Translator Disclaimer
1 December 2010 The 2010 Anteater Red List Assessment
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The IUCN/SSC Anteater, Sloth and Armadillo Specialist Group re-assessed the conservation status of the four extant anteater species in May 2010. Three species maintained their Least Concern status. Myrmecophaga tridactyla was listed as Vulnerable due to an estimated reduction in population size of at least 30%. The isolated population of Cyclopes didactylus that inhabits the Atlantic forest of coastal northeastern Brazil was assessed separately for the first time due to its separation from the main population by over 1000 km. Although its habitat has been severely reduced, it was classified as Data Deficient due to the lack of scientific data. The main threats to the long-term survival of anteaters is habitat degradation and fragmentation, wildfires, traffic accidents, hunting, and their capture for illegal trade and maintenance as pets. Education programs are in place for three species. Basic questions on the taxonomy, population dynamics, life history, and how hunting and extraction of wild individuals affects anteater populations still remain unresolved.

The IUCN/SSC Anteater, Sloth and Armadillo Specialist Group re-assessed the conservation status of the four extant anteater species in May 2010. Version 3.1 of the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN, 2001) was used in all cases. A total of 13 researchers provided data on the geographic range, population size and status, habitat and ecology, threats, and existing conservation measures of anteaters. All evaluations were checked for consistency by at least two specialists.

The major change from the 2004 assessment (Fonseca and Aguiar, 2004) to the one presented here consists in the separate evaluation of the coastal northeastern Brazil population of Cyclopes didactylus. The latter is separated from the main population by over 1000 km, and may be sufficiently differentiated at the genetic level to represent a separate Evolutionary Significant Unit. Due to rapid deforestation in the area, we considered it appropriate to evaluate it apart from the main population. However, knowledge on the ecology and conservation status of the coastal Brazil population is virtually non-existent, and field research is urgently needed to correctly assess the long-term chances of survival of this smallest of all anteaters.

Three species maintained their Least Concern status (Table 1). The coastal northeastern Brazil subpopulation of C. didactylus was assessed for the first time and classified as Data Deficient due to the lack of data. Based on the observed habitat loss, it is inferred that its populations are declining (Table 1). Myrmecophaga tridactyla returned to its 1996 category (Vulnerable) due to an estimated reduction in population size of at least 30% and the fact that it is listed in a threat category in almost all regional and national Red Lists within its range. Sixty percent of the assessed anteater species and populations are now classified as Least Concern. However, it should be noted that their population trend is unknown (Table 1).

Giant anteaters, tamanduas, and silky anteaters are subjected to similar threats. Habitat degradation and fragmentation are affecting all assessed anteaters (Fig. 1). Similarly, all anteaters are hunted for food, persecuted as pest species, or captured for illegal trade or to maintain them as pets. Three out of five assessed anteaters are affected by wildfires and killed on roads (Fig. 1).

Basic questions on the taxonomy, population dynamics, life history, and how hunting and extraction of wild individuals affects anteater populations still remain unresolved (Fig. 2). It is interesting to note that education programs are in place for three out of five anteaters (Fig. 3) but only one out of 21 armadillo species (Abba and Superina, 2010). Similarly, ex situ conservation programs are proportionally more frequent for anteaters than for armadillos. Two species are included in the CITES Appendices: Myrmecophaga tridactyla is listed in Appendix II, and the Guatemalan populations of Tamandua mexicana are listed in Appendix III (CITES, 2009). No action recovery, harvest management or area-based management plans exist for any assessed anteater.

We thank all researchers, graduate students, rangers, and enthusiasts who participated in the 2010 Anteater Red List Assessment. Detailed species descriptions and updated range maps can be found on the following pages.

Figure 1.

Main threats affecting wild anteaters. Note that the northeastern Brazil population of C. didactylus is counted as a species.

f01_96.eps

Figure 2.

Research priorities for anteaters. Note that the northeastern Brazil population of C. didactylus is counted as a species.

f02_96.eps

Figure 3.

Existing conservation actions for anteaters. Note that the northeastern Brazil population of C. didactylus is counted as a species.

f03_96.eps

Table 1.

Historical overview of the Red List categories and current population trends of the four anteater species. See glossary for definitions of the categories.

t01_96.gif

Cyclopes didactylus, main population

Least Concern (LC)

Photograph: Flávia Miranda

f09_96.eps

Common Names: Silky anteater (English), pygmy anteater (English), serafín (Spanish), serafín del platanar (Spanish), inti pelejo (Spanish), tamanduaí (Portuguese), tamandua-cigarra (Portuguese).

