Interspecific Variation of Scent-Marking Behaviour in Wild Tamarins, Saguinus mystax and Saguinus fuscicollis

Abstract

The scent-marking behaviour of sympatric moustached, Saguinus mystax, and saddle-back tamarins, Saguinus fuscicollis, was compared in order to explore interspecific differences and potential sources of variation. The author examined basic patterns of scent marking (types, intensity, complexity), substrate use (type, orientation, height), and social patterning of scent marking in three groups of S. mystax and one group of S. fuscicollis at the Estación Biológica Quebrada Blanco, Peruvian Amazonia. S. mystax and S. fuscicollis differed significantly in the relative frequency of different types, and in the intensity and complexity of scent marking. Only S. fuscicollis showed allomarking. They also differed significantly in the type, orientation and height of substrates used for scent marking which corresponded to general differences in substrate use. In S. fuscicollis, but very rarely in S. mystax, two or more group members marked the same site sequentially or simultaneously. ‘Collective scent marking’, i.e. simultaneous scent marking by most or all group members, occurred only in S. fuscicollis. Since both tamarin species live sympatrically in mixed-species groups, ecological factors are unlikely to account for the differences found in scent-marking behaviour (except for differences in substrate use). They probably relate to as yet unknown differences in social and reproductive strategies of the two species.

Taxonomic review of the New World tamarins (Primates: Callitrichidae)

“…A striking feature of their ecology, notable even during short observations, is the prevailing use of lower forest strata and the higher proportion of leaping between vertical trunks in their locomotor repertoire (Yoneda, , ; Garber, , ; Nyakatura & Heymann, ). This is even more noticeable in areas of sympatry with species of the mystax group that occupy higher strata than white‐mouthed tamarins and more often employ movements along horizontal branches and leaping from canopy to canopy (Garber, ; Buchanan‐Smith, ; Heymann & Buchanan‐Smith, ; Heymann, ; Nyakatura & Heymann, ). Comparison of different taxa of white‐mouthed tamarins reveals that the prevailing use of lower forest strata is independent of sympatry or allopatry with other tamarin taxa (Yoneda, , ; Soini, ; Buchanan‐Smith, ; Heymann, ).…”

“…In contrast to the lack of obvious differences in social organization and mating system, clear differences seem to exist with regard to olfactory communication. While all tamarins studied so far employ anogenital, suprapubic and sternal scent marking (Epple et al ., ), suprapubic marking seems to be much more frequent in white‐mouthed than in other tamarins (Heymann, ). Furthermore, scent marking is more complex, i.e.…”

Sociosexual Behavior and Chemical Communication of Aotus nancymaae

“…Common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus jacchus) only rarely used their genital areas to mark their mates (Sutcliffe and Poole 1978). Wild saddleback tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis) partner-mark, but wild moustached tamarins (S. mystax) do not (Heymann 2001). With less reliance on visual cues at night, partner-marking may be an important mate-guarding strategy.…”

Vocal Transmission of Breeding Status May Facilitate Dispersal in a Cooperative Breeding Primate

“…In keeping with these findings, the model developed by Watsa et al (2017) to predict breeding status did not include individuals under one year old as potential breeders based on their young age. Earlier research on this population demonstrated that male emperor tamarins develop scent glands, which may play a role in sexual behaviors (French et al, 1984;Heymann 2001;Miller et al, 2003), at about 6 moths of age, while females develop theirs around 1.5 years (Watsa, 2013). Moreover, though there was not comprehensive data on testicular volume for this population of emperor tamarins, the same earlier study included sympatric saddleback tamarins (Leontocebus weddelli), which demonstrated that by 1.5 years of age testicular morphology appears adult while vulvar morphology does not (Watsa, 2013).…”