|Scientific Name:||Mico emiliae|
|Species Authority:||(Thomas, 1920)|
|Taxonomic Notes:||Formerly in the genus Callithrix (see Rylands et al. 1993, 2000, 2008). Groves (2001, 2005) lists this species as Callithrix (Mico) emiliae.
The reason for the resurrection of this form, considered a junior synonym (a dark form) of Callithrix argentata argentata by Hershkovitz (1977) is effectively by default. Hapale emiliae was first described by Thomas (1920) from the Rio Irirí, southern Pará. It was not recognized by Hershkovitz (1977) who regarded it as a dark form of Callithrix argentata. Vivo (1985, 1991) revalidated this form on the basis of specimens from the state of Rondônia. However, Rylands et al. (1993) indicated that the Rondônia marmosets described by Vivo should be considered a distinct form based on the fact that the species’ distribution and that of the Hapale emiliae Thomas, 1904 from Maloca on the Rio Curuá (see Vivo 1985; Ávila Pires 1986) are disjunct, and separated by M. melanurus. M. emiliae was not listed by Groves (1993). That the Rondônia “emiliae” is a distinct form from emiliaeThomas, 1904 was confirmed by Sena (1998) and Ferrari et al. (1999), who found M. emiliae to be more similar to M. argentatus than the “emiliae” from Rondônia. These authors argue that the Rio Tapajós separates two distinct, if very recent, radiations of Mico. Alperin (1995) argued that Mico nigriceps (Ferrari and Lopes 1992) and “emiliae” from Rondônia belong to the same species. Groves (2001) lists M. emiliae as a valid species.
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Data Deficient ver 3.1|
|Assessor(s):||Rylands, A.B. & Silva Jr., J.S.|
|Reviewer(s):||Mittermeier, R.A. & Rylands, A.B. (Primate Red List Authority)|
Listed as Data Deficient as there is no information on the precise limits of the distribution range of this species, its population status, or threats.
|Previously published Red List assessments:||
|Range Description:||Cabrera (1957) described its distribution as the south of the state of Pará, possibly entering contiguous parts of the state of Mato Grosso. Ávila-Pires (1986) was more exact, indicating that it occurs south from the Rio Irirí (C. a. argentata occurring to the north—confirmed by Martins et al. 1988), at least as far south as the southern (left) margin of the Rio Peixoto de Azevedo, an eastern tributary of the Rio Teles Pires. Martins et al. (1988) recorded it on the left bank of the Rio Irirí, south from its mouth. The southern limits would evidently not be beyond the headwaters and upper Rio Paraguai, approximately 14º30'S, where M. melanurus has been registered for a number of localities (Hershkovitz 1977; Vivo 1985). Ávila-Pires (1986; see also Pimenta and Sillva Jr. 2005) suggested that the Rio Teles Pires marks the western limit of its range. Martins et al. (1988) indicated that C. emiliae is limited to the west (left) bank of the lower Rio Irirí, with an undescribed C. argentata subspecies occurring between the Rios Irirí and Xingú. These authors also reported their belief that no marmoset occurs east of the Rio Xingú above the mouth of the Rio Irirí. The distribution of C. emiliae has been confused somewhat by its alignment with a similar, if slightly darker, form in the state of Rondônia by Vivo (1985), referred to here as Mico cf. emiliae (also discussed in the text on M. melanurus).|
Native:Brazil (Mato Grosso, Pará)
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||There is no information available on the population status of this species.|
|Current Population Trend:||Unknown|
|Habitat and Ecology:||An inhabitant of Amazonian lowland rain forest. Also mixed open forest and forest patches in savanna/bush savanna (Cerrado).
Marmosets and tamarins are distinguished from the other monkeys of the New World by their small size, modified claws rather than nails on all digits except the big toe, the presence of two as opposed to three molar teeth in either side of each jaw, and by the occurrence of twin births. They eat fruits, flowers, nectar, plant exudates (gums, saps, latex) and animal prey (including frogs, snails, lizards, spiders and insects). Marmosets have morphological and behavioural adaptations for gouging trees trunks, branches and vines of certain species to stimulate the flow of gum, which they eat, and in some species form a notable component of the diet (Coimbra-Filho and Mittermeier 1976; Rylands 1984). They live in extended family groups of between four and 15 individuals. Generally, only one female per group breeds during a particular breeding season. The groups defend home ranges 10-40 ha, the size depending on availability and distribution of foods and second-growth patches.
Weight 335 g. H&B 21.6 cm, TL 34.1 cm (n = 5) (Ferrari 2008).
|Major Threat(s):||Major threats to this species are unclear. The advance of the southern agricultural frontier, with the arc of forest destruction progressing north through northern Mato Grosso and southern Pará, may be a threat to this species. It is generally not hunted, although they may be found being used as pets.|
Not known to occur in any protected areas. It is listed on Appendix II of CITES (as Callithrix emiliae).
This species is in need of further study to better understand the limits of its distribution range, its taxonomy relative to other Mico, and major threats.
|Citation:||Rylands, A.B. & Silva Jr., J.S. 2008. Mico emiliae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T42691A10732949. . Downloaded on 28 November 2015.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided|