CONTINUING EDUCATION
Special Topic: PPS Extern Mary Catherine
Spider Monkeys: Behavior, Ecology and Evolution of the Genus Ateles
Chapter 7: Locomotion and positional behavior of spider monkeys
Spider monkeys have a diverse range of locomotion and postural behaviors that are necessary to negotiate the upper canopy of the tropical forests in which they live. They patrol the forest in search of food and mates while maneuvering in and around the trees. As ripe fruit specialists, their food is often found dangling from slender and fragile branches too delicate to support the weight of a monkey. Spider monkeys overcome the precarious branches by employing a variety of suspended postures and types of movement.
This chapter defines several behaviors typical of the species Ateles. A set of behaviors frequently referred to in this chapter is the “leap and drop”. In order to cross gaps in the canopy, spider monkeys will expertly leap to travel horizontally or drop down from higher branches to lower ones for rapid downward vertical travel. Quadrupedal (using all 4 limbs) locomotion is commonly used to move across a continual branch, while bipedalism (using just 2 limbs) is a rather infrequent mode reserved mostly for travel on the ground and incorporates the arms and tail as balance tools. A “clamber” refers to climbing in any direction across branches protruding at different levels using a combination of arms, legs and tail. “Tail-assisted brachiation” is a gait made fluid by alternating hand grasps and tail grasps in sequence. Spider monkeys are capable of long bouts of tail-assisted brachiation suggesting this mode of locomotion is the most energetically efficient way to trek through the canopy.
 |
| Montana uses “Tail-assisted brachiation” to move around his enclosure |
In order to access ripe fruit growing on weaker branches, Spider monkeys use a variety of suspended postures on nearby stronger branches. Most of the suspended postures rely heavily on the tail to support most of the body weight. The “tail-only hang” is commonly seen in wild spider monkeys, as is the “tail-hindlimb hang”, which leaves both hands free to use for feeding. We have seen this behavior here at PPS: once we started feeding Carlos and Montana from hanging buckets, Carlos took to eating upside down in a tail-hindlimb or sometimes tail-only hang. Montana prefers to eat clinging with all fours to the vertical bars of the enclosure wall, but he has been seen in a tail-hindlimb hang while using both hands to eat an orange slice.
The author of this chapter collapses the findings of several different studies into a table comparing seven wild spider monkey populations and their locomotive habits. The comparison shows locomotion varies considerably between populations and is likely an indication that environmental factors determine the monkey’s locomotion and postural behavior. For example, the leap and drop method is commonly used by spider monkeys in a population in Panama, but rarely used in a population studied in Guatemala. The comparison of the different studies also suggests the locomotion and postural behavior of spider monkeys changes depending on whether it is the dry or the rainy season. This is likely due to habitat structure changes requiring different kinds of finesse in their travels.
This chapter shows us spider monkeys are not just acrobats for aesthetics, they are finely tuned acrobats adept at travelling with great proficiency through an ever-changing and complex environment. Next time you see Carlos and Montana, pause and notice the effortless skill in their movements.
-Campbell, Christina J. Spider Monkeys: The Biology, Behavior, and Ecology of the Genus Ateles (Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology). UK. Cambridge University Press. 2008.
Special Topic: PPS Intern Simon
Communal infant care in marmosets and tamarins: relation to energetics, ecology, and social organization; by Suzette D. Tardif, Mary L. Harrison, and Mary A. Simek
As we saw in the last chapter, there is much variation regarding social structure in marmosets and tamarins, both between species and within species. But one constant for both marmosets and tamarins of every species is communal infant care. Mothers quickly stop carrying their infants, leaving other members of the group to literally pick up the slack. While the mother focuses her energy on lactation, the other adults in the group carry the infant (or infants in the case of twins) around when the group is mobile. While both marmosets and tamarins are known to practice this communal infant care, the authors of this study have found that the extent of the infant care provided does vary among tamarins and marmosets. They hypothesize that the cause of this variation is related to differences in ecology.
 |
A Cotton Top Tamarin father carries around his infant son |
Generally, 90% of marmosets and tamarins carry their offspring for at least four weeks. After that four-week time period, it becomes clear that there is a difference between marmosets and tamarins regarding the length of time that care is provided. Tamarins will carry their infants longer than marmosets. For example, it is very common for cotton-top tamarins to still be carrying their infants by the seventh and eighth week after birth, but this is unheard of in marmosets. One speculation for why this occurs is that perhaps marmoset and tamarin infants grow at an equal rate, and marmoset infants quickly become too heavy for the smaller-sized adults, while the larger adult tamarins can afford to continue carrying for longer. The authors researched this claim and found it to be untrue. They determined that in fact, tamarin and marmoset infants grow in a way that is very proportional to their corresponding adults. In other words: the size difference between an eight-week-old marmoset and their father is equal to the size difference between an eight-week-old tamarin and their father. So if the effects of body size cannot account for why marmosets carry infants for less time, what can?
