Technical ReportPDF Available

Patas monkey (Erythrocebus patas)

Authors:
  • Eastern Africa Primate Diversity and Conservation Program, Kenya
  • Lolldaiga Hills Research Programme, Sustainability Centre Eastern Africa

Abstract

De Jong, Y.A., Rylands, A.B. & Butynski, T.M. 2020. Erythrocebus patas. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T174391079A17940998. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2020: T174391079A17940998
Scope(s): Global
Language: English
Erythrocebus patas, Patas Monkey
Assessment by: de Jong, Y.A., Rylands, A.B. & Butynski, T.M.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: de Jong, Y.A., Rylands, A.B. & Butynski, T.M. 2020. Erythrocebus patas. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2020: e.T174391079A17940998. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-
2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
Copyright: © 2020 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State
University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe;
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
Taxonomy
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primates Cercopithecidae
Scientific Name:ÊÊErythrocebus patas (Schreber, 1774)
Synonym(s):
Simia patas Schreber, 1774
Common Name(s):
• English: Patas Monkey, Hussar Monkey, Nisnas, Patas, Singe rouge
• Spanish; Castilian: Mono Patas
• German: Husarenaffe
Taxonomic Notes:
Schwarz (1927) placed all the currently recognised Patas Monkeys as subspecies of Erythrocebus patas
(Schreber, 1775). Napier and Napier (1967) listed the Patas Monkey as comprising one species, with four
subspecies: E. p. patas (Schreber, 1775), E. p. pyrrhonotus (Hemprich and Erhenberg, 1829), E. p.
baumstarki Matschie, 1906, and E. p. villiersi Dekeyser, 1950. Verheyen (1962), Dandelot (1968, 1974),
and Kingdon (1971, 1997) also recognised these four subspecies, but listed Erythrocebus as a subgenus
of Cercopithecus. This was, based, evidently, on the indication of paraphyly with such species as Grivet
Monkey Chlorocebus aethiops, Vervet Monkey Chlorocebus pygerythrus, and l'Hoest’s Monkey
Allochrocebus lhoesti that were, at that time, all considered members of the genus Cercopithecus
(Disotell 2000). This was resolved by the reinstatement of the genus Chlorocebus Gray, 1870, for the
Grivet, Vervet, and other species of Savanna Monkeys, and the genus Allochrocebus Elliot, 1913, for
l’Hoest’s Monkey and other species of Mountain Monkeys.
Grubb et al. (2003) recorded that Schwarz (1927) revised the systematics of the Patas Monkey and
recognised three subspecies (those cited above except for E. p. villiersi, from the Aïr Massif, central
northern Niger). They concluded these subspecies “do not appear to be well-founded, so further
research into their status is needed” (p.1328), and listed them as synonyms of E. patas. Groves (2001,
2005) cited Loy (1987) as showing that the colours of the face and nose change during pregnancy and,
believing that this covered “at least some of the supposed subspecific variation” (p.199), listed the
subspecies as junior synonyms of a monotypic E. patas, as did Kingdon et al. (2008). Isbell (2013)
pointed out, however, that, while Loy (1974) believed that the captive Patas in his care were from
Ethiopia (corresponding to the range then believed to be of E. p. pyrrhonotus), Goldman and Loy (1997,
J. Loy. pers. comm. in Isbell 2013) subsequently reported they were, in fact, from Nigeria (corresponding
to the range of E. p. patas). Isbell et al. (2009) found that the facial colour of female E. p. pyrrhonotus in
Kenya does not change with reproductive status, and the nose remains white once they are adult,
distinguishing them from the black-nosed E. p. patas and E. p. baumstarki.
Isbell (1998, 2013) recognised E. p. pyrrhonotus (Eastern Patas) as occurring in Kenya, as did De Jong et
al. (2008) who recorded its range as central and eastern Africa (South Sudan, southeastern Sudan,
northeastern Democratic Republic of Congo, western Ethiopia and northern Uganda), including western,
northwestern, southern and central Kenya. De Jong et al. (2009) and Isbell (2013) recognised E. p.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
1
baumstarki (Southern Patas) as endangered and endemic to central northern Tanzania. Kingdon (1997)
referred to baumstarki as a “pallid Serengeti isolate” (p.57).
Isbell (2013) considered E. p. villiersi to be a synonym of E. p. patas, because the only difference from E.
p. patas is its body size, which is “heavily influenced by environmental conditions” (p.257).