Assessment Rationale: C. didactylus is listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, presumed large population, its occurrence in a number of protected areas, its tolerance of a degree of habitat modification, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a threatened category.

Taxonomic Note: There are seven subspecies of C. didactylus (Gardner, 2007).

Geographic Range: C. didactylus occurs from Mexico (Veracruz and Oaxaca) throughout Central America. West of the Andes, it occurs from Colombia to southern Ecuador. East of the Andes, it can be found in Venezuela, Trinidad Island, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Brazil (Acre to western Maranhão), and as far south as Bolivia (La Paz and Santa Cruz; Fig. 4). The species has not been recorded from El Salvador and it is unclear if the species was ever present there. It has been recorded from sea level up to 1,500 m asl. There is a population of C. didactylus on the northeastern coast of Brazil; it is evaluated separately due to its isolation from the main population (see below). The extent of occurrence of the main population is approximately 7,600,000 km2.

Population: Not much is known about the wild populations of C. didactylus.

Habitats and Ecology: This nocturnal and arboreal species occurs in semi-deciduous and evergreen tropical moist lowland forest, gallery forest, and mangrove forest. It can be found in secondary forest habitat. Adults are solitary; the home range of a male overlaps the home range of three females (Montgomery, 1983, 1985a). The females give birth to a single young once per year.

Threats: Although general deforestation is taking place over many parts of its range, C. didactylus remains widespread in the Amazon Basin and there are currently no major threats to the survival of this small anteater. In some areas it is captured and kept as a pet species, although it usually does not survive long in captivity.

Conservation: C. didactylus is present in a number of protected areas.

Assessors: Miranda, F. and Meritt Jr., D.A.

Evaluators: Superina, M. and Bermúdez Larrazabal, L.

Contributors: Tirira, D. and Arteaga, M.C.

Figure 4.

Cyclopes didactylus, main population. Based on Cabrera (1957); Hall (1981); Wetzel (1982); Eisenberg (1989); Nowak (1991); Pacheco et al. (1995); Anderson (1997); Emmons and Feer (1997); Reid (1997); Eisenberg and Redford (1999); Engstrom and Lim (2000); Lord (2000); Ceballos and Oliva (2005); Gardner (2007); Tirira (2007); Aguiar and Fonseca (2008); Reid (2009).

f04_96.eps

Cyclopes didactylus, Northeastern Brazil subpopulation

Data Deficient (DD)

Photograph: Flávia Miranda

f10_96.eps

Common Names: Silky anteater (English), pygmy anteater (English), tamanduaí (Portuguese), tamandua-cigarra (Portuguese).

Assessment Rationale: There is no doubt that rapid and ongoing deforestation of the Atlantic forest is negatively affecting the northeastern population of C. didactylus, as the species cannot survive in the sugar cane plantations that are replacing the native vegetation in this area and the remaining patches of suitable habitat are increasingly fragmented. It is therefore highly probable that this population requires listing in a threatened category. The lack of basic data on its ecology, population size and density, however, currently do not allow a realistic assessment of its conservation status. The northeastern population of C. didactylus is therefore classified as Data Deficient. Field studies are urgently needed to confirm the taxonomic status of this population and to obtain sufficient information for an appropriate assessment of its conservation status.

Taxonomic Note: The taxonomic status of this isolated population of C. didactylus needs to be confirmed.

Geographic Range: This subpopulation of the silky anteater occurs in coastal northeastern Brazil, in the states of Paraíba, Pernambuco, Alagoas and Rio Grande do Norte (Miranda and Superina, 2010; Fig. 5). It is isolated from the main silky anteater population by approximately 1,000 km. The extent of occurrence of this subpopulation is approximately 25,000 km2.

Population: No data are available on the population size or density of this isolated population of C. didactylus. Ongoing deforestation is likely to further fragment the habitat and decimate the wild population of this smallest of all anteaters.

Habitats and Ecology: The northeastern subpopulation of C. didactylus is restricted to tropical moist lowland forests. Nothing is known about its biology or ecology.

Threats: This population of silky anteaters is threatened by rapid deforestation of its suitable habitat (Atlantic forest) due to the increase in sugar cane plantations, which, in addition to direct habitat loss, also leads to habitat fragmentation and degradation. Only five percent of the original extent of suitable habitat remain intact (Galindo-Leal and De Gusmão Câmara, 2003). The current area of Atlantic forest in the range states amounts to approximately 3,000 km2 (Campanili and Prochnow, 2006). Furthermore, silky anteaters are captured for illegal trade (Miranda, pers. comm., 2010).

