 15, P - 0.78) and the time to immobili- monkey was darted with Ketaset only; it zation (Z: 1.55, n - 75, P - 0.12) be- was immobilized but did not fall from the tween the trap-captured wild monkeys and trees because it did not release its grip on caDtivemonkevs. the branches. 486 NI.E.GLENN AND K.J. tsENSEN The distance to the target varied from 4 to Morphometrics 20 m when darting monkeys in trees. The Table 3 presents the weight and measure- height of the monkeys when darted ranged ments of each captured monkey. Adults were from 2.5 to 6 m. Reactions of darted mon- significantly sexually dimorphic for body keys varied: some fled from sight while weight and all linear measurements (Table others moved only a small distance away 4). Mean weight for adult males was almost and then examined their wounds. On all twice that of adult females, although the occasions, monkeys climbed higher in the heaviest two adult females weighed more trees when darted. Heights of falls ranged than the lightest adult males. However,the from 5 to 15 m, with a mean of 6.5 m heaviest female was an overfed pet and the (SD : 4.9,n - None of 5). the wild monkeys secondheaviest female was pregnant, which was injured from a fall, possibly because of may account for them weighing more than the thick understory. the lightest adult males. No adult female group The reactions of other members of had a greater measurement than any adult wild monkeys to capture procedures were male for body, tail, hindleg, foreleg, forefoot mixed. During capture with the treadle-door and maxillary and mandibulal canine group trap, other members would stay and lengths. The average intermembral indices watch and begir-rto alarm call only when the (foreleg minus forefoot,Arindlegminus hind- monkey in the trap was darted. No group foot)were 89 for both males (CV - 5.50)and member that had observed the procedure females (CV - 3.25). Hindlegs were signifi- would then enter the trap when it was next cantly longer than forelegsin all age and sex set up; the three monkeys captured in this classes represented in this sample manner were from different groups. During (Z- 3.90,n:24,P - 0.00008). capture with the dart rifle, most group rnem- No significant differerrces in weight or bers would silently and quickly flee when measurements were found be'tween adult the rifle rvas fired. but would return minutes wild and captive male monas (Tabie 5). later. Both monkeys that were darted and Testicular volume was bilaterally similar in those that hacl watched the clarting proce- both wild :rnd captive rnales (Z - -0.28, dure would later fleerin the presence of the n: i]2, P - 0.74). Morphometrics for wild darter, but not in the presence of other and captive f'emaleswere not compared be- obselvers. causetwo of the three wild adult females in Recovery from Ketaset/Rompun took an the sarnple wele pregnant at the time of - averageof 3.0 hours (SD 1.0, n - 5) for capture. monkeys captured with the dart rifle. In the wild trap-captured monkeys and the zoo DISCUSSION monkey,recovery from Ketaset averaged2.3 Effectiveness of capture drugs hours (SD : 0.6, n -. 4). Recoverytimes be- tween the two drugs werer not signilicantly Aside lrom safety, the most important difl'erent(Z - 1.23,n - 9,P - 0.22).Recov- factor in the considerationofa capture drug erv tjmes fbr pet monkeys were not re- for wild animals is its ability to imrnobilize corded.Pets were observeduntil moving:rnd an animal quickly so that the animal cannot showing signs of cognizance, but were lef't get away. Results from this and other stud- befbrefull muscle coordin:rtion was achieved. ies have shown that Ketaset alone is an Follow-up visits or telephone calls were marde ineffective capture drug when darting mon- to pet owners; none repolted a full recovery keys in trees (Glander et al., 1991). The time of more than 4 hours. Neither