JASs Reports
Journal of Anthropological Sciences
Vol. 83 (2005), pp. 89-109
The targeted monkey: a re-evaluation of predation on
New World primates
Bernardo Urbani
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 109 Davenport Hall, 607 S
Mathews Ave., Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA, e-mail: burbani@uiuc.edu
Summary – This work reviews the information related to predation on Neotropical primates by human
and non-human predators. Paradoxically, humans have been systematically neglected while evaluating the
potential effects of predation in the structure of non-human primate populations. Predation paradigms do not
include humans in their propositions. In this review, it is shown that effectively humans are the main predators
of monkey communities in the Neotropics. The results also suggest that humans do not fit with predation
theoretical views given for non-human predators. Homo cultural hunting practices contribute to this
situation. For example, humans seem to prefer larger primate groups that allow their location for hunting, or
humans tend to prey primary larger monkeys with longer interbirth interval. In sum, it is suggested that since
at least 11,000 years of human occupation in the Neotropics, Homo might have been played a fundamental
role in the current organization and distribution of primate populations, including local extinctions. Humans
seemed to have potentially influenced New World primate population in such short ecological time scale.
Keywords – Predatory behavior, ethnoprimatology, human hunting, predation paradigms,
transdisciplinary perspective, conservation, Latin America.
Introduction
“The indications are that man is the most
serious enemy of howlers and that occasionally
young animals may be attacked by ocelots” said
Clarence Ray Carpenter in 1934 after observing
mantled howler monkeys in Panama (Carpenter,
1934: 129). In fact, it was his last conclusion in
the first systematic primate behavioral research
conducted in the wild, and probably also the first
scientific account of the impact of predators on
feral primates. After this work, other researches
have taken predation risk into account as a
potential factor influencing the evolution of
sociality in general, and the social structure of
primate populations (e.g. Cheney & Wragham,
1987). For example, since the 1960s chimpanzees
had been the subjects of the longest-term studies
even carried out for any wild mammal; but
paradoxically it was not until 1990, that the first
case of predation on chimpanzees by lions was
reported (Tsukahara & Nishida 1990). In
addition, predation has been systematically cited in
works of the natural history of primates (e. g.
Kinzey, 1997); however, reports of predation are
extreme scarce. In part, this relates to difficulties
obtaining field data on predation because of its
low rate and rapid occurrence. In addition, Isbell
(1994) suggested that limited predation
observation might be related to the observers (field
primatologists) that are normally not present
when main predators are active (at night) and the
presence of the observer may inhibit the
appearance of predators during the day.
However, predation and predation risk have
been considered important in modeling the
structure and organization of the extant and
extinct primate populations (see review: Isbell,
1994). In this sense, it has been argued that some
“anti-predatory” behaviors such as vigilance,
polyspecific associations, group cohesion, direct or
active defense and alarm calls are related to the
selective pressure of predation on primates
(Cheney & Wragham, 1987; Isbell, 1994). Van
Schaik & Horstermann (1994) proposed a
hypothesis that suggested that the quantity of
the JASs is published by the Istituto Italiano di Antropologia
www.isita-org.com
90
Predation on Neotropical Monkeys
primate males -and group composition- is not
only related to sexual competition but also to
predation risk. Their hypothesis predicts that
males are more vigilant than females, and play a
greater role in predator detection.
In her literature review, Isbell (1994: 65-68)
characterized five patterns of predation on
primates. These patterns are, 1) larger primates are
expected to be less vulnerable to predation than
are smaller primates; 2) an individual’s
vulnerability to predation increased in unknown
or unfamiliar areas (for a definition of
vulnerability, see below: Miller, 2002); 3) primates
are more vulnerable in the upper canopy, in
discontinuous forests and on the forest edges than
in continuous, undisturbed forests; 4) predation is
episodic and may be related to prey preferences
and different use of daily ranges and home ranges
between predators and prey; and 5) terrestrial
primates have higher rates and risk of predation
than do arboreal primates. In addition, Chapman
(2000) reviewed the predation avoidance
hypothesis by examining patterns of group
structure and movement in 54 primate species. He
argued that living in groups, “[may] increased
probability of predator detection, … [create]
greater confusion of a predator trying to focus on
an individual prey, … [propitiate] a decreased
probability of each individual being captured by
predators, … and increased defense against
predators” (Chapman 2000: 27).
However, Janson (1998) indicated that the
evaluation of predation should be done with
caution due to the fact that presumed antipredatory behaviors (e. g. alarm calls, vigilance,
living in larger groups) might be linked with other
behaviors. For instance, he indicated that for some
primate species it might be beneficial to live in
small groups that are difficult for predators to
detect. In addition, Hill & Dunbar (1998)
suggested that predation risk is a more
comprehensive parameter for evaluating predation
on primates than predation rate. They argued that
potentially the role of predation as selective
pressure might be more important for primates
when the risk of predation is perceived. In
addition, they indicated that predator-prey
relationship should be evaluated as the potentiality
that a given primate species might be recovered
from predatory events by adjusting its behavior.
Recently, Miller (2002) added to the discussion
the concept of predation vulnerability in
understanding primate social organization. She
defined vulnerability as the “qualitative measure of
the probability that an individual will be the victim
of a predator at any given moment” (Miller, 2002:
2). She indicated that this fact may play a major role
in the foraging strategies and decision-making
among primates. Miller (2002) suggested that
predation vulnerability might be evaluated using
three different variables. A biological variable, in
which different characteristics that are “under
genetic control” and expressed in the primate
phenotype might be significant for a given antipredatory response (e. g. body size); a social variable
such as differences in rank, group size and group
composition; and an environmental variable such
as the degree of predation vulnerability associated
with foraging location and the quality of the cover
or refuge available to primates.
