Page 66 Lemur News <strong>Vol</strong>. <strong>15</strong>, 2010 in the spiny and two in the non-spiny forest areas). Thus, we considered only level 1 (undamaged coat) and 2 (moderately missing fur) for the analyses and found that the proportion of individuals with level-1 fur was significantly higher in the nonspiny than in the spiny areas both in the analysis per forest site (Exact Mann-Whitney U test, nnon-spiny=3, nspiny=6, Z= -2.35, p=0.024) (Fig. 2) and in the analysis per group (Mann- Whitney U test, nnon-spiny=31, nspiny=11, Z=-3.26, p=0.001). FUR FUR CONDITION CONDITION 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 SPINY FOREST RIVERINE AREAS FOREST AREAS Fig. 2: Difference in fur condition (proportion of individuals showing level-1 fur) between the spiny and riverine forest areas. The difference is significant (p
Lemur News <strong>Vol</strong>. <strong>15</strong>, 2010 Page 67 Fenn, M.D. 2003. The spiny forest ecoregion. Pp. <strong>15</strong>25-<strong>15</strong>30. In: S.M. Goodman; J.P. Benstead (eds.). The Natural History of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Ganzhorn, J.U.; Goodman, S.M.; Dehgan, A. 2003. Effects of forest fragmentation on small mammals and lemurs. Pp. 1228-1234. In: S.M. Goodman; J.P. Benstead (eds.). The Natural History of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Jolly, A. 2009a. Coat conditions of ringtailed lemurs, Lemur catta, at Berenty Reserve, Madagascar: I. Differences by age, sex, density and tourism, 1996-2006. Am. J. Primatol. 71: 191-198. Jolly, A. 2009b. Coat conditions of ringtailed lemurs, Lemur catta, at Berenty Reserve, Madagascar: II. Coat and tail alopecia associated with Leucaena leucocephala. Am. J. Primatol. 71: 199-205. Jolly, A; Koyama, N; Rasamimanana, H; Crowley, H; Williams, G.2006.Berenty Reserve:a research site in southern Madagascar.Pp.32-42.In:A.Jolly,R.W.Sussman,N.Koyama,H. Rasamimanana (eds.). Ringtailed Lemur Biology: Lemur catta in Madagascar. Springer Verlag, New York. Kenagy, G.J.; Pearson, O.P. 2000. Life with fur and without: experimental field energetics and survival of naked meadow voles. Oecologia 122: 220-224. Ling, J.K. 1970. Pelage and molting in wild mammals with special reference to aquatic forms.Q.Rev.Biol.45:16-54. Mundry, R; Fischer, J. 1998. Use of statistical programs for nonparametric tests of small samples often leads to incorrect P values: examples from Animal Behaviour. Anim. Behav. 56: 256-259. Norscia, I.; Palagi, E. 2010. Fragment quality and distribution of the arboreal primate Propithecus verreauxi in the spiny forest of south Madagascar. J. Trop. Ecol. DOI: 10.1017/S0266467410000519. Norscia,I.;Palagi E.2008.Berenty 2006:census of Propithecus verreauxi and possible evidence of population stress. Int. J. Primatol. 29: 1099-11<strong>15</strong>. Scott, D.W.; Miller, W.H.; Griffin, C.E. 2001. Structure and function of skin.Muller and Kirk’s Small Animal Dermatology, 6th ed. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia. Seddon, N.; Tobias, J; Yount, J; Ramanampamonjy, J.M.; Butchart,S;Randrianizahana H.2000.Conservation issues and priorities in the Mikea forest of south-western Madagascar. Oryx 34: 287-304. Siegel,S.;Castellan,N.J.Jr.1988.Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Second edition. MacGraw-Hill, New York. Rediscovery of Sibree’s dwarf lemur in the fragmented forests of Tsinjoarivo, central-eastern Madagascar Marina B. Blanco Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, 240 Hicks Way, Amherst, MA 01003, USA, mbblanco@anthro.umass.edu The recent genetic confirmation of a rare dwarf lemur species, C. sibreei, at Tsinjoarivo is bitter-sweet. The excitement of reporting the first known living population of this species is tainted by conservation concerns, as the forest fragment in which Sibree’s dwarf lemurs were captured is highly disturbed and targeted for illicit logging. This species, like many others inhabiting rapidly degrading forests, faces the serious threat of extinction. Taxonomic background of the genus, first field discovery, and subsequent recognition of C. sibreei During the 19th century,the small nocturnal lemurs of Madagascar were clumped in a chaotic array of species and genera. For most of the 20th century,however,dwarf lemurs (Cheirogaleus) were classified in only two species: the eastern C. major and the western C.medius (Schwarz,1931).Around the turn of the century, Groves (2000) conducted a taxonomic revision of the genus on the basis of morphological analysis of museum specimens and increased the species number to seven: C.medius,C.adipicaudatus,C.major,C.ravus,C.crossleyi, C. minusculus and C. sibreei. This last species, in fact, had been originally described by the Swiss naturalist Forsyth Major in 1896 during one of his expeditions to Madagascar (Forsyth Major, 1896). He had named it Chirogale sibreei in honor of fellow naturalist James Sibree,who had spent more than fifty years in Madagascar and had written extensively about its people, fauna, flora and geology. Forsyth Major published measurements of an individual "obtained from the neighbourhood of Ankeramadinika," a locality vaguely described by its discoverer as "one day’s journey to the east of Antananarivo",but in fact a well-known village at the time,located in the central high plateau on the road that connected Antananarivo to Mahatsara on the east coast (Capitaine "X", 1901). In his taxonomic revision, Groves (2000) included as Cheirogaleus sibreei not only the holotype from Ankeramadinika (currently housed at