In a review of the taxonomy of Erythrocebus, Gippoliti (2017) insisted that the diversity of the wide-
spread Patas Monkeys was underestimated. He resurrected E. poliophaeus (Heuglin in Reichenbach,
1863) from western Ethiopia and adjoining Sudan along the Blue Nile. Groves (2001, 2005) considered
poliophaeus to be a synonym of Erythrocebus patas. Adopting the ‘Phylogenetic Species Concept’,
Gippoliti (2017) recommended that poliophaeus, baumstarki, and pyrrhonotus be reinstated as species,
with pyrrhonotus having two subspecies, the nominate form and formosus Elliot, 1909, this latter from
southwestern Ethiopia, Uganda, and, presumably, southeastern South Sudan. Erythrocebus poliophaeus
is within the range formerly ascribed to E. p. pyrrhonotus.
Baumstarki was described by Matschei (1906) as a species (type locality: Ikoma, western Serengeti). The
distance between the nearest confirmed record for baumstarki (northern Serengeti National Park,
Tanzania, G. Schaller pers. comm., Table 1 and number 15 in Figure 1 in De Jong et al. 2009) and nearest
confirmed record for pyrrhonotus (Kiganjo, central Kenya, H. Doughles-Dufresne pers. comm., Table 3
and number 47 in Figure 2 in De Jong et al. 2008) is ca 260 km. The distance between these two species
was, however, not nearly so great historically as there are records between these two localities for E.
patas that have not been identified as to subspecies (Figure 2 in De Jong et al. 2008). Based on its
geographic isolation and the distinct colouration and pattern of its pelage (e.g., black nose, lack of a
white moustache, and dark grey upper limbs, whereas pyrrhonotus has a white nose, white moustache,
and lacks dark grey on the upper hind legs) baumstarki is here considered a species. This is in agreement
with Gippoliti (2017), who suggests reinstating baumstarki to species level.
In the previous Red List assessment (Kingdon et al. 2008), Erythrocebus was taken to be a monotypic
genus and Erythrocebus patas was taken to be as a monotypic species. This assessment recognises three
species in this genus (patas, poliophaeus, baumstarki), and three subspecies within E. patas (patas,
pyrrhonotus, villiersi).
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria: Near Threatened A2cd ver 3.1
Year Published: 2020
Date Assessed: January 25, 2020
Justification:
Patas Monkey is listed as Near Threatened. Previously—under a slightly different taxonomic concept,
which included baumstarki as a subspecies—Erythrocebus patas was assessed as Least Concern
(Kingdon et al. 2008). Although Erythrocebus patas has a wide geographic range and is sometimes
locally common, there is an observed population reduction throughout its range, particularly in eastern
Africa. Erythrocebus patas does not meet the criteria for Vulnerable; however, the criteria for A2cd are
nearly met as the population has likely declined by more than 20% over the last 30 years (three
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
2
generations). Abundance, extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO) are expected to
continue to decline as the causes of these declines (mainly due to habitat degradation, loss and
fragmentation, but also hunting) are ongoing and unlikely to be reversed.
Geographic Range
Range Description:
Erythrocebus patas is endemic to tropical Africa. This species ranges in the Sahelian Region and
Sudanian Region north of the equatorial forests and south of the Sahara, from western Senegal and The
Gambia, southern Mauritania, Guinea Bissau, and northern Guinea eastwards to northern Uganda,
South Sudan, and southwestern Ethiopia, and southwards to the Laikipia Plateau in central Kenya (De
Jong et al. 2008, 2009, Oates 2011, Isbell 2013, De Jong and Butynski 2017). Altitudinal range is from sea
level to 2,050 m asl (A. Galat-Luong and G. Galat pers. comm., De Jong et al. 2008, 2009).
Three subspecies are recognised:
Erythrocebus p. patas (Western Patas Monkey). North of the equatorial forests and south of the
Sahara from western Senegal and The Gambia, southern Mauritania, southern Mali, Guinea Bissau to
eastern Nigeria and southern Chad (Oates 2011, Isbell 2013, Y. de Jong and T. Butynski pers. obs. 2016).
Erythrocebus patas occurs on Ennedi Massif (northeastern Chad), but the subspecific status of this
population is uncertain. The eastern geographic limits of E. p. patas are unclear. Altitudinal range is
about 0-300 m asl (southeastern Senegal; A. Galat-Luong and G. Galat pers. comm. in Isbell 2013).