Humans as primate predators
Isbell (1994) and Cheney & Wrangham
(1987) briefly suggested that humans are the
major predators on primates. Similarly, Boinski et
al. (2000: 47) stated in their review, “primate
predators are restricted to nonhuman predators
because humans probably hunt most primates”
(italics are mine). Thus, although the impact of
humans as predators on primates has been noted,
few researchers have focused on the role of human
predators may have played in non-human primate
social organization (see: Sponsel, 1997). Predation
by humans has been under-emphasized in the
theoretical discussions about predation on nonhuman primates. However, to hunt defined by the
Oxford English Dictionary (Simpson & Weiner,
1989: 496) is “the act of chasing wild animals for
the purpose of catching or killing them”; not less
than another form of predation. Consequently, as
indicated by Mittermeier (1987) and Chapman &
Peres (2001), New World primates are highly
threaten due to intense hunting or human
predation. Nevertheless, humans had often been
neglected in the literature on predation in
primates (Sponsel 1997). In this paper I will
examine
primate
prey-human
predator
relationship in the Neotropics. So, I address the
following questions,
a) Is there evidence that predators affect the
B. Urbani
structure of primate communities in Neotropical
forests?
b) How human predators differ from nonhuman predators in prey choice, hunting
techniques and potential affect on primate social
organization?
b) Are humans primary agents that influence
ecological changes such as local extinctions of
primate populations?
Methods
Information of predation on Neotropical
primates was compiled (see Appendix). Only
observed predation cases on monkeys by direct
sightings or from inspection of alimentary samples
such as primate skeletal material in predator nests
and primate remains in predator feces were
included. For this purpose, a review of papers
related to predation and hunting on primates in
the Neotropics was systematically prepared from
three bioanthropological -primatological- and
ethnographical sources.
First, a search was conducted of the major
anthropological and biological databases such as
Academic Search Elite, Anthropological Index,
Anthropological Literature, Biological Abstracts
(BIOSIS), Ecology Abstracts, JSTOR (including
35 ecological and anthropological journals dated
from 1867 to 1999), PrimateLit and Zoological
Record.
Secondly, a bibliographic compilation was
prepared from the reviews published by
McDonald (1977), Coimbra-Filho & Mittermeier
(1981), Beckerman & Sussenbach (1983),
Mittermeier (1987), Mittermeier et al. (1988),
Kinzey (1997), Sponsel (1997), Robinson &
Redford (1994), Boinski et al. (2000), Cowlishaw
& Dunbar (2000), Garber & Bicca-Marques
(2002), Di Fiore (2002), Fuentes & Wolfe (2002),
Urbani (2002) and Cormier (2003). Third, the
four main primatological journals American
Journal of Primatology (1981-2003), Folia
Primatologica (1963-2003), International Journal
of Primatology (1980-2003), Primates (19572003), and the ethnological Journal of
Ethnobiology (1981-2003) were also examined.
From the compiled references, the following
information was obtained (see the Appendix):
a) Non-Homo predator: corresponds with non-
91
human vertebrates that prey on Neotropical
primates.
b) Homo predator: refers only to Amerindian
hunters of monkeys in the tropical forests. In this
work only Amerindians groups were included,
considering the assumption that are the human
populations that preyed on monkeys inheriting
long-term traditional hunting techniques and
knowledge in the Neotropics (for Campesinos Latin American creoles-, see discussion).
c) Prey: the targeted New World monkey genus
obtained by non-Homo or Homo predators.
Associated with this entry, in the cells of the
Appendix, information on the numbers of
observed predation cases, age/sex of the prey, and
ranking of the prey is collected. In this sense, 1)
Number of observed predation cases: refer to the
quantity of the proved cases of predation on
monkeys; 2) Age/Sex: age and sex of the prey; and
3) Ranking prey: only for the cases of Homo
predators, refers to the rank for a given primate
genus compared to all mammalian preys.
d) Total of prey: the sum of all preys for a given
predator and the number of prey in general.
e) Observation period: the total amount of time of
the primatological study or the time that the
ethnographer spent in the Amerindian
community in which the primate hunting events
were observed.
f ) Frequency of predation: relationship between
the “Number of observed predation cases” per
hour. For both, primatological and ethnographical
data, in which the observation period was not
reported by hour, I used the following conversion:
1 day = 10 hours, 1 month = 15 days, 1 year = 12
months. If the observation period was not
explicitly reported, it is included as unknown.
g) Locality: site in which the observation was
done, including the region and the country.
Results
In Appendix, I summarizes the data archived
from the bibliographical search on hunting and
predation on Neotropical monkeys. A total of 89
entries were obtained, 33 (37.1% for non-Homo
predators and 56 (62.9%) for Homo predators. For
non-Homo predators, 51.5% the events were
recorded in non-Amazonian forests (17/33, incl.
the Guianas, Central American and subtropic
92
Predation on Neotropical Monkeys
forests), and the other 48.5% (16/33) in the
Amazonia. In the case of Homo predators, 69.6%
(39/56) of the cases were in Amazonia while
30.4% (17/56) were in non-Amazonian forests.
The frequency of predation was quite similar from
0.045/hour for non-Homo predators to
0.048/hour in Homo predators (Appendix).
Among all non-Homo predators, avian
predators appear to be the most common. Of 32
cases, harpy eagles (Harpia harpija, 21.2%, 7/33)
and crested eagle (Morphnus guianensis, 12.1%,
4/33) are the most common predators. Among
terrestrial non-Homo predators, jaguars (Panthera
onca) accounted for 15.2% (5/33) of the
observations. Ten other non-Homo predators
accounted for 51.5% (17/33) of predatory events.
For non-Homo predators it was not possible
determine the sex/age classes of the monkeys
preyed upon (69%, 29/42). However, for those
predation cases in which the information was
available, 21.4% (9/42) represent young animals
(pooling together infants, juveniles and subadults)
and the remaining 9.5% (4/42) were adults, while
69.1% were of unknown age. In the few cases in
which the sex was observed, 9.5% (4/42) were
males whereas 7.1% (3/42) females, and the rest
83.4% remained of unknown sex. For Homo
predators, in all cases the specific sex/age classes
were unknown. In addition, as indicated in the
discussion (see below) 53.6% (30/56) of the
entries of Homo predators explicitly stated that
these human groups hunt at least one of the nonHomo predators listed in Appendix. Moreover, for
Homo predators it is important to identify the
ranking of monkey preferences among all
mammal prey. It is interesting to note that among
Appendix entries, monkeys are among the five
most common preys (27.8%, 42/151; see Tab. 1),
the rest 72.5% are for primates preferred over the
six position of preference (15.9%, 24/151) or it is
unknown the choice rank among Amerindian
groups (56.3%, 85/151).
I tested the prediction that Homo predators
have higher proficiency obtaining New World
monkeys than non-Homo predators. Proficiency
was defined as the number of successful hunts of a
given primate prey. Both, Homo predators and
non-Homo predators were compared using G-test.
