Jablonski N G, Peng Y Z
Department of Anatomy and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands.
Folia Primatol (Basel). 1993;60(1-2):36-55. doi: 10.1159/000156674.
The taxonomy of the douc and snub-nosed langurs has changed several times during the 20th century. The controversy over the systematic position of these animals has been due in part to difficulties in studying them: both the doucs and the snub-nosed langurs are rare in the wild and are generally poorly represented in institutional collections. This review is based on a detailed examination of relatively large numbers of specimens of most of the species of langurs concerned. An attempt was made to draw upon as many types of information as were available in order to make an assessment of the phyletic relationships between the langur species under discussion. Toward this end, quantitative and qualitative features of the skeleton, specific features of visceral anatomy and characteristics of the pelage were utilized. The final data matrix comprised 178 characters. The matrix was analyzed using the program Hennig86. The results of the analysis support the following conclusions: (1) that the douc and snub-nosed langurs are generically distinct and should be referred to as species of Pygathrix and Rhinopithecus, respectively; (2) that the Tonkin snub-nosed langur be placed in its own subgenus as Rhinopithecus (Presbytiscus) avunculus and that the Chinese snub-nosed langur thus be placed in the subgenus Rhinopithecus (Rhinopithecus); (3) that four extant species of Rhinopithecus be recognized: R. (Rhinopithecus) roxellana Milne Edwards, 1870; R. (Rhinopithecus) bieti Milne Edwards, 1897; R. (Rhinopithecus) brelichi Thomas, 1903, and R. (Presbytiscus) avunculus Dollman, 1912; (4) that the Chinese snub-nosed langurs fall into northern and southern subgroups divided by the Yangtze river; (5) that R. lantianensis Hu and Qi, 1978, is a valid fossil species, and (6) the precise affinities and taxonomic status of the fossil species R. tingianus Matthew and Granger, 1923, are unclear because the type specimen is a subadult.
白臀叶猴和仰鼻猴的分类在20世纪经历了多次变化。关于这些动物系统位置的争议部分源于研究它们存在困难：白臀叶猴和仰鼻猴在野外都很罕见，在机构收藏中通常也很少见。本综述基于对大多数相关叶猴物种相对大量标本的详细检查。为了评估所讨论的叶猴物种之间的系统发育关系，我们尝试利用尽可能多的可用信息类型。为此，我们利用了骨骼的定量和定性特征、内脏解剖的特定特征以及皮毛的特征。最终的数据矩阵包含178个特征。使用Hennig86程序对该矩阵进行了分析。分析结果支持以下结论：（1）白臀叶猴和仰鼻猴在属上是不同的，应分别称为黑叶猴属（Pygathrix）和仰鼻猴属（Rhinopithecus）的物种；（2）东京仰鼻猴应归入自己的亚属，即仰鼻猴属（Presbytiscus）黑头白猴（Rhinopithecus (Presbytiscus) avunculus），因此中国仰鼻猴应归入仰鼻猴属（Rhinopithecus）亚属；（3）应承认仰鼻猴属现存四个物种：1870年命名的川金丝猴（R. (Rhinopithecus) roxellana Milne Edwards）；1897年命名的滇金丝猴（R. (Rhinopithecus) bieti Milne Edwards）；1903年命名的黔金丝猴（R. (Rhinopithecus) brelichi Thomas），以及1912年命名的东京仰鼻猴（R. (Presbytiscus) avunculus Dollman）；（4）中国仰鼻猴分为以长江为界的南北两个亚组；（5）1978年命名的蓝田金丝猴（R. lantianensis Hu and Qi）是一个有效的化石物种，以及（6）1923年命名的丁氏金丝猴（R. tingianus Matthew and Granger）化石物种的确切亲缘关系和分类地位尚不清楚，因为模式标本是一个亚成体。