Erythrocebus p. pyrrhonotus (Eastern Patas Monkey). North of the equatorial forests and south of the
Sahara from southeastern Chad (e.g., Zakouma National Park) eastwards through, Central African
Republic, northern Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and central and southern Sudan
(presumably west of the White Nile River, perhaps as north as Et Tura), southeastwards to northern
Uganda (e.g., Murchison National Park, Kidepo Valley National Park, Pian Upe National Park) to
northwestern and central Kenya (e.g., West-Pokot County, Laikipia County; De Jong et al. 2008, De Jong
and Butynski 2012, 2013, 2014, Butynski and De Jong 2014a, 2017). The western geographic limits of
this subspecies are unclear. Altitudinal range is about 650 (Kakuma, northwest Kenya, De Jong 2004) to
2050 m asl (Laikipia, central Kenya; De Jong and Butynski 2017).
Erythrocebus p. villiersi (Aïr Patas Monkey). Endemic to the Aïr Massif, central northern Niger, where it
occurs in several isolated pockets, but mainly in the larger valleys in the south (Dekeyser 1950, Dekeyser
and Derivot 1959 in Masseti and Bruner 2009). Altitude range 600 m asl (Dahaga) to 1,600 m asl
(Baguezans Plateau; Masseti and Bruner 2009).
An introduced population of E. patas occurs in Puerto Rico. Erythrocebus patas was intentionally
released on Cueva Island and Guayacan Island between 1971 and 1981 by the La Parguera Primate
Facility. During 1974 to 1981, some individuals moved from these islands to mainland Puerto Rico
(González-Martínez 1998). Today, E. patas is considered a nuisance species on mainland Puerto Rico.
Country Occurrence:
Native, Extant (resident): Benin; Burkina Faso; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Congo, The
Democratic Republic of the; Côte d'Ivoire; Ethiopia; Gambia; Ghana; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Kenya; Mali;
Mauritania; Niger; Nigeria; Senegal; Sierra Leone; South Sudan; Sudan; Tanzania, United Republic of;
Togo; Uganda
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
3
Extant & Introduced (resident): Puerto Rico
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
4
Distribution Map
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
5
Population
Erythrocebus patas is a widespread species which typically occurs at low densities. Probably more
abundant in the western parts of the range (although there are no recent surveys to confirm this) than
in the east (Isbell 2013). Typical density might be 1.5 animals/km². Hall (1965) recorded 110 Patas in a
3,112 km² area in northern Uganda. In Kidepo Valley National Park, northeastern Uganda, the rate of
encounter with E. p. pyrrhonotus from a slow-moving vehicle was 0.05 groups/hr. (0.002 groups/km;
Butynski and De Jong 2017).
In Kenya, the geographic distribution of E. p. pyrrhonotus declined about 56% from ca 93,120 km² prior
to 1995 to ca 52,520 km² in 2014, and the size of gaps among populations increased (De Jong et al.
2008, Butynski and De Jong 2014a).
During 1979–1981, Laikipia Country supported a minimum of 415 E. p. pyrrhonotus (14–15 groups; Isbell
and Chism 2007). The number in 2000 was 310–445 individuals (13–17 groups; Isbell and Chism 2007).
In 2017, there were about 145-155 individuals (13 groups) in eastern Laikipia (De Jong and Butynski
2017). Although the 2017 survey did not include western Laikipia, the survey area was more than twice
the size of that of the two previous surveys. Mean group size of E. p. pyrrhonotus in eastern Laikipia in
2017 was 12 individuals. Patas numbers have declined in eastern Laikipia mainly through reduction in
group size rather than through a reduction in the number of groups (De Jong and Butynski 2017).
Although surveys in western Laikipia are required, the preliminary data suggest that there are far fewer
Patas in western Laikipia than in eastern Laikipia (Y. de Jong and T. Butynski pers. obs). It is likely that
Laikipia County supported <225 Patas in 2017.
This subspecies appears to no longer be present at Alupe, Busia District, western Kenya. There is a
population of unknown size and geographic distribution in the Karasuk Hills region of central western
Kenya (De Jong and Butynski 2013, 2014, Butynski and De Jong 2014a).
In 2016, in an area of ca 200 km² on the Ennedi Massif, northeastern Chad, S. Turner (pers. comm. 2016)
encountered five or six groups of E. patas (total 80-100 individuals) during a brief visit.
In Bafing Faunal Reserve, southern Mali, E. p. patas occurred at 1.7 individuals/km² in 1993 (Pavy 1993
in Oates 2011).
In Comoé National Park, northern Côte d’Ivoire, ca 1,150 E. p. patas occupied ca 11,500 km² in 1991
(Fisher et al. 2000 in Oates 2011).