Conservation: There are no State or National parks within the range of the northeastern Brazil subpopulation of C. didactylus. Projeto Tamanduá (Brazil) is performing awareness programs in the area.

Assessors: Miranda, F. and Superina, M.

Evaluators: Bermúdez Larrazabal, L. and Meritt Jr., D.A.

Figure 5.

Cyclopes didactylus, northeastern Brazil subpopulation. Based on Wetzel (1982); Wetzel (1985); Fonseca et al. (1996); Gardner (2007); Aguiar and Fonseca (2008); Miranda and Superina (2010).

f05_96.eps

Myrmecophaga tridactyla

Vulnerable (VU A2c)

Photograph: Flávia Miranda

f11_96.eps

Common Names: Giant anteater (English), oso hormiguero (Spanish), oso palmero (Spanish), oso caballo (Spanish), hormiguero gigante (Spanish), banderón caballo (Spanish), tamanduá bandeira (Portuguese), grand fourmilier (French), tamanoir (French).

Assessment Rationale: M. tridactyla is geographically widespread, but there have been many records of population extirpation, especially in Central America (where it is considered the most threatened mammal) and the southern parts of its range. The dietary specificity, low reproductive rates, large body size, along with threats to habitat degradation in many parts of its range, have proved to be significant factors in its decline. The giant anteater is currently listed in a threatened category in virtually all regional and national Red Lists. A population loss of at least 30% over the past 10 years has been estimated based on local extinctions, habitat loss, and deaths caused by fires and roadkills. Because of the real threats to this species and the noticeable declines, a precautionary assessment of Vulnerable is given. More data and population monitoring is required for this species, and a re-assessment is recommended as soon as additional information becomes available.

Taxonomic Note: Three subspecies are recognized by Gardner (2007).

Geographic Range: M. tridactyla has been recorded from Honduras in Central America, south through South America to the Gran Chaco region of Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina (Fig. 6). Within Central America, the species has disappeared from much of its range, with recent sightings generally confined to highland regions. Its presence in Ecuador west of the Andes needs to be confirmed. Its extent of occurrence is estimated at 12,500,000 km2.

Population: M. tridactyla is locally uncommon to rare. Habitat loss, roadkills, and wildfires are substantially affecting the wild populations and have led to a continuing decline in mature individuals. A population reduction of 30% has been estimated based on criterion A2c (see glossary). The causes for this population reduction are understood and have not ceased; it is unknown whether they are reversible.

Habitats and Ecology: This terrestrial anteater is found in tropical moist forest, dry forest, savanna habitats and open grasslands; it has also been reported from the Gran Chaco (Meritt, 2008; Noss et al., 2008). Conversion of suitable habitat to soybean and sugarcane plantations is affecting the Brazilian subpopulations. There is also habitat loss in other range countries. Animals are generally solitary. Males and females reach reproductive maturity at two years of age. Once per year, the female gives birth to a single young. Gestation length is about 190 days. The mother carries the offspring on its back for approximately six months. As it is not possible to determine their age once they reach adult size and long-term population studies on giant anteaters are lacking, there are no data on the longevity, survival rates, or reproductive rates of wild giant anteaters. The generation length is therefore unknown.

Threats: M. tridactyla is at risk from habitat loss in parts of its range, and this is a significant threat to Central American populations in particular. Where this species inhabits grassland habitats it is particularly susceptible to fires. Animals are sometimes killed on roads or by dogs. Giant anteaters are hunted for food throughout their distribution; this is especially true in the Caatinga area of Brazil. They are additionally hunted as a pest species, for pets or for illegal trade in some parts of their range. Their skin is sometimes used to manufacture harnesses and other leather products.

Conservation: M. tridactyla is listed on Appendix II of CITES. It has been recorded from many protected areas. It is listed on several national Red Lists, and is protected as a national heritage species in some provinces in Argentina. The giant anteater is considered the most threatened mammal of Central America; it seems to be extinct in Belize and Guatemala, and probably also in Costa Rica. In South America, this species is extinct in Uruguay (Fallabrino and Castiñeira, 2006) and in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil (Cherem et al., 2004). It is classified as Critically Endangered in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Fontana et al., 2003) but will be categorized as Extinct in the next update of this state's Red List (C. Kasper, pers. comm., 2009). There is a need to improve fire management practices, especially in sugarcane plantations and within the regions of grassland habitat occupied by this species. A Population Management Plan is in place in North American zoos and is being initiated in Brazil.