wild- addition of a muscle relaxant (Rompun) was caught nor captive monkeys suffered any needed in order to prevent monkeys from interference with their ability to thermal- falling asleep while still grasping onto tree regulate with either Ketaset or Ketaset/ branches. Ketaset alone proved an effective Rompun, and no monkeys were injured dur- drug for anesthetizing caged animals even ing the capture procedures.All wild monkeys though its use requiled more additional were seen with their original group within injections to keep an animal under anesthe- 24 hours ofcanture. sia while processing than did the Ketaset/ GRENADA MONA NIONKEY MORPHOMETRICS 487 TABLE 3. Morpltonrctri.csof'Cercopithecus mona o/z Gretruda Lcngth (mm) Total testicular Age/ Weight Hind Hind Big Fore Fore Canine Canine volume No. sex Stzrtus {kg) Body Tail 1..g foot toe leg foot Thumb maxillary mandibular (mmil) 01 AMW 5.70 488 652 :t80 t32 25 307 9l 18 18.0 13.5 108906.4 02 AMC 5.60 466 700 424 l4r 27 323 92 18 20.0 8.0 67503.5 03 AMC 5.40 5L5 730 418 136 25 325 97 1u 21.0 r3.0 70641..r 04 AMW 5.30 5t2 700 407 135 2l :147 96 18 15.5 11.5 96454.8 05 AM C-] 5.30 470 660 372 t32 27 318 86 L4 18.0 10.0 133040.8 06 AMW 5.30 480 570 3ti4 130 23 315 88 18 19.0 t2.5 77945.1 o7 AMW .1.90 510 725 427 143 26 347 98 2l 15.0 72.0 55549.1 08 .AM W 4.60 480 645 :176 t:12 22 307 I39 17 18.0 12.0 :):1348.r.) 09 AMW .1.60 459 666 36n 133 20 295 77 17 L2.O 10.0 64894.8 10 AMC 4.00 438 70r; 375 130 25 321 91 t7 21.0 13.11 30199.4 1l AMC 3.80 445 665 390 r35 2:t 310 85 20 15.0 11.0 8091.0 12 AMC 3.30 455 645 '110 127 77 32r 87 19 r6.0 10.0 48402.8 13 AMC 3.20 435 643 380 130 22 313 88 11-r 16.5 10.5 4541i1.0 t4 SaM W 4.10 430 645 359 130 20 303 86 2l 7.0 1t).5 31953..4 15 SaM W 4.00 456 638 393 129 19 315 87 liJ 13.0 9.5 177 59.6 16 SaM W 3.30 402 585 31-)0 120 2L 280 9l 15 7.0 9.5 26279.6 17 AFC 4.30 405 540 350 118 77 270 77 16 ti.0 3.5 1gr AFW :1.25 405 560 350 il5 23 295 81 l6 7.r,t 6.0 422 3i-rl I 20 269 68 I7 6.1-r 6.0 19 AFW 3.00 576 2E 'I 201 AFW 2.65 396 1169 3r|() r09 17 274 76 /-r 7.0 6.() 21 AF I] 2.i10 341 r)24 3l l 105 16 256 68 11 22 AI.' C 2.UO 355 (i20 36t) 115 19 28it 75 15 9.0 (i.0 23 AF C] 2.10 346 5,19 335 ll0 22 275 7l I l-r 7.0 24 SaF C 1.50 :174 4i{.t 315 113 19 256 76 I5 4.5 r.t.5 t\bbroviations: A, :rdult: Slr, sLrbrrdtrlt.;M I lrrcgnanl a1.liruc of capturc. Rompun mixture. The use of'Rompun, how- from 5 to 30 times the doses used to effec- ever, should be limited to situations which tively trnesthetizecaptive monkeys; no such require full relaxation of muscles(i.e., dart- differences were found between captiv€]and ing wilcl monkeys) because the saf'ety nrar- wild C. mone on Grenada. gin fbr doses of Ketaset/Rompun is much Captive vs. wild morphometrics lower than that for Ketaset alone (Hunts- man, personal communication). Surprisingly, weights and linear dimen- Contrary to the findings of Glander et al. sions were not significantly different be- (1991),the effectivedose ofKetaset for cap- tween adult wild and captive male monas on tive monkeys was not lower than that lbr Grenada, even though the captive monkeys wild monkeys.Glander et al. (19911reported had reduced muscle tone and were in much using doses lbr wild New Worlcl rronkeys poorer health than the wild monkeys. All 'fAgl,t! 1. M M:rles Femalcs (n 13) (r) 7) Weight {kg) .4.7(0.9) 2.8(0.8) 3.22 0.001 I3orly(mm) 473.:l(27.4) 3U1.4(33.1) 3.61 0.0003 'fail(mmt 669.7t42.9) 562.6rilo.8) :1.44 0.0006 Hindleg lmnr t 393.2{21.1) :141.t)r 16.7) 3.61 0.0003 Hindfoot {mni) 133.5(4.5.) 114.i]r7.5) 3.54 0.0004 Big toe (mnrt 22.9(2.8) 19.1(2.7) 2.40 0.017 Forclcg(mm) 319.2(14.8) 274.9172.4) 3.