The results indicate that humans are more
proficient predators of New World primates (df=
12, p<0.01). Certainly, I am aware that some of
the human data collected for this comparison
might imply the use of shotguns. For that reason,
in order to model the potential hunting without
firearms, I reduced ten times the Homo predator
subtotals and compared it with the non-Homo
predator dataset without modification. Hence,
after this subtraction and using the same statistical
test, the results are still highly different.
A ranking of New World monkeys arranged
by the number of individuals hunted is presented
in Tab. 2. The life history data, -mean body mass
and interbirth interval-, were obtained from
Kappeler & Pereira (2003). As showed in Tab. 2,
Cebus is the most commonly hunted monkey for
both Homo and non-Homo predators. For nonHomo predators, small and medium sized primates
are selected more frequently. Among humans,
large bodied genera such as Lagothrix, Ateles and
Alouatta are the preferred prey. Therefore, for
Homo predators, a larger primate body mass plays
a major role in prey choice.
Discussion
Humans first arrived to lowland South
America around 11,000 years ago (Amazonia:
Roosevelt et al., 1996). The technology they used
for hunting included primarily stone spear points
as could be recovered from Pleistocene
archaeological sites (Roosevelt et al., 1996). Thus,
humans have likely played a fundamental role in
hunting different animal prey since that time.
Currently, based on this review of predation on
New World non-human primates, it appears that
Homo is the main predator of them when
compared with non-Homo predators. In a study of
protein requirements for Amazonian Amerindian
B. Urbani
population, it was suggested that a daily diet
should have at least 40-50 g/day per capita of
proteins where game meat and fish occupied an
important place apart of plant proteins from
sources such as mandioca (Gross, 1975, for
discussion see: Beckerman, 1979). For obtaining
Neotropical animal game, hunting practices are
culturally based (Beckerman & Sussenbach, 1983;
Sponsel, 1997; Lizot, 1979; Lizarralde, 2002). For
example, Lizot (1979) indicated that food
preferences and taboos among Yanomami groups
determine the selection and consumption of
particular food items, particularly key game
animals. Also, cultural practices might influence
the inhibition for eating some monkeys. Among
the Desana of Amazonian Colombia, monkeys are
prohibited meat for children, while howler
monkeys are considered evil omens (ReichelDolmatoff, 1971). In addition, humans are
dramatically decreasing the non-human predator
populations. For instance, over-hunting in the
Neotropics has created the so-called “empty
forests,” were major mammals were removed from
their natural habitats (Redford, 1992; Robinson,
1993). The result is that in some tropical areas,
humans maybe are the only threat to feral monkey
populations (Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 2000). This
has been documented in terms of the decreasing
93
woolly monkey population in the Brazilian
Amazon (Peres, 1991; see below).
On the other hand, humans do not fit well in
other proposed predatory predictions of predatorprimate prey interactions. In this sense, various
anti-predatory behaviors such as mobbing, active
defense (e. g. throwing branches) and alarm calls
are not successful for the monkeys because they
would be easily detected and killed by humans.
For example, some Amerindian groups such as the
Shirián of the upper Paragua River, Venezuela,
performed monkey calls in order to wait for an
acoustical response to locate their potential prey
(Urbani, pers. obs.). On the other hand, in
Mexico, the Lacandón people hear the roaring of
the monkeys from a long distance to chase and
hunt them (Baer & Merrifield, 1972). Moreover,
other so-called anti-predatory behaviors like
polyspecific associations and intragroup distance
might aid human hunters in locating the primate
groups. For instance, Balée (1985) reported that
hunting howler monkeys by the Ka’apor in Brazil,
take them an average of just 50 minutes from the
moment they left from and returned to the
settlement after the hunting party. This is the
smallest amount of time used for hunting any
mammalian game for this Amerindian group, the
next nearest are collared peccaries that required in
94
Predation on Neotropical Monkeys
average 240 minutes, so, almost five times more
than howlers.
The prediction that smaller-bodied size
primates are more vulnerable to predators than
larger bodied primates does not fit for human
predators. It has been observed that large
atelines are the preferred prey for many human
groups, and are systematically selected as
hunting targets (Mena et al., 2000; Alvard &
Kaplan, 1991). Another prediction suggested
that the vulnerability to predation might be
higher in unfamiliar areas for the primates. Local
human populations tend to know the monkeys
home range, and in some cases hunters may
predict the movements of primates populations
through their knowledge of fruiting patterns of
particular key tree species eaten by monkeys or
identifying animal feces in the forest (e. g. the
Makuna: Århem, 1976). On the other hand, the
prediction that primates are more vulnerable in
the canopy and forest edges may apply when being
hunted by human predators. Based on interviews
in the Venezuelan Guayana and eastern Venezuela,
I received information from hunters (Amerindians
and Creoles) indicating that hunting proficiency is
higher when monkeys are exposed in the forest
canopies rather than in dense tangles. They
indicated that it is easier to hunt a spider monkey
than tend to be found in the highest canopy than
a capuchin monkey sometimes found in tangle
understory forests strata or secondary forests. In
this sense, Carneiro (1970) indicated that in
Peruvian Amahuaca hunting, success decreases
with higher dense foliage; however, he reported
that this Amerindian group practiced tree
climbing for hunting howler monkeys.
The idea that predation is episodic must be
re-evaluated when dealing with human hunters.
Homo hunts primates on a regular basis and one
hunting -predatory- episode by humans might
result in the killing of many members of the
monkey group. For example, Lizarralde (2002)
reported the case of a single hunting day in which
five Barí men returned to the village with 16
spider monkeys (Ateles hybridus).
The consequences of living in group for
avoiding predation as reviewed by Chapman
(2000) must be revisited for human predators.
Contrary to the prediction, living in a large
group is a disadvantage, because monkeys may
be more easily found by hunters. For instance,
practically entire groups of woolly monkeys (130
individuals) and 11 howler monkeys were killed
in one day by a Siona-Secoya hunting party
composed by 286 persons in the Ecuadorian
Amazon (Vickers, 1980). The idea that primate
groups might create predator confusions and
thereby decrease the feasibility that each
individual may be preyed while increasing the
defense against the predators, does not appears
to function as a potential anti-predatory
adaptation for human hunters. Hunters may kill
the most of the whole group or just select
particular individuals based on cultural
preferences. In this sense, female primates may
be selected to hunt in order to obtain offspring as
pets. In the case of Ateles sp., females may be
selected because they are considered more “tasty”
than males (Waimiri-Atroari: Souza-Mazurek et
al., 2000), more “tasty” than other monkey species
such as Saimiri oerstedii (Guaymi: GonzálezKirchner & Sainz de la Maza, 1998), or even are
considered “better” hunting games during the
rainy season because this monkey species is fatter
during this tree fruiting period (Matsigenka:
Shepard, 2002).