Assessors: Miranda, F. and Medri, I.M.

Evaluators: Superina, M. and Abba, A.M.

Contributor: Kasper, C.

Figure 6.

Myrmecophaga tridactyla. Blue: areas where the species is possibly extinct. Based on Sanborn (1953); Hall (1981); Wetzel (1982); Wetzel (1985); Eisenberg (1989); Anderson (1997); Emmons and Feer (1997); Reid (1997); Engstrom and Lim (2000); McCain (2002); Anonymous (2003); Fontana et al. (2003); INBio-SINAC (2003); INBio (2007); Cherem et al. (2004); Mikich and Bernils (2004); Fallabrino and Castiñeira (2006); Gardner (2007); Tirira (2007); Aguiar and Fonseca (2008); Koster (2008); Meritt (2008); Noss et al. (2008); Pérez-Jimeno and Llarín Amaya (2009); Smith (2009); Tarifa (2009). A. M. Abba, pers. comm. (2009); C. B. Kasper, pers. comm. (2009); N. Moraes-Barros, pers. comm. (2009); Í. M. Medri, pers. comm. (2009).

f06_96.eps

Tamandua mexicana

Least Concern (LC)

Photograph: Santiago Escobar

f12_96.eps

Common Names: Northern tamandua (English), tamandúa (Spanish), oso melero (Spanish), oso mielero (Spanish), oso hormiguero (Spanish).

Assessment Rationale: T. mexicana is listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, presumed large population, its occurrence in a number of protected areas, its tolerance of a degree of habitat modification, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a threatened category.

Taxonomic Note: Wetzel (1982) recognizes five subspecies of T. mexicana. Further taxonomic work is needed for this species.

Geographic Range: T. mexicana ranges from southern Mexico in the north of its range, through Central America as far south as northwestern Peru and northwestern Venezuela (Fig. 7). It ranges from sea level to 2,000 m asl, although most sightings have been recorded from areas below 1,000 m asl (Cuervo-Díaz et al., 1986; Eisenberg, 1989, Cuarón, 2005; Tirira, 2007). Its extent of occurrence is approximately 1,500,000 km2.

Population: The northern tamandua is common in appropriate habitat. It is, however, considered uncommon in Ecuador (Tirira, 2007, 2008), where populations are highly fragmented. Population density estimates vary from 0.06 individuals per hectare in Costa Rica (Guariguata et al., 2002) to 0.13 individuals per hectare in Panama (Montgomery, 1985a). Its home range has been estimated at 25 hectares in Central America and Ecuador (Montgomery, 1985a; Tirira, 2007) and 70 hectares in Panama (Eisenberg, 1989).

Habitats and Ecology: T. mexicana is found in tropical and subtropical dry and moist forest, including mixed deciduous and evergreen habitats. It can also be found in mangroves and grassland with some trees. It can survive in secondary forests and in disturbed habitats. The most common coloration is tan with a black vest on back and sides (Wetzel, 1985) but uniformly tan individuals without vest also occur. T. mexicana can move, feed and rest on the ground and trees (Lubin and Montgomery, 1981; Montgomery, 1985a, 1985b). It also swims (Esser et al., 2010). The females give birth to one young at any time of the year (Reid, 1997). Gestation length estimates vary between 130 and 150 days (Silveira, 1969). The mating behavior has been described by Matlaga (2006).

Threats: Roadkills, wildfires and habitat change are affecting this arboreal anteater, but the scope of these threats is unknown. In rural Ecuador, T. mexicana is persecuted because it attacks domestic dogs when defending itself (Tirira, 2007). It is used as a pet species in southern Mexico (Lira-Torres, 2006), and indigenous people may hunt it for food in some areas (Espinoza et al., 2003; Méndez-Cabrera and Montiel, 2007).

Conservation: The population of T. mexicana in Guatemala is listed on Appendix III of CITES. It has been recorded from several protected areas, among them Soberanía National Park (Panamá), Machalilla National Park, and the Ecological Reserves Arenillas, Cotacachi-Cayapas, Mache-Chindul and Manglares Churute (all in Ecuador; Tirira, 2007).

Assessors: Miranda, F. and Superina, M.

Evaluators: Tirira, D. and Ortega Reyes, J.

Contributors: Arteaga, M.C.

Figure 7.