{-)7 0.000.1 For€-fbot(rnml 89.6(5.6) 7:J.7{4.9) 3.49 0.0005 Thumb (mnt) 17.7( 1.8) 15..1(1.0) 2.66 0.008 Canine. ni:rxillary( mm) 17.3(2.6) ri.8(1.4) 3.68 0.0002 Canine. rnandibular(mm) ll.4 (1.6) 5.2( 1.0 ) it.u8 0.0001 Testicular volume (mmrr ) 6.1.18.1.0(33,941.5) 4gg M.E. GLENN AND K.J. RFTNSEN '['ABLE5. Morphonetrirrtteans(SDinparentltt,sts) fiirur!ultntal.eu;iltl ondcaptit,ai.ndiuitluulsandresults of u'ikl <:ctptiL;ctorrtpctristttt /lIann ll'hiIIt.v U test) wild Cirptive (n-6) (n 7) Weight tkg) 5.1(t).4 t 4.4{1.0) l.0l 0.31 Bodv (mm) 488.2(20.1 1 460.6 (',27.4) 1.82 0.07 'Iail imm) 659.7(5:].4r 678.11(:l:1.5) t).37 0.7L Hindlcg (mmt :190.3t22.2) 395.6(21.5) 0.29 0.77 Hindlbot { mm ) 7it4.2(4.6) 133.0{4.7) 0.5l 0.6r Big toe tmm r 22.8(2.:ll 22.t\t:1.3) 0.1ti 0.87 Foreleg ( mm t 379.7(22.1) 31ti.7(5.,1) ().68 0.5i1 Forefixrt ( mm ) 89.8( 7.4) 89.4(4.2) o.52 0.60 'lhunrb (mm) 18.2(1.5) 77.:l (2.1) 0.7u 0.43 Canine. maxillan'(mm) 16.it(2.6) 18.2 12.5) 7.28 0.2t) Cirnine. nranrlibular (mnr r 11.9tL.2) It).9ll.9) l l1 (l.2tri Testicular volttnte {mmrr ) 71,849.8127.177.4) ir7.tiI 3.4 (:]9,569.4) 0.92 0.3s cerptivemonkeys in this sample had been the litelature for adult mzrie and femaie caged at a very early age, arld most were African mona monkevs show them to be malnourished and dehydrated(although one sexually dirnorphic,which mirrors our'{ind- pel in the sample, no. 17 in Tnble 3, was ings for C. trtona on Grenada. The weights extl'emely overfed). Thus, it appears that plovided in the literature Ibr both sexes of both lifetime confinement and an altered adult African mona monkeys overlap with dict did not significantly affect the outcome those prcsentedherc, exceptfor the weights of adult bod-vweight and me:rsul'ementsin reportccl by Chiarelli (I972) for malcs ancl captive male mona monkeys on Grenada. Clutfon-Brock and Harvev (1977) for fe- Leigh (1994) also found that the captive malcs. Chi:rrclli (7972) reportcd male and noncaptivc.weights tbr the adult anthro- weights zrsreaching 6.0 kg, wlrile the hr.avi- poid primntes in his study wcre generally est male in our samplc weighed 5.7 kg. highly correlated.He stated that he did not Clutton-Brock and llarvey (1977)reported a expect to find dramatic differencesbetween female wcight of 4.5 kg; the largest {'emalein captive and wild weighl.s because "condi- t.hisstud.y (an overfedpet) was 4.3 kg. 'wild' tious experienced in the are highly Discrepancies between the morphomet- variable,"and thus, responsesto thesecondi- rics fbr African mona monkeys in the litera- ('nor- tions would result in a widc range of ture and those for Glenada C. nt.on.aare also mal" weights for adult wiid nonhumzrnpri- found for body and tail length. Hill (1966), mates. Gautier-Hion and Gautier (1976),on Chiarelli \1972), (irzimek (1975), Napier the other hand, found that their captive- (1981),and Happold (1987) rcported body raised Cercopithecu.smonke.ys from several lengths for adult males of 555 mm, up to 645 speciestended to be heavier than the cap- mm, up to 550 mm, 545 mnr, and up to 631 tives' wild-caught conspecifics.These conflict- mm, respectively.In contrast, the longest ing findings concerning the effects ofcaptiv- body length fbund in the Grenada mona ity on various nonhuman prirnates' adult sample among adr-rlt males was only 515 morphology may reflcct difl'erencesboth in rnm. Chiarelli (1972) also reported adult captive care and conditions in the wild, and female bod5'lengths of up to 520 mm, while indicate a need for additional comparative the longest body length found in Grenada morphologicaldata on captive and wild non- adult fernale monzr monkeys was 422 mm. human primate species. Tail lengths for adult male African C. mona reported by Elliot (1912), Grzimek ,1975), Comparisons with African mona monkeys Napier (1981),and Happold(1987) were 785 Morphometric data on African C. rnona lnm, up to 800 mm, 767 mm, and up to 879 are limited (Table 6), but allow preliminary mm, respectively. These lengths are much comparisonsto be made with Grenada mo- longer than the greatest tail length found for nas. With the exception of Clutton-Brock adult males in this study, which was 730 and Harvey '1977),the weights presentedin mm. Finally, the largest tail length found for TABLE 6. Morphontetrics of Cercopithecusmona irzA/rzco Length lmm t Hind Fore Weight {kg) Bodl Tail lbot foot AM AI' MandF Ar' MandF N{ and F ATVI AM Source 3.6-5.5 2.74.1 Booth, 1960 .