Another explanation for this considers environmental factors—specifically, ranging patterns. The authors found a clear correlation between the length of travel and the amount of time an infant is carried. One might expect that the species that travel more frequently cannot continue to carry their infants. Actually, the authors discovered the opposite to be true: the monkey species that covers more ground tends to carry their infants longer. This is likely an adaption to a foraging pattern that is based on long-distance travel. Marmosets, as gumivores, can find food readily available without the need for much travel. Tamarins, on the other hand, lack the dentition (specialized teeth) to extract sap, so they must forage greater distances in search of food. In fact, they have a ranging pattern about twice that of marmosets. If they did not carry their infants with them, they would get left behind and likely die, and that’s no way for a species to survive.
-Rylands, A.B. Marmosets and Tamarins. Systematics, Behavior, and Ecology. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Special Topic: PPS COO Erin
Animal Experimentation
Every day at Pacific Primate Sanctuary we see the results of animal suffering and abuse. Monkeys have come to us in varying states of distress- missing fingers, toes, and teeth, traumatized, terrified, silent and even on death’s door- dying in our hands upon arrival. Pacific Primate Sanctuary’s immediate goal is to end the suffering of some of our fellow beings and return them to a natural state of equilibrium. We strive to provide the optimal environment and devoted care giving so this can occur. At Pacific Primate Sanctuary "surplus" laboratory primates, ex-pets and those confiscated from smugglers will never have to endure pain and exploitation.
Many of the primates at PPS have been given refuge from research laboratories. There are over 1100 U.S. facilities that test or experiment on animals. According to recently released USDA reports, 1,131,076 animals were used for scientific research in 2009: of those 124,417 were nonhuman primates. The total number of animals used in research, is however grossly misleading- in 1976 an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) stated that rats, mice, birds, horses, and farm animals were specifically excluded from the AWA laws and thus do not have to be reported. As these species make up 95% of the animals used in research,
it is estimated that 100 million animals are being used in research every year in the United States.
Animals in research laboratories are often subjected to tests involving addictive drugs, isolation, water deprivation, and exposure to chemical and biological toxins. The Animal Welfare Act does not place any actual restrictions on what can be done during an experiment– in fact the law states:
Nothing in this chapter... shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to promulgate (make) rules, regulations, or orders with regard to the design, outlines, or guidelines of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility;. In essence, anything can be done to the animals in the name of the experiment- the only things that are guided by the Animal Welfare Act are housing, feeding, watering, procurement, and transport of animals. So, what does that entail? Cages size regulations establish a legal minimum, which is the standard adopted by many labs. These sizes are based on the weight of the animal. For example, a 22-pound monkey is allotted 4.3 square feet. Chimpanzees are allowed a minimum of 5′ x 5′ x 7′ of space. To put this into perspective, imagine living in a space that is only large enough for you to stand up and take a few steps in any direction. Many of these animals spend their lives in these tiny cages, never given the opportunity to feel sunshine, rain or the wind in their fur, and often living in isolation. AWA requirements also stipulate that animals must be provided with adequate food and water, however
many laboratories repeatedly restrict access to water or food (basic necessities) in order get the animals to perform tasks! This is not considered to be a violation of the AWA.
Minimal as these requirements are, further suffering regularly occurs from violations to the AWA. Federal Violation summaries reveal that overall U.S. labs broke the law 1,000 times in one year affecting 24,429 animals. Violations included deaths caused by starvation, boiling primates in cage washers, administering unapproved toxic chemicals, and inadequate veterinary care.
Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.
~Charles R. Magel
The debate of whether animals should be used in research is a highly charged one. Proponents state that animal testing is necessary to finding cures to diseases, and protecting humans. But is this really the case? Increasing numbers of physicians and scientists are challenging this claim. In fact, in a survey given in England in 2004,
82% of general practitioners said they were concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans.
According to the Medical Research Modernization Committee (MRMC), a group of physicians, scientists and other health care professionals who evaluate the benefits, risks and costs of different health care and medical research method, there is much evidence to support the fact that animal experimentation is insufficient and unreliable. Primate tests on more than 50 HIV/AIDS preventative vaccines and 30 HIV/AIDS theraputic vaccines were successful,
however in human clinical trials every single one of these vaccines failed. The widely prescribed arthritis painkiller Vioxx appeared safe and even beneficial to the heart in animal tests, but was withdrawn from the market after causing an estimated 320,000 heart attacks, strokes and cases of heart failure worldwide – 140,000 of them fatal. In London in March 2006, a new anti-inflammatory drug called TGN1412 caused devastating reactions including multiple organ failure in all six volunteers in phase 1 clinical trials, despite “proof of safety” established by tests on monkeys who were given 500 times the human dose. In fact, when the MRMC did a survey of ten randomly chosen animal models of human disease- not even one revealed any important contributions to human health.