Tamandua mexicana. Based on Hall (1981); Wetzel (1982); Wetzel (1985); Cuervo-Díaz et al. (1986); Eisenberg (1989); Pacheco et al. (1995); Emmons and Feer (1997); Reid (1997); Alberico et al. (2000); Cuarón (2005); Gardner (2007); Tirira (2007); Aguiar and Fonseca (2008).

f07_96.eps

Tamandua tetradactyla

Least Concern (LC)

Photograph: Monalisa Duarte

f13_96.eps

Common Names: Southern tamandua (English), tamandua (English), collared anteater (English), lesser anteater (English), tamanduá (Spanish), oso melero (Spanish), brazo fuerte (Spanish), hormiguero de collar (Spanish), tamandúa de collar (Spanish), tamanduá-mirim (Portuguese), tamanduá de colete (Portuguese), mambira (Portuguese), fourmilier à collier (French), tamandou tétradactyle (French), tamandou à quatre doigts (French).

Assessment Rationale: T. tetradactyla is listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, presumed large population, its occurrence in a number of protected areas, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a threatened category.

Taxonomic Note: There are four subspecies of T. tetradactyla (Gardner, 2007).

Geographic Range: T. tetradactyla is found to the east of the Andes from Colombia, Venezuela, Trinidad Island, and the Guianas (French Guiana, Guyana, and Suriname), south to northern Uruguay and northern Argentina (Fig. 8). It ranges from sea level to 2,000 m asl (Emmons and Feer, 1990). The extent of occurrence of this species is approximately 12,800,000 km2.

Population: T. tetradactyla is a relatively common species.

Habitats and Ecology: The southern anteater is adaptable to a variety of habitats, including gallery forests adjacent to savannas, and lowland and montane moist tropical rain forest (Eisenberg, 1989). It can also be found in mangroves (F. Miranda, pers. comm., 2010).

Typically, this solitary species has pale tan or golden fur with a black vest, but uniformly tan to black coloration also occurs (Wetzel, 1985). It mainly feeds on ants and termites, but also attacks bees nests to eat honey (Emmons and Feer, 1990). Both genders reach sexual maturity at two years of age. The female gives birth to a single young once per year (Silveira, 1968). Gestation length estimates vary from 130 to 150 days.

Threats: There are no major threats to this small anteater, although in some portions of its range it is hunted for meat, by domestic dogs, or (inappropriately) used as a pet species (Aguiar and Fonseca, 2008; Noss et al., 2008; D.A. Meritt Jr., pers. comm., 2010). Tamanduas that are found in the wild are donated or sold to private persons or zoos, and may be involved in animal traffic. Habitat loss and degradation, wildfires, and road traffic represent a threat in some areas. In Uruguay, T. tetradactyla is affected by habitat loss due to the increase in eucalyptus plantations (A. Fallabrino, pers. comm., 2010).

Conservation: T. tetradactyla is present in a number of protected areas. Further systematic studies on the southern tamandua are needed to investigate population densities and dynamics in different parts of its range. Studbooks for captive tamanduas exist in some range countries, and a Population Management Plan has been established in AZA zoos.

Assessors: Miranda, F. and Meritt Jr., D.A.

Evaluators: Fallabrino, A. and Superina, M.

Contributors: Fallabrino, A., Tirira, D., Arteaga, M.C. and Rogel, T.

Figure 8.

Tamandua tetradactyla. Based on Sanborn (1953); Wetzel (1982); Wetzel (1985); Eisenberg (1989); Emmons and Feer (1990); Pacheco et al. (1995); Anderson (1997); Alberico et al. (2000); Engstrom and Lim (2000); Agüero et al. (2003); Fallabrino and Castiñeira (2006); Vizcaíno et al. (2006); Fra et al. (2007); Gardner (2007); Aguiar and Fonseca (2008); Tirira (1999); Noss et al. (2008); Fallabrino et al. (2009); Smith (2009); Torres et al. (2009). A. Agüero, pers. comm. (2009); T. Rogel, pers. comm. (2009).

f08_96.eps

Acknowledgements:

This assessment was partially funded by Conservation International. M.S. and A.M.A. are supported by CONICET.