Boinski & Chapman (1995) provided new
insights on potential directions for testing
hypotheses of predation on primates. They
argued that comparisons of predation rates with
group size might represent a bias because of large
intraspecific variability in primate group size.
However, they suggest that other standards for
comparisons like prey interbirth intervals might
be more fruitful for understanding the effects of
predation on primates. It is important to note
that despite the low frequencies of predation for
both predators, primates with longer interbirth
intervals such as Ateles sp. and Lagothrix sp. are
the preferred targets among human hunters (e.
g. Yanomamö: Saffirio & Scaglion, 1982;
Matsigenka: Shepard, 2002; Tabl. 1). This may
result in low levels of primate population
recovery and also local extinctions.
Boinski & Chapman (1995: 2) state “on an
evolutionary time scale, increased predation
pressure may favor large groups, but on a shorter
ecological time scale, high predation levels may
decrease group size directly, simply through the
death of animals.” In this regard, they indicated
B. Urbani
that G. B. Stanford studies of chimpanzees (Pan
troglodytes) predation on red colobus monkeys
(Procolobus badius) is an instructive example of the
effect of predation on an ecological time scale.
Chimpanzees hunting on red colobus (76
observed cases in four years) have reduced to
almost the half the size of the monkey population
that inhabit the chimpanzee groups’ range
compared to the red colobus populations that live
outside this range (e.g. Gombe site: Stanford,
1998 vs Kibale site: Struhsaker, 1975). In other
words, in the field sites in which Pan density is
higher, Procolobus density is lower (Stanford,
1998).
A similar effect may be occurring in the
Neotropics between human and some monkey
populations. Since the Prehispanic period,
Amerindians established a close relationship with
non-human primates from cosmological believes
to the thought of monkeys as food (Baker, 1992,;
van Akkeren, 1998; Karadimas, 1999, Braakhuis,
1998, García del Cueto, 1989; Urbani & Gil,
2001; Cormier, 2003). In the present work only
Amerindians groups were considered, assuming
that are the human populations that first entered
the New World while using long-term traditional
hunting techniques. The predecessors of current
Amerindian populations occupied the tropical
Americas since circa 11,000 year ago to
approximately 1,250-1,600 A. D., intensely using
areas like lowland Panama and Brazil that have
been historically considered “pristine” rainforests
in the New World (Bush & Colinvaux, 1990;
Colinvaux & Bush, 1991; Heckenberger et al.,
2003). In addition, there is direct evidence from
an archaeological site in northern Venezuela that
reflected potential consumption or used for other
purposes (e. g. pets) of red howler monkeys from
at least 3,000 years B. P. (Urbani & Gil, 2001). In
principle, these human groups may have
influenced the distribution/survivorship of current
primate populations, as might be the case of
potential former populations of white-faced
capuchin monkeys (Cebus capucinus) in the
northern Mayan region (Baker, 1992). In
addition, MacPhee & Horovitz (2002) suggested
that probably the Pleistocene Antillean monkey
Xenothrix mcgregori might be extinct due to
human influence. So, intense hunting pressures
over 10,000 years might directly influence local
95
extinctions of faunal populations and probably still unknown- contributing to shape the structure
of current primate populations as might be
tentatively inferred from the results. There is
current evidence to support this idea. For instance,
Souza-Mazurek et al. (2000 579; 591) indicated
that among the Waimiri-Atroari in northern
Brazil, “sex ratios of spider monkeys [Ateles
paniscus] killed were heavily biased towards
females indicating a stronger hunting pressure on
those individuals.” Thus, it seems that potential
sex-based differences in hunting selection are
affecting the group structure of feral Neotropical
primates groups; naturally more detailed studies
to evaluate the effect of selective hunting on the
primate population dynamic are needed.
Moreover, Peres (1991) described local
extinctions of woolly monkey (Lagothrix sp.)
populations as a consequence of intense hunting
in the Amazonia. He said that woolly monkey
population density (number/km2) varied from 0
and 7 in hunted sites to 17 and 30 in nonhunted sites. In addition, Creole populations in
Latin America intensively hunt primates for
market networks that expand the limits of hunting
from family consumption to hunting for
commercial purposes (Mittermeier, 1987, for
understanding Amazonian Caboblos -Brazilian
Creoles- economy: Nugent, 1993). Bush meat is a
preferred food source in the local marts. For
example, Castro et al. (1975) found that in six
months, in the popular market of Iquitos, Peru,
were sold 1,700 Lagothrix sp., 1,396 Cebus sp.,
557 Alouatta sp., 321 Pithecia sp. and 198 Ateles
sp. (approximate calculation by B. U.). Thus,
together with the Congo Basin in Africa where the
bush meat crisis is aggressively threatening primate
populations (Peterson, 2003), Amazonia appears
to be the other geographical area critically threaten
by hunting (Mittermeier, 1987; see Results).
Then, to the question, why New World
primates adopt the above indicated antipredatory behaviors even if they are not efficient
against their main predator, Homo sapiens?. Two
dimensions might be playing a role on it. First,
humans have interacted with New World
monkeys during just a short timeframe (~11,000
years) compared to the long-time period since
primates had been found in the New World; the
late Oligocene when Branisella boliviana
96
Predation on Neotropical Monkeys
inhabited the central part of South America
(Kay et al. 2002). On the other hand, human
social practices and material culture (particularly
weapons) take part in the equation of predation of
Neotropical monkeys, being factors unique to
Homo in the Neotropics. Nevertheless, extensive
field research is needed to properly address this
issue.