Erythrocebus p. patas is common in the Gadabedji Biosphere Reserve, central Niger (T. Rabeil pers.
comm. 2019).
Magin (1990) estimated a population of 500 E. p. villiersi in the central massifs and plateau of the Aïr
Massif, central northern Niger (IUCN 2017).
Erythrocebus p. villiersi is common on Aïr Massif (T. Rabeil, T. Wacher and J. Darbey pers. comm. 2019).
Between now and 2050, almost 24% of the global demographic increase will occur in 10 of the 11
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
6
countries of the Sahelian Region (UNDP 2017). Across the species' global range, the rapidly growing
human population has converted large parts of the originally wooded savanna to agriculture, grassland,
and bushland (UNEP 2012). The woodlands of the Sudanian Region are under similar pressure. During
1990 to 2000 alone, a massive 25,000 km²/yr of dry forest and woodlands were lost in the Sudanian
Region (FAO 2005). Based on these levels of habitat loss, the global population of Erythrocebus patas is
suspected to have declined by at least 20% over the last 30 years (three generations).
Current Population Trend:ÊÊDecreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
Erythrocebus patas is a medium-sized, diurnal, largely terrestrial, monkey. Occupies vegetation types
ranging from grassland, to wooded savanna, to woodland (Isbell 2013). Most common in thinly bushed
Acacia woodland. Appears to have a preference for woodland-grassland margins. Generally avoids
dense vegetation, including riverine forest (Hall 1965, Isbell 2013). In East Africa, E. p. pyrrhonotus is
strongly associated with Whistling Thorn Acacia Acacia drepanolobium open woodland (Isbell 1998). At
Ennedi Massif, northeastern Chad, and Äir Massif, central northern Niger, E. patas occurs in subdesertic
grass, sparse Acacia woodland, and bushland (Dekeyser 1950, S. Turner pers. comm. 2016).
Although E. patas can climb trees when alarmed, it usually relies on its speed on the ground to escape.
Erythrocebus p. pyrrhonotus is omnivorous, feeding on gums, arthropods, berries, flowers, fruits, and
seeds (Chism and Rowell 1988, De Jong et al. 2008, Isbell 2013). Visits to water are typically daily during
the dry season. Often use man-made water sources (e.g., dams, tanks, troughts). Use fences to sit on
and scan from. In all areas were encountered in Kenya, E. p. pyrrhonotus are somewhat habituated to
humans, mainly to pastoralists, farmers and 'monkey chasers' in crop fields. In Busia District, central
western Kenya, they have adapted to a high human population and little natural vegetation. Here, they
eat maize and other crops (De Jong et al. 2008, Butynski and De Jong 2014b). In Kidepo Valley National
Park, northeastern Uganda, E. p. pyrrhonotus raid garbage bins on a daily basis (Butynski and De Jong
2014a).
Erythrocebus p. pyrrhonotus lives in single-male groups of 13-56 individuals (Chism and Rowell 1988).
Burnham (2004) reported longer day ranges for all-male groups (mean 7.3 km/day) compared with
social groups (mean 4.7 km/day) in the same area of Laikipia County, central Kenya. Here, home range
sizes of social groups are 23-40 km², depending on group size (Chism and Rowell 1988, Enstam and Isbell
2004), but elsewhere can be as large as 52 km² (e.g., group of 31 individuals in Murchison Falls National
Park, northwestern Uganda; Hall 1965).
Systems:ÊÊTerrestrial
Use and Trade
Erythrocebus patas is hunted for bushmeat over all parts of its geographic distribution but, particularly,
in Central and West Africa. Used as a research animal. There is a need to clarify how many research
animals are captive bred and how many are wild caught. The CITES trade database indicates that
hundreds of Erythrocebus patas are traded every year. In 2017, the origin of most wild-caught
individuals was Sudan.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
7
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
Main threats to Erythrocebus patas throughout the geographic distribution, but probably particularly in
East Africa, are habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss due primarily to agricultural expansion and
intensification (both crops and livestock), charcoal production and ’development’ activities (e.g.,
settlements, roads, powerlines, dams, wind farms).