References

  1. A. M. Abba and M. Superina 2010. The 2009/2010 Armadillo Red List Assessment. Edentata 11: 135–184. Google Scholar

  2. J. A. Agüero , J. V. Díaz and D. González 2003. Presencia y características del habitat asociadas a Tamandua tetradactyla en las Sierras de los Llanos de La Rioja, Argentina. In: XVIII Jornadas Argentinas de Mastozoología , p. 81. Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos, La Rioja, Argentina. Google Scholar

  3. J. M. Aguiar and G. A. B. da. Fonseca 2008. Conservation status of the Xenarthra. In: The Biology of the Xenarthra , S. F. Vizcaíno and W. J. Loughry (eds.), pp. 215–231. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Google Scholar

  4. M. Alberico , A. Cadena , J. Hernández-Camacho and Y. Muñoz-Saba 2000. Mamíferos (Synapsida: Theria) de Colombia. Biota Colombiana 1: 43–75. Google Scholar

  5. S. Anderson 1997. Mammals of Bolivia: Taxonomy and distribution. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 231: 1–652. Google Scholar

  6. Anonymous. 2003. Giant anteater sighting. Edentata 5: 63. Google Scholar

  7. A. Cabrera 1957. Catálogo de los mamíferos de América del Sur: I (Metatheria-Unguiculata-Carnivora). Rev. Mus. Arg. Cs. Nat., C. Zool. 4: 1–307. Google Scholar

  8. M. Campanili and M. Prochnow 2006. Mata Atlânticauma Rede pela Floresta. Rede de ONGs da Mata Atlântica, Brasília. Google Scholar

  9. G. Ceballos and G. Oliva 2005. Los Mamíferos Silvestres de México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad y Fondo de Cultura Económica, México. Google Scholar

  10. J. J. Cherem , S. A. Simões-Lopes and M. E. Graipel 2004. Lista dos mamíferos do Estado de Santa Catarina, sul do Brasil. Mastozool. Neotrop. 11: 151–184. Google Scholar

  11. CITES. 2009. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Available at < http://www.cites.org>. Google Scholar

  12. A. D. Cuarón 2005. Tamandua mexicana (Saussure, 1860) Oso hormiguero. In: Los Mamíferos Silvestres de México , G. Ceballos and G. Oliva (eds.), pp. 121–123. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad y Fondo de Cultura Económica, México. Google Scholar

  13. A. Cuervo-Díaz , J. Hernández-Camacho and A. Cadena-G. 1986. Lista actualizada de los mamíferos de Colombia: anotaciones sobre su distribución. Caldasia 15: 471–502. Google Scholar

  14. J. F. Eisenberg 1989. Mammals of the Neotropics, Volume 1. The Northern Neotropics: Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana. . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Google Scholar

  15. J. F. Eisenberg and K. H. Redford 1999. Mammals of the Neotropics, Volume 3. The Central Neotropics: Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Google Scholar

  16. L. H. Emmons and F. Feer 1990. Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Google Scholar

  17. L. H. Emmons and F. Feer 1997. Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide. Second edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Google Scholar

  18. M. Engstrom and B. Lim 2000. Checklist of the Mammals of Guyana. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Google Scholar

  19. E. Espinoza , E. Cruz , Kramsky H. and I. Sánchez 2003. Mastofauna de la Reserva de la Biósfera “La Encrucijada”, Chiapas. Rev. Mex. Mastozool. 7: 5–19. Google Scholar

  20. H. Esser , D. Brown and Y. Liefting 2010. Swimming in the northern tamandua (Tamandua mexicana) in Panama. Edentata 11: 70–72. Google Scholar

  21. A. Fallabrino and E. Castiñeira 2006. Situación de los Edentados en Uruguay. Edentata 7: 1–3. Google Scholar

  22. A. Fallabrino , D. Hernández , M. J. Andrade , J. Castro , H. Coitiño , M. Cosse , A. P. Arevalo and F. Montenegro 2009. Status of the xenarthras in Uruguay. In: 10th International Mammalogical Congress (IMC10) , p. 210. GIB-IADIZA, Mendoza, Argentina. Google Scholar

  23. G. A. B. da Fonseca and J. M. Aguiar 2004. The 2004 Edentate Species Assessment Workshop. Edentata 6: 1–26. Google Scholar

  24. G. A. B. da Fonseca , G. Herrmann , Y. L. R Leite , R. A. Mittermeier, A. B. Rylands and J. L. Patton 1996. Lista anotada dos mamíferos do Brasil. Occasional Papers in Conservation Biology 4: 1–38. Google Scholar

  25. C. S. Fontana , G. A. Bencke and R. E. Reis 2003. Livro Vermelho da Fauna Ameaçada de Extinção no Rio Grande do Sul. EDIPUCRS, Porto Alegre. Google Scholar