the Natural History Museum in London) but also three additional specimens (3 skins and 1 skull), two of which came from Ampasindava, northwestern Madagascar, and one from an unclear provenance (Imerina, which refers to a region of the central highlands around Antananarivo). The taxonomic shrinkage of Cheirogaleus The increase in the number of species within the genus Cheirogaleus was not surprising because dwarf lemurs occupy a wide variety of habitats in Madagascar,and their close relatives,the mouse lemurs (Microcebus), had undergone a taxonomic explosion of their own with more than 10 species described during the past <strong>15</strong> years (Louis et al.,2008;Olivieri et al., 2007; Radespiel et al., 2008). However, Groves’ 2000 revision of dwarf lemur taxonomy did not escape criticism, not least of which had to do with the criteria that he used to define species, the lack of reliable locality information from museum specimens, and the absence of on-the-ground surveys to assess geographic boundaries and variation among species (Blanco et al., 2009; Tattersall, 2007). A recent and more comprehensive revision of dwarf lemur taxonomy was carried out by Groeneveld and colleagues, who compiled genetic and morphometric data from field as well as museum specimens from a variety of localities across Madagascar, including some of the specimens studied by Groves (Groeneveld et al., 2009; 2011). This research showed overall consistency between morphological and genetic data in recognizing only three Cheirogaleus species: C. medius, C. major and C. crossleyi. Individuals that previously had been assigned to C. adipicaudatus fell within the C. medius clade, and those named as C.ravus grouped with C.major.Results were inconclusive for C.minusculus and C.sibreei because holotype specimens were not available for sampling and their genetic affiliation could not be determined. Genetic data from one of the C. sibreei museum specimens from Ampasindava linked this specimen to C. medius. Nevertheless, the C. sibreei holotype from Ankeramadinika was larger and did not group morphologically with other C. medius. This suggested that the individuals from Ampasindava may have been misclassified by Groves as C. sibreei (Groeneveld et al., 2010). The status of this species remained equivocal. Second field discovery of C. sibreei, at last The story of a dwarf lemur named "May" told by Mitchell Irwin (2002) turned out to be rather prophetic. Irwin’s research team rescued this dwarf lemur badly burned in a
- Page 2 and 3:
LEMUR NEWS The Newsletter of the Ma
- Page 4 and 5:
Page 2 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 I v
- Page 6 and 7:
Page 4 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 con
- Page 8 and 9:
Page 6 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 www
- Page 10 and 11:
Page 8 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 gui
- Page 12 and 13:
Page 10 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 te
- Page 14 and 15:
Page 12 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 oc
- Page 16 and 17:
Page 14 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Fi
- Page 18 and 19: Page 16 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Cu
- Page 20 and 21: Page 18 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 co
- Page 22 and 23: Page 20 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 ta
- Page 24 and 25: Page 22 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 th
- Page 26 and 27: Page 24 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Fi
- Page 28 and 29: Page 26 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Fi
- Page 30 and 31: Page 28 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 2.
- Page 32 and 33: Page 30 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 An
- Page 34 and 35: Page 32 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Ra
- Page 36 and 37: Page 34 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 fo
- Page 38 and 39: Page 36 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 me
- Page 40 and 41: Page 38 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Di
- Page 42 and 43: Page 40 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Ma
- Page 44 and 45: Page 42 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Do
- Page 46 and 47: Page 44 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Ta
- Page 48 and 49: Page 46 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 we
- Page 50 and 51: Page 48 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Fi
- Page 52 and 53: Page 50 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 la
- Page 54 and 55: Page 52 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 to
- Page 56 and 57: Page 54 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 pr
- Page 58 and 59: Page 56 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Fi
- Page 60 and 61: Page 58 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Ta
- Page 62 and 63: Page 60 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 of
- Page 64 and 65: Page 62 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Fr
- Page 66 and 67: Page 64 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Ma
- Page 70 and 71: Page 68 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 hu
- Page 72 and 73: Page 70 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 Th
- Page 74 and 75: Page 72 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 it
- Page 76 and 77: Page 74 Lemur News Vol. 15, 2010 ca
- Page 78 and 79: Guidelines for authors Lemur News p