Published in

Springer Verlag, Primates, 1(48), p. 55-63

DOI: 10.1007/s10329-006-0012-3

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Spider monkey, Muriqui and Woolly monkey relationships revisited

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

The taxonomic relationships among the four genera of the Atelidae family, Alouatta (Howler), Ateles (Spider), Lagothrix (Woolly) and Brachyteles (Muriqui), have been the subject of great debate. In general, almost all authors agree with the assignment of Howler monkeys as the basal genus, either in its own tribe Alouattini or in the subfamily Alouattinae, but they disagree on the associations among the other members of the family. Muriquis have been grouped with Spider monkeys based on the fact that they share various behavioral and morphological characteristics. Cladistic analyses using morphological, biochemical, karyotype and behavioral characteristics depicted a phylogenetic tree that places Howler as the basal genus and the remaining genera in an unresolved politomy. More recent studies using molecular data have suggested that Muriqui and Woolly monkeys are sister groups. However, a recent study based on nuclear and mtDNA argued that politomy is what best represents the relationships among Spider, Woolly and Muriqui. To contribute to this debate we have added new data from two nuclear genes, Transferrin and von Willebrand Factor, and using an alignment of 17,997 bp we demonstrate that a total analysis strongly supports the Muriqui-Woolly clade. A gene-to-gene approach showed that four of the eight nuclear genes provide support for the Muriqui-Woolly clade, two strongly and two moderately, while none of the eight genes provide support for any alternative arrangement. The mitochondrial genes were not able to resolve the politomy. A possible reason for the difficulty in resolving atelid relationships may be the short period of time separating each cladogenetic event in the evolutionary process that shaped this family.