Probably one of the best ways to inquiry
about the relationship between Homo and New
World primates, including in particular hunting
-predatory- practices, is to look into new
insights from ethnoprimatological perspectives
on the conceptualization of monkeys by
Amerindians; a research line that have been just
initiated after Sponsel (1997) (in the
Neotropics: Fleck et al., 1999; Cormier, 2002,
2003; Lizarralde, 2002; Shepard, 2002; Urbani
& Gil, 2001). Many Amerindian groups have
special tied relations with monkeys, and
associated and classified them as “beings like
humans” (e.g. Kalapalo: Basso, 1973). For
instance, among the Mekranoti, a Tupi language
Amerindian group related to the Kayapo group,
indicated that other Amerindian groups used the
word “Kaya-po” for referring them; the word
“Kayapo” means the people that “resembled
monkeys” (Werner, 1985: 173). Ethnoprimatological
studies are fundamental for understanding the
relationship between human and non-human
primates. Moreover, these works will be essential
for understanding the past and present interconnection of both sympatric primates and even
more, to comprehend the still unknown but
critical future of them. In addition, at the
moment there are few systematic mentions
describing the New Word primate reactions to
human primates, and in principle there are
practically no works specifically describing how
humans have potentially affected social and
grouping behaviors in Neotropical monkeys (for
Old World primates: Coppinger & Maguire,
1980; Bshary, 2001; Tenaza, 1990; Tenaza &
Tilson, 1985). This is an interesting area for future
primatological research in the tropical Americas.
Moreover, recent data on naïve behaviors and
group composition of wild primates (for
chimpanzees: Morgan & Sanz, 2003) may be
fundamental for comparing with primate
populations subjected to often human contact
(including primatologists), in order to understand
potential differences in primate social structure
due to human presence or impact.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Loretta A. Cormier, Manuel
Lizarralde, Leslie E. Sponsel and Robert S. Voss for
sending me their publications for a previous
bibliographic review (Urbani, 2002) that were
useful for thinking in this work. To the UIUC
library staff for make available valuable help in
references searching. To Paul Garber and the
anonymous referees for their critical suggestions. To
Tania for her passion in the conservation of tropical
rainforests and her enormous love. B. Urbani is
granted by a Fulbright-OAS Scholarship.
References
Alvard M. 1993. Testing the “Ecologically noble
savage” hypothesis: Interpecific prey choice
by Piro hunters of Amazonian Perú. Hum.
Ecol., 21: 355-387.
Alvard M. 1995. Intraspecific prey choice by
Amazonian hunters. Curr. Anthropol., 36:
789-818.
Alvard M. 1995. Shotguns and sustainable
hunting in the neotropics. Oryx, 29: 58-66.
Alvard M. & Kaplan H. 1991. Procurement
technology and prey mortality among
indigenous neotropical hunters. In M.C.
Stiner (ed): Human predators and prey
mortality, pp. 79-104. Westview Press,
Boulder.
Århem K. 1976. Fishing and hunting among the
Makuma: Economy, ideology and ecological
adaptation in the northwest Amazon. Ann.
Report of the Gotenborgs Etnografiska Museum,
: 27-44.
Baer P. & Merrifield W.R. 1972. Los Lacandones de
México. Dos Estudios. Instituto Nacional
Indigenista, Secretaría de Educación Pública,
Mexico City.
Baker M. 1992. Capuchin monkeys (Cebus
capucinus) and the Ancient Maya. Ancient
Mesoam., 3: 219-228.
Baleé W. 1985. Ka’apor ritual hunting. Hum.
B. Urbani
Ecol., 13: 485-510.
Basso E.B. 1973. The Kalapalo Indians of Central
Brazil. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
York.
Beckerman S. 1979. The abundance of protein in
Amazonia: A reply to Gross. Am. Anthopol.,
81: 53-56.
Beckerman S. 1980. Fishing and hunting by the
Bari in Colombia. Working Papers on South
American Indians, 2: 68-109.
Beckerman S. & Sussenbach T. 1983. A
quantitative assessment of the dietary
contribution of game species to the
subsistence of South American Tropical forest
tribal peoples. In J. Clutton-Brock & C.
Crigson (eds): Animals and Archaeology. 1.
Hunters and their preys, pp. 337-350. BAR
International Series 163, Oxford.
Berlin B. & Berlin E.A. 1983. Adaptation and
ethnozoological classification: Theoretical
implications of animal resources and diet of
the Aguaruna and Huambisa. In R.B. Hames
& W.T. Vickers (eds): Adaptive responses of
native Amazonians, pp. 301-325. Academic
Press, New York.
Blomberg R. 1956. The naked Aucas. An account of
the Indians of Ecuador.: George Allen &
Unwin, London.
Boinski S. & Chapman C.A. 1995. Predation on
primates: Where are we and what’s next?.
Evol. Anthropol., 4: 1-3.
Boinski S.; Treves A. & Chapman C.A. 2000. A
critical evaluation of the influence of
predators on primates: Effect on group travel.
In S. Boinski & P.A. Garber, (eds): On the
Move. How and why animals travel in groups,
pp. 43-72. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Braakhuis H.E.M. 1987. Artificers of the Days:
Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods
among the Mayas. Bijdragen tot de Taal-,
Land-, en Volkenkunde 143. Floris
Publications, Dortrechs.
Bshary R. 2001. Diana monkeys, Cercopithecus
diana, adjust their anti-predator response
behaviour to human hunting strategies.
Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 50: 251-256.
Bush M.B. & Colinvaux P.A. 1991. A pollen
record of a complete glaciar cycle from
lowland Panama, J. Vegetation Sci., 1: 105-118.
97
Campos R. 1977. Producción de pesca y caza en
una comunidad Shipibo en el río Pisqui.
Amaz. Peruana, 1: 53-74.
Carneiro R.L. 1970. Hunting and hunting magic
among the Amachuaca of the Peruvian
Montaña. Ethnology, 9: 331-341.
Carpenter C.R. 1934. A field study of the
behaviour and social relations of howling
monkeys. Comp. Psychol. Monogr., 10: 1-168.
Castro N., Revilla J. & Neville M. 1975. Carne de
monte como una fuente de proteínas en
Iquitos, con referencia especial a monos. Rev.
Forestal del Perú. 5: 19-32. Reprinted in: N.
Castro-Rodríguez (ed): La primatología en el
Perú, pp. 17-35. 1990. Proyecto Peruano de
Primatología, Lima.
Chapman C.A. 1986. Determinants of group size
in primates: The importance of travel cost. In
S. Boinski & P.A. Garber (eds): On the Move.
How and why animals travel in groups, pp. 2342. University of Chicago Press Chicago.
Chapman C.A. & Peres C.A. 2001. Primate
conservation in the New Millenium: The role
of scientists. Evol. Anthropol., 10: 16-33.
Chapman C. A. 2000. Boa constrictor predation
and group response in white-faced Cebus
monkeys. Biotropica, 18: 171-172.
