Image from page 553 of “Advances in herpetology and evolutionary biology : essays in honor of Ernest E. Williams” (1983)
Title: Advances in herpetology and evolutionary biology : essays in honor of Ernest E. Williams
Year: 1983 (1980s)
Authors: Williams, Ernest E. (Ernest Edward); Rhodin, Anders G. J; Miyata, Kenneth; Harvard University. Museum of Comparative Zoology
Subjects: Williams, Ernest E. (Ernest Edward); Herpetology; Evolution
Publisher: Cambridge, Mass. : Museum of Comparative Zoology
Contributing Library: Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Ernst Mayr Library
Digitizing Sponsor: Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Ernst Mayr Library
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.
Text Appearing Before Image:
Text Appearing After Image:
Figure 7. Feeding on plant food vs. foraging for/feed- ing on insects and otiier animals in the Voltzberg study area. Only four species were seen feeding on insects or other aninnals. a. Saguinus midas midas. b. Saimiri sciureus. c. Cebus apella apella. d. Cebus nigrivit- tatus. as Saimiri and Alouatta were never seen acting as seed predators (Fig. 8b,g). Fruits vs. flowers and leaves. Fruits made up the majority of the plant diet for all species, with flowers and leaves usually contributing only a small portion. Fruits (including seeds) accounted for over 90% of the plant foods eaten by Saguinus, Saimiri, Pithecia, Chiropotes, and C. apella, and over 80% of those eaten by C. nigrivittatus and Ateles (Fig. 8a-f,h). Alouatta was the only species that ate a relatively high percentage of leaves, and even it appears to be highly dependent on fruit in the wet season (Fig. 8g). Of the five species eating leaves, Alouatta was the only one that included mature leaves in its diet. Chiropotes, C. apella, C. nigrivittatus, and Ateles were only seen eating flush leaves, and the three smallest species (Saguinus, Saimiri, Pithecia) did not eat leaves at all (Fig. 8a-h), Differential utilization of fruit fami- lies and fruit species. More detailed analysis of the plant foods eaten by the eight monkeys indicates that they were feeding on 151 identified and 30 uniden- tified species of at least 54 families dur- ing this study. Only one family, the Moraceae, was utilized by all eight monkeys, and no single plant species was eaten by more than six of them. Seven monkeys species were observed to eat members of the Leguminosae Mimosa- ceae, six fed on various Sapotaceae, Rubiaceae, and Palmae, and five ate some Burseraceae, Lecythidaceae, Myrtaceae, and Passifloraceae. Several families like the Capparaceae and Meliaceae were very important seasonal- ly for some monkeys, but were not eaten by others. The majority of plant families were only occasionally used as dietary supplements for a few monkey species. Comparison of species rather than fami- lies reveals even less overlap, since most plant species are infrequently eaten by only one or two monkeys species (Mitter- meier, 1977; van Roosmalen, et al., in preparation). Several very interesting examples of niche separation were evident in utiliza- tion of the same food species at different stages of growth. For example, Chiro- potes broke open unripe Brosimum parin- arioides (Moraceae) and ate the seeds, thus acting as a seed predator, whereas C. apella and Ateles swallowed the meso- carp and seeds of ripe fruits and later excreted the seeds, thus acting as dis- persers. A similar situation was observed with Ecclinusa guianensis (Sapotaceae).
Note About Images
Please note that these images are extracted from scanned page images that may have been digitally enhanced for readability – coloration and appearance of these illustrations may not perfectly resemble the original work.
By Internet Archive Book Images on 1983-01-01 00:00:00