I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't....The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. ~Mark Twain
This is not to say that nothing has ever been learned from animal research. For example: Insulin, which is vital to diabetics, was found from research on dogs. However, as Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D. states: "Let's say that it's true, that animals were indispensable to the discovery of insulin," That was a long time ago. I think to say, 'It was done this way and there's no other way it could have been done' is a bit of a leap of faith, but let's say that at the time there was no other way. You could also say that you couldn't have settled the South without slavery. Would you still do it that way today?
Just because something seemed necessary or acceptable at the time is not to say that we should do it in our time."
Very little of the great cruelty shown by men can really be attributed to cruel instinct. Most of it comes from thoughtlessness or inherited habit. The roots of cruelty, therefore, are not so much strong as widespread. But the time must come when inhumanity protected by custom and thoughtlessness will succumb before humanity championed by thought. Let us work that this time may come. ~Albert Schweitzer
Within science, there exist many different ways to address a question. The same is true of experimentation, and today there are a variety of non-animal methods that can be used to discover things. These include: Epidemiology (Human Population Studies), patient studies, autopsies and biopsies, computer modeling and microdosing. Many of these options are proving to be far more effective than animal testing. One can only hope that with increased awareness, and advances in science we will one day soon see an end to animal experimentation.
They are not brethren; they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth. ~Henry Beston, The Outermost House, 1928
Following please find a short list of Cruelty Free Companies (companies that do not use animal testing).
Alba Botanica
Beauty Without Cruelty
Biokleen
Body Bistro
Burt’s Bees
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps
Hard Candy
Hawaiian Resources Company
Kiss My Face
L’Occitane
Martha Stewart Clean
Martha Stewart PETS
Mary Kay
Paul Mitchell
Magick Botanicals
Seventh Generation
The Body Shop
Tom's of Maine
Sensibility Soaps
Urban Decay
Sonoma Soap
Wholefood Farmacy
For a complete listing please see http://www.leapingbunny.org/images/cciclist.pdf
References:
-Anderegg, C. Archibald, K. Bailey, J. Cohen, M. Kaufman, S. Pippin, J. Medical Research modernization Committee. (2006). A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation. Retrieved from http://www.mrmcmed.org/critcv.html
-Budkie, Michael. (2009). Primate Experimentation in the U.S.- The National Picture (2009 Edition). Retrieved from http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/index.html
-Dixon, Dr. Thomas. (2009) Animal Experimentation. Retrieved from http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=7
-Favre, David. Animal Legal and Historical Center- University of Michigan. (2011) Overview of the U.S. Animal Welfare Act. Retrieved from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovusawa.htm#BM5__Which_Other_Animals
-Lauerman, John F. (1999). Animal Research. Retrieved from http://harvardmagazine.com/1999/01/mice.html
-Leapingbunny.org. (2010). Cruelty Free Shopping Guide. Retrieved from http://www.leapingbunny.org/shopping.php
-PrimateLabs.net. (2009). Fact vs. Myth. Retrieved from http://www.primatelabs.com/factvsmyth.php
-The American Antivivisection Society. (2010) Animal Research. Retrieved from http://www.aavs.org/researchAnimals.html
-Favre, David. Animal Legal and Historical Center- University of Michigan. (2011) Overview of the U.S. Animal Welfare Act. Retrieved from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovusawa.htm#BM5__Which_Other_Animals
True benevolence or compassion, extends itself through the whole of existence and sympathizes with the distress of every creature capable of sensation.
- Joseph Addison
We hope you have enjoyed this issue of Pacific Primate Sanctuary’s E-Newsletter. Thank you for your support of our life saving work. Because of compassionate people, the Sanctuary can continue to provide a place of peace and happiness for 74 primates saved from research laboratories, animal dealers, and smugglers. Here they can heal, form families, and live free from exploitation.
This Blog and its content is copyright of Pacific Primate Sanctuary, Inc.—
© Pacific Primate Sanctuary, Inc., 2009. All rights reserved.
Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited other than the following:
you may print or download to a local hard disk extracts for your personal and non-commercial use only
you may copy the content to individual third parties for their personal use, but only if you acknowledge the website as the source of the material
You may not, except with our express written permission, distribute or commercially exploit the content. Nor may you transmit it or store it in any other website or other form of electronic retrieval system.
Posts
