Moore A J, Cheverud J M
Department of Entomology, University of Kentucky, Lexington 40546-0091.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992 Sep;89(1):73-84. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330890107.
The systematics of the Saguinus oedipus group within the bare-face tamarins remains open to question. Hershkovitz (Living New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini), Vol.1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977) places the cotton-top and rufus-naped tamarins as subspecies of Saguinus oedipus (S. o. oedipus and S. o. geoffroyi, respectively). In contrast, several other authors have argued that these two taxa should be considered separate species (S. oedipus and S. geoffroyi). Phylogenetic relationships within the group are also disputed. Resolving these different interpretations has been difficult in part because no study of this group has included an objective measure of expected levels of specific vs. subspecific variation. We used facial measurements from 179 adult crania to address the systematics of this group and included a related species that is known to include multiple subspecies. Our sample included three taxa from the S. oedipus group of the bare-face tamarins (S. oedipus, S. geoffroyi, and S. leucopus) and six subspecies from the related hairy-face tamarin species S. fuscicollis. Comparisons to S. leucopus provided a relative measure of species-level differences. Analyses that included S. fuscicollis provided a measure of subspecific variation. There was no evidence of facial sexual dimorphism in any of these taxa. A variety of multivariate statistical analyses including discriminant function and cluster analysis suggest that S. oedipus and S. geoffroyi differ morphologically at a level consistent with species-level distinctions. The extent of differences between these taxa is large. The differences in their facial morphology was on the order of differences between S. oedipus or S. geoffroyi and S. leucopus rather than the extent of variation among S. fuscicollis subspecies. Furthermore, a comparison of collecting localities revealed that the variation we observed among S. oedipus and S. geoffroyi was not clinical but presented a large morphological discontinuity at the boundary between taxa. Our analyses also suggested that S. leucopus is more similar to S. oedipus than is either to S. geoffroyi. Finally, it may be that there are some distinct species within the S. fuscicollis group. However, this hypothesis, along with other phylogenetic relationships suggested by this study, will require more data and further study.
裸脸绢毛猴属内的白领伶猴组的系统分类仍存在疑问。赫什科维茨(《活着的新大陆猴(阔鼻猴亚目)》,第1卷。芝加哥:芝加哥大学出版社,1977年)将棉顶绢毛猴和红颈绢毛猴列为白领伶猴的亚种(分别为白领伶猴指名亚种和白领伶猴杰氏亚种)。相比之下,其他几位作者则认为这两个分类单元应被视为独立的物种(白领伶猴和杰氏绢毛猴)。该组内的系统发育关系也存在争议。解决这些不同的解释部分上一直很困难,因为对该组的研究都没有纳入对种间与亚种间变异预期水平的客观衡量。我们使用了179个成年颅骨的面部测量数据来研究该组的系统分类,并纳入了一个已知包含多个亚种的相关物种。我们的样本包括裸脸绢毛猴白领伶猴组的三个分类单元(白领伶猴、杰氏绢毛猴和白喉绢毛猴)以及相关的毛脸绢毛猴物种棕颈绢毛猴的六个亚种。与白喉绢毛猴的比较提供了种间差异的相对衡量。纳入棕颈绢毛猴的分析提供了亚种间变异的衡量。在这些分类单元中没有任何面部两性异形的证据。包括判别函数和聚类分析在内的各种多元统计分析表明,白领伶猴和杰氏绢毛猴在形态上的差异程度与物种水平的区分一致。这些分类单元之间的差异程度很大。它们面部形态的差异程度与白领伶猴或杰氏绢毛猴和白喉绢毛猴之间的差异程度相当,而不是棕颈绢毛猴亚种间的变异程度。此外,对采集地点的比较表明,我们在白领伶猴和杰氏绢毛猴之间观察到的变异并非渐变,而是在分类单元之间的边界处呈现出较大的形态间断。我们的分析还表明,白喉绢毛猴与白领伶猴的相似性高于与杰氏绢毛猴的相似性。最后,棕颈绢毛猴组内可能存在一些不同的物种。然而,这一假设以及本研究提出的其他系统发育关系,将需要更多数据和进一步研究。