- :. 3.0,6.0 415 645 315-520 575 1090 480-1020 - Chinrelli, 1972 4.D +.D -- Clutton-Brock and Harvey, 1977 J IU / IJD r+;o - Elliot, 1912 up to 550 ,,. * Onn Grzimek, 1975 z.J )-) 410 631 635_879 Happold, 1987 - 4i z.s -*' Harvey and Clutton-Brock, 1985 4.63r JJ)' t o^, Hill. 1966 "^ ", 7 2.731 5451 419r /o/' 587r (3) (8t t7) (8) t7\ Napier. 1981 U 5.0 4.0 Takeshita, 1962 o Abbreviations:A. adult: M. mLrle:F, female. Numbers in parenthescs are reported sample size,s z I Mean value bv repofted samnle srze. z z F E o Ie *E's-*5.3ils ?i = gr? i ii I : ei i; i li I i ; i i ie:ii + i; i i I iEii r i ii i i i I sg i i o ggFr3 1ri i.a :=iii=: t: lEj?;:=FIFr; *?ir; 1-=57'? 5 it:z =a ;iiaIE isill[15+ i :ra 5} : a itir i i ;;s: Ft i ; lE:Eir{;!ii i i +i .) giEi Ii iE: iii lsia: 1 lcri izr;t*Eti!, urlltzizl1lFF Iliil l1 Ii i 1 fii:5 if;tIr;r I!il"!=!tliiii! 3IIir iiIiiii 5iiI5i?qiii A i i+rg$s;i:5i+ii i;iiiiis +i=Al; iiitr*+;;;fit .EeTs r*F;is @ 490 M.E. GI,ENN AND K.J. BENSF]N time occurring via natural selection or via of the Grenada Forestry Department for the differences in development resulting from permission they generously granted to us to growing up in differing environments. conduct research in the Grand Etang Na- It is premature, however, to attribute any tional Park and Forest Reserve. We are apparent morphological disparities between grateful to Ms. Heather Bruce and Mr. Os- C. mona on Grenada and in mainlandAfrica car "Chest"Andall for their assistance in the solely to genetic divergence or ecological field, the members of the Grenada Wild adaptation. The differences found in weight, Game and ConservationAssociationand the body length and tail length between our Grenada Fishing and Hunting Group for results and those reported in the literature providing hunting information and accessto for African mona monkeys may simply be a hunted monkeys, all of the pet owners who result of small sample sizes,or a reflection of graciously allowed us to anesthetize and the manner in which the data were col- measure their monkeys, Drs. Buxton Nyack lected. Many of the data available in the and Brian Huntsman for their advice regard- literature for C. mona in Africa came from ing anesthetics, and the members of the museum collectors'field notes, and discrep- Grenada Society for the Protection and Care anciesmay have arisen becauseofnonstand- of Animals for their support. We also thank ardized measuring methods. Unfortunately, Dr. Malcolm Dow, Dr. Marian Dagosto, Dr. none of the authors who reportcd linear Brian Shea and several anonymous review- measurements for African monas described ers fbr their helpful criticism during the how they were obtained, but simply gave preparation of' this manuscript, Dr. Ken measurement titles, such as "crown rump Glander fcr his excellent darting advice, and length" (e.g., Hitl, 1966), or "head body Dr. Phyllis Lee for graciously allowing us to length" (e. g., Chiarellt, 7972). use her computer to run most of'our statisti- Finally, aside from the paucity of morpho- cal analyscs. metric data on African monas in general and LITERATURECITED questions about data collection methods, it is not clear where the morphometrics in the Booth Al-l (1955) Spociationin thc mona rnonhoys.J. Ma mnr:rl.,36: 4il4 419. (Table 'l'ho literature were collected in Af'rica 6), I}roth AH (1956) distribution of prinrates in thr: nor has the origin of the Grenada mona Gold Coast.J. W.Ali'. Sci.Assoc.2:122-llJil. population been determined. If the Grenada Ilooth AH { l9tit}) Small Manrmals of Wcst Ali ica. Wcst Alr'icanNaturc Hzrndbooks.Lrndon: Irrnunrans. population did not come from one of thosc Ilrctt !'1,,Turncr TR, Jollv (lJ, nnd Caublc RC}(19112) 'l'rapping African populations for which morphological baboons and vcrvct monkoys {iom wild, data are available, no conclusionsmay lioc-ranging populations.,.1. Wildl. Managc. 16:164- be 174. made regarding genetically or ecologically Briz:rn (i (1984) Grcnada: Island ol Conflict. London: based changes because intraspecific varia- Zed Ilooks. Campbcll AF, and Sussrnan RW (1994) 'l'hc valuc o1 tion could account for the apparent morpho- radio tracking in thc study ol ncrrtropical rain fbrcst logical differences.Additional morphometric rrronkcvs.Am. J. Primatol. il2:291-i107. data are needed from several populations of Chiarolli AR ( 1972) TaxonornicAtl:rs o{ l,ivin{r [)r'imatcs. l,ondon:Acudcntic Ptr:ss. C. mona across their African range before Clutton-Rrock TH, and Htrrvcy I)H (1977) Primate meaningful comparisons may be made be- ccofogy irnd social olganizalion. J. Zool., Lond. 18.'j: tween Grenada and African mona monkeys, I 39. l)enham WW (1982)History of thc grcon monkey in the and conclusions drawn about the possible West Indics: Part L Migr:rtion fiom Africa. .1.Barba- morphological divergence of the Grenada dos Mus. and Hist. Soc.il6:2Il 228. l)cnharn WW ( 1987) West Indian grccn monkcys: Prob- mona monkeypopulation. lems in historical biogcography. Contrib. Primatol. 24:1 79. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Eadcn J (1931) The Memoils of Pdre Labat 1693 1705. London: Clonslableand flo. We thank the Honorable Mr. Tillman Tho- lllliot DG ( 1912) A review of the priniates. Vol. 2 of the mas and Ms. Lana McPhail of the Ministries Monogr:rphs of the American Museum of Natural History. NewYork: Museum of Natural History. of Tourism and Labour of the Government of Frade F (1958)Avese mamiferos das ilhas Sao Tom6 e do Grenada, Mr. Michael Philip and Mr. Ray- Principe: Notas dc sistcmatic:i e de protecqAod iauna. Confcrincia Inlernational dos Africanistas Ocidcn- mond Walker of the Grenada National Parks tais, Communicagdes Zoologia c Biologia Animal 6 and Protected Areas, and Mr. Allan Joseph Sess..4:137-1 50. GRI]NADA MONA MONKEY MORPHOMETRICS 497 Gautier-Hion A, and Gautier J-P (1976) Croissance, monkcy, or muriqtti\Brachyteles arachrutides,E. Geof- maturit6 sexuellc et sociale, reproduction chez les frov 1806).Am. J. Primatol. 29:145 153. cercopithecines foresti.crs Africains. Folia Primatol. Leutenegger W, and Kelly JT (1977) Relationship of 26:165-784. sexual dimorphism in caninc size and body size to Glander KE, Fedigan LM. Fcdigan L, and Chapman C social, behavioral, and ecologicalcorrelates in anthro- (1991) Field methods for canture and measurcmcnt of poid primates. Primates 18:117 136. three monkcl spccicsin Costa Rica.Fr,lia Primirlol. Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the Origin of Spccies. 57:70-82. Ncw York: Columbia University Press. Glander Kn, Wright PC, Daniels PS, and Mcrcnlcndo Miiller K-H, and Schildgcr J (1994) Capture and radio- AM (1992) Mornhometrics and testicle size ol rairr telemetry of maskcd titi monkeys, Callicebuspersorta- fbrest lemur spccics from southeastern Madagascar ttts ntelartoch.ir-Ncotrop. Pnmates 2:7-8. J. Hum. Evol.22:1 17. Nadler RI), and Rosenblum LA(1,972)Hormonal rcgula- 'fatted' Cllenn ME (1996) Thc Natural History and Ecology of' tion of the phenomenon in squirrcl monke.ys. (Cercopithecu.s the Mona Monkey ntone Schreber 1774) Anat. Rec. I 7.'i:18l-1|il. on the Island ofGrenada. Wcst Indics.l'h.D. disserta- Napier PH (19f31)Catakrgue of Primatcs in thc British tion. Northwestern University. Muscum (Natural History) and elscwhcrc in the (1997) group Glcnn ME Group size and compositionof []ritish Isles.Part II: Family Cercopithecidac.Subfam- the mona monkcy lCerurpi.lh.e