Cheney S. & Wragham R. 1987. Predation. In
B.B. Smuts, R.M. Cheney, R.M. Seyfarth,
R.W. Wrangham & T.T. Struhsaker (eds):
Primate societies, pp. 227-239. University of
Chicago Press, London.
Chinchilla F. A. 1997. La dieta del jaguar
(Panthera onca), el puma (Felis concolor), y el
manigordo (Felis pardalis) (Carnivora:
Felidae) en el Parque Nacional Corcovado,
Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop., 45: 1223-1229.
Coimbra-Fihlo A.F. & Mittermeier R.A. 1981.
Ecology and Behavior of Neotropical Primates.
Academia Brasileira de Ciências, Rio de
Janeiro.
Colinvaux P.A. & Bush M.B. 1991. The rainforest ecosystems as a resource for hunting
and gathering. Am. Anthropol., 93: 153-160.
Conzemius E. 1984. Estudio etnográfico sobre los
indios Miskitos y Sumus de Honduras y
Nicaragua. Libro Libre, San José.
Coppinger R.P. & Maguire J.P. 1980.
Cercopithecus aethiops of St. Kitts: A
population estimate based on human
98
Predation on Neotropical Monkeys
predation. Caribb. J. Sci., 15: 1-7.
Cormier L.A. 2002. Monkey as food, monkey as
child: Guajá symbolic cannibalism. In A.
Fuentes & L.D. Wolfe (eds): Primates face to
face: Conservation implications of human and
nonhuman primate interconnections, pp. 6384. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cormier L.A. 2003. Kinship with monkeys. The
Guajá foragers of Eastern Amazonia. Columbia
University Press, New York.
Côrrea H.K.M & Coutinho P.E.G. 1997. Fatal
attack of a pit viper, Bothrops jararaca, on an
infant buffy-tufted ear marmoset (Callithrix
aurita). Primates, 38: 215-217.
Cowlishaw G. & Dunbar R. 2000. Primate
Conservation Biology. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Crocket J.C. 1985. Vital souls. Bororo cosmology,
natural symbolism, and shamanism. University
of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Cuarón A.D. 1997. Conspecific aggression and
predation: Costs for a solitary mantled howler
monkey. Folia Primatol., 68: 100-105.
Descola, P. 1996. The spears of twilinght. Life and
death in the Amazon jungle. The New Press,
New York.
Di Fiore A. 2002. Predator sensitive foraging in
ateline primates. In L.E. Miller, (ed): Eat or be
Eaten, pp. 242-268. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Eakin E., Lauriault E. & Boonstra H. 1980.
Bosquejo etnográfico de los Shipibo-Conibo del
Ucayali.: Ignacio Prado Pastor Ediciones,
Lima.
Eason P. 1989. Harpy eagle attempts predation on
adult howler monkey. Condor, 91: 469-470.
Emmons L.J. 1987. Comparative feeding ecology
of felids in a Neotropical rainforest. Behav.
Ecol. Sociobiol., 20, 271-283.
Ferrari S.F., Pereira W., Santos R.R. & Viega L.M.
2002. Ataque fatal de uma jibóia (Boa sp.) em
um cuixú (Chiropotes satanas utahicki). Livro
de Resumos do X Congresso Brasileiro de
Primatologia: Amazonia, a última fronteira, 66.
Fleck D.W., Voss R.S. & Patton J.L. 1999.
Biological basis of saki (Pithecia) folk species
recognized by the Matses Indians of
Amazonian Peru. Int.. J. Primatol., 20: 10051028.
Fowler J.M. & Cope J.B. 1964. Notes on the harpy
eagle in British Guiana. The Auk, 81: 257-273.
Fuentes A. & Wolfe L. D. (eds) 2002. Primates
face to face: Conservation implications of
human
and
nonhuman
primate
interconnections. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Galef B.G.Jr., Mittermeier R.A. & Bailey R.C.
1976. Predation by the tayra (Eira barbara). J.
Mammal., 57: 760-761.
Garber P.A. & Bicca-Marques J.C. 2002. Evidence
of predator sensitive foraging and traveling in
single- and mixed-species tamarin troops. In
L.E. Miller (ed): Eat or be Eaten., pp. 138153. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
García del Cueto H. 1989. Acerca de la
connotación simbólico-ritual del mono en la
sociedad prehispánica (Altiplano Central). In
A. Estrada, R. López-Wilchis & R. CoatesEstrada (eds): Primatología en México:
Comportamiento, ecología, aprovechamiento y
conservación de primates, pp. 144-159.
Universidad Autónoma MetropolitanaIztapalapa, Mexico City.
Gilbert K.A. 2000. Attempted predation on a
white-faced saki in the Central Amazon.
Neotrop. Primates, 8: 103-104.
Goldizen A.W. 1987. Tamarins and marmosets:
Communal care of offspring. In B.B. Smutts,
R.M. Cheney, R.M. Seyfarth, R.W.
Wrangham & T.T. Struhsaker (eds): Primate
societies, pp. 34-43. Chicago University Press,
London.
González-Kirchner J.P. & Sainz de la Maza M.
1998. Primates hunting by Guaymi
Amerindians in Costa Rica. Human Evol., 13:
15-19.
Gregor T. 1977. Mehinaku. The drama of daily life
in a Brazilian Indian village.: University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Gross D. 1975. Protein capture and cultural
development in the Amazon basin. Am.
Anthopol., 77: 526-549.
Hames R.B. 1979. A comparison of the
efficiencies of the shotgun and the bow in
neotropical forest hunting. Human Ecol., 7:
219-252.
Harner M. J. 1972. The Jivaro: people of the Sacred
Waterfalls. Doubleday-Natural History, New
York.
Heckenberger M.J., Kuikuro A., Kuikuro U.T.,
B. Urbani
Russell J.C., Schmidt M., Fausto C. &
Franchetto B. 2003. Amazonia 1492: Pristine
Forest or Cultural Parkland?. Science, 301:
1710-1714.
Heymann E.W. 1987. A field observation of
predation on a moustached tamarin (Saguinus
mystax) by an anaconda. Int. J. Primatol., 8:
193-195.
Hill K. & Padwe J. 2000. Sustainability of Ache
hunting in the Mbaracayu Reserve, Paraguay.
In J.G. Robinson & E.L. Bennett (eds):
Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests, pp.
79-105. Columbia University Press, New York.