  26. E. A. Fra , R. S. Salinas and C. A. Barrionuevo 2007. Acerca de la presencia y distribución del oso melero (Tamandua tetradactyla) en la provincia de Catamarca. In: XXI Jornadas Argentinas de Mastozoología , pp. 200–201. Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos, Tafí del Valle, Tucumán, Argentina. Google Scholar

  27. C. Galindo-Leal and I. De Gusmão Câmara (eds.). 2003. The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity Status, Threats, and Outlook. State of the Hotspots. Island Press, CABS/CI, Washington, DC, USA. Google Scholar

  28. A. L. Gardner 2007. Magnorder Xenarthra. In: Mammals of South America , A. L. Gardner (ed.) , pp. 127–176. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Google Scholar

  29. M. R. Guariguata , H. Arias-Le Claire and G. Jones 2002. Tree seed fate in a logged and fragmented forest landscape, northeastern Costa Rica. Biotropica 34: 405–415. Google Scholar

  30. E. R. Hall 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Google Scholar

  31. INBio. 2007. Myrmecophaga tridactyla Linnaeus, 1758 (Oso caballo, oso hormiguero). Available at: < http://darnis.inbio.ac.cr/FMPro?-DB=UBIpub.fp3&-lay=WebAll&-Format=/ubi/detail.html&-Op=bw&id=1617&-Find>. Google Scholar

  32. INBio-SINAC. 2003. Revisión del Estado de Conservación de los Mamíferos de Costa Rica y Delimitación de Prioridades de Investigación. INBio-SINAC, San José de Costa Rica. Google Scholar

  33. IUCN . 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Google Scholar

  34. J. Koster 2008. Giant anteaters (Myrmecophaga tridactyla) killed by hunters with dogs in the Bosawas Biosphere Reserve, Nicaragua. Southwest. Nat. 53: 414–416. Google Scholar

  35. I. Lira-Torres 2006. Abundancia, densidad, preferencia de hábitat y uso local de los vertebrados en La Tuza de Monroy, Santiago Jamiltepec, Oaxaca. Rev. Mex. Mastozool. 10: 41–66. Google Scholar

  36. R. Lord 2000. Wild Mammals of Venezuela. C. A. Armitano Editores , Caracas, Venezuela. Google Scholar

  37. Y. D. Lubin and G. G. Montgomery 1981. Defenses of Nasutitermes termites (Isoptera, Termitidae) against Tamandua anteaters (Edentata, Myrmecophagidae). Biotropica 13: 66–76. Google Scholar

  38. D. Matlaga 2006. Mating behavior of the northern tamandua (Tamandua mexicana) in Costa Rica. Edentata 7: 46–48. Google Scholar

  39. C. M. McCain 2002. First evidence of the giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla) in Honduras. Southwest. Nat. 46: 252–254. Google Scholar

  40. F. Méndez-Cabrera and S. Montiel 2007. Diagnóstico preliminar de la fauna y flora silvestre utilizada por la población maya de dos comunidades costeras de Campeche, México. Universidad y Ciencia, Trópico Húmedo 23: 127–139. Google Scholar

  41. D. A. Meritt Jr. 2008. Xenarthrans of the Paraguayan Chaco. In: The Biology of the Xenarthra , S. F. Vizcaíno and W. J. Loughry (eds.) , pp. 294–299. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Google Scholar

  42. S. B. Mikich and R. S. Bernils 2004. Livro Vermelho da Fauna Ameaçada no Estado do Paraná. Instituto Ambiental do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. Google Scholar

  43. F. Miranda and M. Superina 2010. New distribution records of the silky anteater Cyclopes didactylus (Mammalia, Pilosa, Cyclopedidae) in coastal northeastern Brazil. Mastozool. Neotrop. 17: 381–384. Google Scholar

  44. G. G. Montgomery 1983. Cyclopes didactylus (Tapacara, serafín de platanar, silky anteater). In: Costa Rican Natural History , D. H. Janzen (ed.) , pp. 461–463. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Google Scholar

  45. G. G. Montgomery 1985a. Movements, foraging and food habits of the four extant species of neotropical vermilinguas (Mammalia; Myrmecophagidae). In: The Evolution and Ecology of Armadillos, Sloths, and Armadillos , G. G. Montgomery (ed.) , pp. 365–377. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Google Scholar

  46. G. G. Montgomery 1985b. Impact of vermilinguas (Cyclopes, Tamandua: Xenarthra = Edentata) on arboreal ant populations. In: The Evolution and Ecology of Armadillos, Sloths, and Armadillos, G. G. Montgomery (ed.) , pp. 351–363. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Google Scholar

