EAZA News 57-12 - European Association of Zoos and Aquaria

institutions as possible to read and use the RCP,
the third part consists of a table summarising
all information listed in the ‘Species assessment’
part. The final part is called ‘Additional information’
and is an optional section where TAGs
can inform zoological institutions on contact
details for the programmes, introduce their
specific policies and guidelines and provide
bibliographic references.
The RCP of the Callitrichid TAG
Our TAG covers marmosets, tamarins and
the Goeldi’s monkey (Callimico goeldii ),
consisting of just over sixty taxa. A first RCP for
Callitrichidae was developed in 2002, following
the division of the EAZA Primate TAG into five
smaller TAGs. This RCP was based on the RCP
of the former EAZA Primate TAG. In order to
develop a new RCP, the EAZA TAG Core Group
formed a working group and divided tasks
amongst its members. It was decided that
an assessment of all the taxa covered by the
TAG had to be included in the RCP. In order
to spread the workload, two working groups
were formed; one assessing the genus Saguinus
(33 taxa), the other assessing the marmoset
genera Callithrix, Callibella, Cebuella and
Mico, the lion tamarins, (Leontopithecus) and
the Goeldi’s monkey (28 taxa).
Our philosophy and choice of
taxonomy
The collection planning philosophy argues that
all species under the TAG remit will be actively
managed or monitored. The level of management
will be determined based on the level
of threat in the wild and the educational and
research values. IUCN recommendations will
be followed to decide on the importance of a
new species. Hybrids will be phased out.
There are a number of taxonomic schemes
covering primates and other mammals, and
the Callitrichidae has its share of controversy
and debate. This debate is mainly at the
higher taxonomic levels, including whether
Callitrichidae itself is a valid family. We decided
to use the taxonomy developed by Rylands
et al. (2000) that resulted from a primate
specialist group workshop held in Florida. This
taxonomic scheme is under constant review
and some modifications have taken place since
2000; one notable change being the addition of
the genus Callibella, following its description
in 2002. Anthony Rylands of Conservation
International is advisor to the TAG.
Developing a decision tree
Following long discussions between the
TAG members on the definition of the TAG
philosophy, we defined the criteria involved in
the decision’s process to create programmes
and classified them. The criterion seen as the
most important is the status of species in the
wild. The IUCN Red List is being used as basis
for this criterion. Two levels are considered;
species classified as Vulnerable and higher
levels registered under Threatened. The species
classified under Near Threatened or Least
Concern are considered as Non-threatened.
Secondly, we looked at the status of captive
populations; is the species represented in
captivity, are the populations viable, would
some imports be needed or useful? From
this point, criteria as educational value,
recreational value, research value, quality
of captive populations, space availability and
in situ programmes were added.
Thus, the selected level of management does
not depend only on the category of threat;
a non-threatened species already in EAZA
institutions can receive a high level of
management, whereas a threatened species
not present in EAZA institutions can obtain a
‘Do Not Obtain’ category.
This process is represented in our decision tree
(see Figure 1). Each branch leads to a different
question including all the criteria and subjects
taken into account during the discussions. In
the end, six different answers can be obtained;
EEP, ESB, Monitoring by the TAG, Monitoring
by a person, Do not obtain or Replace.
Species forms and summary table
To address the third part of the standard format,
we developed a standard form to complete,
with all the information needed by zoological
institutions to understand the choice of the
management category; primary role of the
programme, conservation, captive status,
husbandry issues, population goals, research
needs, other comments and conclusion. We
also tried to include a photograph of each
collection planning
Leontopithecus chrysopygus photo bristol zoo
species in the TAG on each species form. The
summary table summarizes the information
on the species forms. In the final part of the
RCP we included the EAZA TAG Core Group
members and their contact details, including
all the species coordinators, the TAG structure
and a number of policies and guidelines.
Not a small task
The development of an RCP is no small task,
and each TAG will tailor the standard format to
an extent, to meet the needs of that particular
group of animals. The RCP of the Callitrichid
TAG will never be a fixed document and will
change depending on a number of factors,
particularly changes of status of species in
the wild. We will formally review the RCP on
a three-year basis, which will give us time to
recover after the effort of writing it. Most of
all, we hope that it will be a really useful and
informative tool for collection managers and
directors for the development of institutional
collection plans. •
Callithrix geoffroyi photo bristol zoo
This article has been abridged and the references were left out due to space limitations. For the original full version of the article including reference details, please refer to the ‘Magazine’ section of the EAZA website.
eaza news 57
2007
13