Hill R.A. & Dunbar R.L.M. 1998. An evaluation
of the roles of predation rate and predation
risk as selective pressures on primate grouping
behaviour. Behaviour, 135: 411-430.
Isbell L.A. 1994. Predation on primates:
Ecological patterns and evolutionary
consequences. Evol. Anthropol., 3: 61-71.
Izawa K. 1978. A field study of the ecology and
behavior of the black-mantled tamarin
(Saguinus nigricollis). Primates, 19: 241-274.
Izor R.J. 1985. Sloths and other mammalians prey
of the harpy eagle. In G. G. Montgomery,
(ed): The evolution and ecology of armadillos,
sloths and vermilinguas, pp. 343-346.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Janson C.H. 1998. Testing the predation
hypothesis for vertebrate sociality: Prospects
and pitfalls. Behaviour, 135: 389-410.
Julliot C. 1994. Predation of a young spider monkey
(Ateles paniscus) by a crested eagle (Morphnus
guianensis). Folia Primatol., 63: 75-77.
Kappeler P.M. & Pereira M.E. 2003. Appendix. A
primate life history database. In P.M.
Kappeler & M.E. Pereira (eds): Primate life
histories and socioecology, pp. 313-330.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Karadimas D. 1999. La constellation des quatre
signes.
Interprétation
ethnoarchéoastronomique des motifs de “El
Carchi-Capulí” (Colombie, Équator). J. Soc.
Américanistes, 85: 115-145.
Kay R.F., Williams B.A. & Anaya F. 2002. The
adaptation of Branisella boliviana, the earliest
South American monkey. In Plavcan J.M.,
Kay R.F., Jungers W.L. & C.P. van Schaik,
(eds): Reconstructing behavior in the primate
fossil record, pp. 339-370. Kluwer
99
Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Kensinger K.M., Rabineau, P., Tanner, H.,
Ferguson, S.G. & Dawson A. 1975. The
Cashinahua of Eastern Peru. Studies in
Anthropology and Material Culture, Vol. 1.
The Haffereffer Museum of Anthropology,
Brown University Press, Providence.
Kinzey W.G. (ed) 1997. New World Primates:
Ecology, evolution and behavior. Aldine de
Gruyter, New York.
Kracke W.H. 1978. Force and persuasion.
Leadership in an Amazonian Society. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lizarralde M. 2002. Ethnoecology of monkeys
among the Barí of Venezuela: perception, use
and conservation. In A. Fuentes & L.D.
Wolfe (eds): Primates face to face: Conservation
implications of human and nonhuman primate
interconnections, pp. 85-100. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lizot J. 1979. On food taboos and Amazon cultural
ecology. Curr. Anthropol., 20: 150-151.
MacPhee, G. & I. Horovitz. 2002. Extinct
Quaternary platyrrhines of the greater
Antilles and Brazil. In W.C. Hartwig (ed):
The primate fossil record, pp. 189-200.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Maybury-Lewis D. 1967. Akwê-Shavante society.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
McDonald D.R. 1977. Food taboos: A primitive
environmental protection agency (South
America). Anthropos, 72: 735-748.
Meggers B.J. 1971. Amazonia. Man and culture in
a counterfeit paradise. Aldine-Atherton, New
York.
Mena V.P., Stallings J.R., Regalado B.J. & Cueva
L.R. 2000. The sustainability of current
hunting practices by the Huaorani. In J.G.
Robinson & E.L. Bennett (ed): Hunting for
sustainability in tropical forests, pp. 57-78.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Merriam J.C. 1998 - Community wildlife
management by Mayangna Indians in the
Bosawas Reserve, Nicaragua. M. S. thesis,
Idaho State University.
Miller L.E. 2002. An introduction to predator
sensitive foraging. In L. E. Miller (ed): Eat or
be Eaten, pp. 1-20. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Milton K. 1991. Comparative aspects of diet in
100
Predation on Neotropical Monkeys
Amazonian forest-dwellers. In: A. Whiten &
E.M. Widdowson (eds): Foraging strategies and
natural diet of monkeys, apes and humans, pp.
93-103. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Mitchell C.L., Boinski, S. & van Schaik, C.P.
1991. Competitive regimes and female
bonding in two species of squirrel monkey
(Saimiri oerstedi and S. sciureus). Behav. Ecol.
Sociobiol., 28: 55-60.
Mittermeier R.A. 1987. Effects of hunting on rain
forest primates. In C.W. Marsh & R.A.
Mittermeier (ed): Primate conservation in the
tropical rain forest, pp. 109-146. Alan R. Liss,
New York.
Mittermeier R.A. 1991. Hunting and its effect on
wild primates populations in Suriname. In
J.G. Robinson & K.H. Redford (eds):
Neotropical wildlife use and conservation, pp.
93-107. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Mittermeier R.A., Rylands A.B., Coimbra-Fihlo,
A.F. & da Fonseca, G.A.B. 1988. Ecology and
behavior of Neotropical Primates. World
Wildlife Fund, Washington.
Montgomery E.I. 1970. With the Shiriana in
Brazil.: Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque.
Morgan D. & Sanz C. 2003. Naïve encounters
with chimpanzees in the Goualougo Triangle,
Republic of Congo. Int. J. Primatol., 24: 369381.
Moynihan M. 1970. Some behavior patterns of
Platyrrhine monkeys, II. Saguinus geoffroyi
and some other tamarins. Smithsonian
Contrib. Zool., 29: 1-77.
Murphy R.F. & Quain B. 1966. The Trumaí
Indians of Central Brazil. Monographs of the
American Ethnological Society, 24. University
of Washington Press, Seattle.
Nimuendajú C. 1946. The Eastern Timbira.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Nugent S. 1993. Amazonian Caboclo society: An
essay on invisibility and peasant economy. Berg
Publishers, Oxford.
Olmos F. 1994. Jaguar predation on muriqui,
Brachyteles arachnoids. Neotrop. Primates, 2: 16.
Oversluijs-Vasquez M.R. & Heymann E.W. 2001.
Crested eagle (Morphnus guianensis)
predation on infant tamarins (Saguinus
mystax
and
Saguinus
fuscicollis,
Callitrichinae). Folia Primatol., 72: 301-303.
Peres C.A. 1990. A harpy eagle successfully
captures an adult male red howler monkey.
Wilson Bull., 102: 560-561.
Peres C.A. 1991. Humboldt’s woolly monkeys
decimated by hunting in Amazonia. Oryx 25:
89-95.