  47. A. J. Noss , R. L. Cuéllar and E. Cuéllar 2008. Exploitation of xenarthrans by the Guarani-Isoseño indigenous people of the Bolivian Chaco: comparisons with hunting by other indigenous groups in Latin America, and implications for conservation. In: The Biology of the Xenarthra , S. F. Vizcaíno and W. J. Loughry (eds.) , pp. 244–254. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Google Scholar

  48. Nowak, R. M. 1991. Walker's Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Google Scholar

  49. V. Pacheco , H. de Macedo , E. Vivar , C. F. Ascorra , R. Arana-Cardó and S. Solari 1995. Lista anotada de los mamíferos peruanos. Occasional Papers in Conservation Biology 2: 1–35. Google Scholar

  50. G. Pérez-Jimeno and L. Llarín Amaya 2009. Contribución al conocimiento de la distribución del oso hormiguero gigante (Myrmecophaga tridactyla) en Argentina. Edentata 8–10: 8–12. Google Scholar

  51. F. Reid 1997. A Field Guide to the Mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico. Oxford University Press, New York. Google Scholar

  52. F. Reid 2009. A Field Guide to the Mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico. Second edition. Oxford University Press, New York. Google Scholar

  53. C. C. Sanborn 1953. Mammals from the Departments of Cuzco and Puno, Peru. Publicaciones del Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Serie A Zoología 12: 1–8. Google Scholar

  54. E. K. P. da. Silveira 1968. Notas sobre a historia natural do tamanduá mirim (Tamandua tetradactyla chiriquensis J. A. Allen 1904, Myrmecophagidae), com referências à fauna do Istmo do Panamá. Velozia 6: 9–31. Google Scholar

  55. E. K. P. da. Silveira 1969. História natural do tamanduá-bandeira, Myrmecophaga tridactyla Linn. 1758, Myrmecophagidae. Velozia 7: 34–43. Google Scholar

  56. P. Smith 2009. Handbook of the Mammals of Paraguay. Vol. 2: Xenarthra. Available at < http://www.faunaparaguay.com>. Google Scholar

  57. T. Tarifa 2009. Myrmecophaga tridactyla. In: Libro Rojo de la Fauna Silvestre de Vertebrados de Bolivia , L. F. Aguirre , R. Aguayo , J. A. Balderrama , C. Cortez , T. Tarifa and O. Rocha O (eds.) , pp. 141–144. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua, La Paz, Bolivia. Google Scholar

  58. D. Tirira 2007. Guía de Campo de los Mamíferos del Ecuador. Publicación especial sobre los mamíferos del Ecuador 6. Ediciones Murciélago Blanco, Quito, Ecuador. Google Scholar

  59. D. Tirira 2008. Mamíferos de los Bosques Húmedos del Noroccidente de Ecuador. Ediciones Murciélago Blanco y Proyecto PRIMENET, Quito, Ecuador. Google Scholar

  60. R. Torres , J. Monguillot , G. Bruno , P. Michelutti and A. Ponce 2009. Ampliación del límite austral de la distribución del oso melero (Tamandua tetradactyla) en la Argentina. Nótulas Faunísticas, Segunda Serie 39: 1–5. Google Scholar

  61. S. F. Vizcaíno , A. M. Abba and C. M. García Esponda 2006. Magnaorden Xenarthra. In: Mamíferos de Argentina: Sistemática y Distribución , R. M. Barquez , M. M. Díaz and R. A. Ojeda (eds.), pp. 46–56. Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos, San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina. Google Scholar

  62. R. M. Wetzel 1982. Systematics, distribution, ecology, and conservation of South American edentates. In: Mammalian Biology in South America , M. A. Mares and H. H. Genoways (eds.) , pp. 345–375. Special Publication Series of the Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Google Scholar

  63. R. M. Wetzel 1985. The identification and distribution of recent Xenarthra (=Edentata). In: The Evolution and Ecology of Armadillos, Sloths, and Vermilinguas , G. G. Montgomery (ed.) , pp. 5–21. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Google Scholar

Mariella Superina, Flávia Regina Miranda, and Agustín Manuel Abba "The 2010 Anteater Red List Assessment," Edentata 11(2), 96-114, (1 December 2010). https://doi.org/10.5537/020.011.0201
Published: 1 December 2010
JOURNAL ARTICLE
19 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top