Peterson, D. 2003. Eating Apes. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Redford K.H. 1992. The empty forests.
BioScience, 42: 412-422.
Reichel-Dolmatoff G. 1989. Amazonian Cosmos.
The sexual and religious symbolism of the
Tukano Indians. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Rettig N.L. 1978. Breeding behavior of the harpy
eagle, Harpia harpyja. The Auk, 95: 629-643.
Reverte J.M. 1967. Los indios Teribes de Panamá.
Talleres de la Estrella de Panamá, Panama
City.
Robinson J.G. 1993. The limits to caring:
Sustainable living and the loss of biodiversity.
Conserv. Biol., 7: 20-28.
Robinson J.G. & Redford K.H. 1994. Measuring
the sustainability of hunting in tropical
forests. Oryx, 28: 249-256.
Roosevelt A.C., Lima da Costa M., Lopes
Machado C., Michab M., Mercier N.,
Valladas H., Feathers J., Barnett W., Imazio
da Silveira M., Henderson A., Sliva J.,
Chernoff B., Reese D.S., Holman J.A., Toth
N. & Schick K. 1996. Paleoindian cave
dwellers in the Amazon: The peopling of the
Americas. Science, 272: 373-384.
Ross E.B. 1978. Food taboos, diet, and hunting
strategy: The adaptation to animals in
Amazon cultural ecology. Curr. Anthropol.,
19: 1-36.
Saffirio G. & Scaglion R. 1982. Hunting
efficiency in acculturated Yanomama villages.
J. Anthropol. Res., 38: 315-328.
Schaller G.B. 1983. Mammals and their biomass
on a Brazilian Ranch. Arq. Zool. (São Paulo),
31: 1-36.
Seeger A. 1981. Nature and society in Central
Brazil. The Suya Indians of Mato Grosso.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Setz E.Z.F. 1991. Animals in the Nambiquara
diet: methods of collection and processing. J.
Ethnobiol., 11: 1-22.
Shepard G.Jr. 2002. Primates in Matsigenka
B. Urbani
subsistence and worldview. In A. Fuentes &
L. D. Wolfe (eds): Primates face to face:
Conservation implications of human and
nonhuman primate interconnections, pp. 101136.
Cambridge
University
Press,
Cambridge.
Sherman P.T. 1991. Harpy eagle predation on a red
howler monkey. Folia Primatol., 56: 53-56.
Simpson, J.A. & Weiner E.S.C. 1989. The Oxford
English Dictionary. Volume VII. Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Siskind J. 1973. To hunt in the morning. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Souza-Mazurek R., Pedrinho T., Feliciano X.,
Hilario W., Geroncio S. & Marcelo E. 2000.
Subsistence hunting among the Waimiri
Atroari Indians in central Amazonia, Brazil.
Biodivers. Conserv., 9: 579-596.
Sponsel L.E. 1997. The human niche in
Amazonia: Explorations in ethnoprimatology.
In W.G. Kinzey (ed): New World primates.
Ecology, evolution, and behavior, pp. 143-165.
Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Stanford, G.B. 1998. Chimpanzee and red colobus.
The ecology of predator and prey. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.
Stafford B.J. & Murad-Ferreira, F. 1995.
Predation attempts on Callitrichids in the
Atlantic coastal rain forest of Brazil. Folia
Primatol., 65: 229-233
Struhsaker T.T. 1975. The red colobus monkey.
Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Tenaza R.R. 1990. Effects of human predation on
behavior of pig-tailed langurs in the Mentawai
Islands. Am. J. Primatol., 20: 237-238.
Tenaza R.R, Tilson R.L. 1985. Human predation
and Kloss’s gibbon (Hylobates klossii) sleeping
trees in Siberut Island, Indonesia. Am. J.
Primatol., 8: 299-308.
Terborgh J. 1983. Five New World Primates.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Thompson, J.E. 1930. Ethnology of the Mayas of
southern and central British Honduras. Field
Museum of Natural History, Publication 274.
Anthropological series, 27: 27-213.
Townsend W.R. 2000. The sustainability of
subsistence hunting by the Siriono Indians of
101
Bolivia. In J.G. Robinson & E.L. Bennett
(eds): Hunting for sustainability in tropical
forests pp. 267-281. Columbia University
Press, New York.
Tsukahara T. & Nishida T. 1990. The first
evidence for predation by lions on wild
chimpanzees. XIIIth Congress of the
International Primatological Society Abstracts
(Nagoya), pp. 82
Urbani B. 2002. Neotropical ethnoprimatology:
An annotated bibliography. Neotrop.
Primates, 10: 24-26.
Urbani B. & Gil E. 2001. Consideraciones sobre
restos de primates de un yacimiento
arqueológico del Oriente de Venezuela
(América del Sur), Cueva del Guácharo,
estado Monagas. Munibe, 53: 135-142.
van Akkeren R. 1998. The monkey and the black
heart. Polar North in Ancient Mesoamerica.
In A.L. Izquierdo (ed): Memorias del Tercer
Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, pp. 165185. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México, Mexico City.
van Schaik C.P., Horstermann M. 1994. Predation
risk and the number of adult males in a
primate group: A comparative test. Behav.
Ecol. Sociobiol., 35: 261-272.
Vickers W. 1980. An analysis of Amazonian hunting
yields as a function of settlement age. Working
Papers on South American Indians, 2: 7-30.
Viveiros de Castro E. 1992. From the enemies point
of view. Humanity and divinity in an
Amazonian society. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
von Graeve B. 1989. The Pacaa Nova. Clash of
cultures on the Brazilian border. Broadview
Press, Petesburgh.
Wagley C. 1977. Welcome of tears. The Tapirapé
Indians of Central Brazil. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Wagley C. &, Galvão E. 1949. The Tenetehara
Indians of Brazil. A culture in transition.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Werner D. 1985. Amazon Journey. An
anthropologist’s year among Brazil’s Mekranoti
Indians. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Appendix - Comparison of predation on New World primates.
102
Predation on Neotropical Monkeys
Appendix - (continued).
B. Urbani
103
Appendix - (continued).
104
Predation on Neotropical Monkeys
Appendix - (continued).
B. Urbani
105
Appendix - (continued).
106
Predation on Neotropical Monkeys
Appendix - (continued).
B. Urbani
107
108
Appendix - (continued).
Predation on Neotropical Monkeys
Appendix - (continued).
B. Urbani
109
110