Erythrocebus patas is primarily distributed throughout the Sahelian Region and Sudanian Region. The
Sahel is a region with major land degradation related to its rapidly growing human population (UNEP
2012). The Sahelian Region holds about 8 people/km², while the Sudanian Region has about 31
people/km² (Eva et al. 2006). Between now and 2050, almost 24% of the global human population
increase will occur in 10 of the 11 countries of the Sahelian Region (UNDP 2017). The rapid growing
human population has converted large parts of the originally wooded savanna to agriculture, grassland
and bushland (UNEP 2012). The woodlands of the Sudanian Region are under similar pressure. During
1990-2000 alone, a massive 25,000 km²/yr of dry forest and woodlands were lost in the Sudanian Region
(FAO 2005). This rapid and extensive loss of E. patas habitat over the Sahelian Region and Sudanian
Region is expected to continue over the long term.
In Africa, the ‘Rate of Natural Increase’ of the human population is 2.5%, compared to 1.1% worldwide
(PRB 2019). Over all of the range states for E. patas, the human population is doubling every 20-30
years. As such, there is ever increasing competition between people and E. patas for habitat and water
(De Jong et al. 2008, 2009; Isbell 2013, Butynski and De Jong 2014b). In none of the range states are
natural resources, such as water, soil, bushlands or woodlands, being used sustainably. Perennial water
sources have been lost and competition with people and livestock over access to water is severe (De
Jong and Butynski 2017). Among the results are widespread degradation, loss and fragmentation of E.
patas habitat, and a rapid decline in the abundance and geographic distribution of this species.
The species is in rapid decline in Laikipia County, central Kenya (De Jong and Butynski 2017). E. p.
pyrrhonotus is the most threatened primate, despite the fact that this monkey is relatively compatible
with livestock ranching, the primary economic activity in Laikipia (Butynski and De Jong 2014b). Habitat
degradation, loss, and fragmentation are predominantly caused by over-grazing and over-browsing by
livestock, conversion of large areas to cropland, uncontrolled cutting of trees, charcoal production, and
colonization of invasive plants, particularly Prickly Pears Opuntia spp. Damage is most severe in and
around rural and communal areas – where the human population is most dense and where the
extraction of natural resources is most intense and unsustainable (De Jong and Butynski 2017). High
densities of Savanna Elephant Loxodonta africana over large parts of Laikipia County, and concentrations
of Black Rhinoceros Diceros bicornis and Reticulated Giraffe Giraffa reticulata in some areas, have
greatly reduced the abundance of Whistling Thorn Acacia, a key food species for Patas in Laikipia County
(Isbell 1998, De Jong et al. 2008, De Jong and Butynski 2017).
In West Africa, much E. p. patas habitat has been degraded and lost due to fire, desertification, and
livestock grazing and browsing (Oates 2011).
Erythrocebus p. patas is hunted for food in Central Africa and West Africa (Kurpiers et al. 2016), and is
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
8
widely persecuted as a crop pest (De Jong 2004, De Jong et al. 2008).
Erythrocebus p. villiersi reported to raid crops (Dekeyser 1950) and is, most likely, persecuted in
response.
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
Erythrocebus patas is listed under CITES Appendix II and as Class B under the African Convention.
Present in many protected areas across its range, including Aïr Natural Reserve and Ténéré Natural
Reserve, Niger. Murchison Fall National Park in northwestern Uganda and Kidepo National Park in
northeastern Uganda appear to be the main sites for the conservation of E. patas remaining in East
Africa.
Erythrocebus patas in Kenya is on the verge of extinction. Laikipia County probably holds the largest
population of E. patas in Kenya (Isbell and Chism 2007, De Jong et al. 2008, Butynski and De Jong
2014b). All Patas groups in Laikipia occur outside legally protected areas. Probably all live on private
livestock ranches where there are large areas of Whistling Thorn Acacia woodland and artificial sources
of water (Isbell and Chism 2007, De Jong et al. 2008, Butynski and De Jong 2014b). These relatively well
protected private ranches appear critical to the survival of E. patas in Kenya.
Credits
Assessor(s): de Jong, Y.A., Rylands, A.B. & Butynski, T.M.
Reviewer(s): Williamson, E.A.
Contributor(s): Kingdon, J.
Authority/Authorities: IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
9
Bibliography
Burnham, D. 2004. Ranging ecology of roving (bachelor) and resident male Erythrocebus patas:
implications for male mating strategies. Ph.D. Thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University.
Butynski, T.M. and De Jong, Y.A. 2014. Biogeography, Taxonomy, Abundance, and Conservation Status of
the Primates of North-eastern Uganda. Unpublished Report to the National Geographic Society.
Butynski, T.M. and De Jong, Y.A. 2014. Primate conservation in the rangeland agroecosystem of Laikipia
County, central Kenya. Primate Conservation 28: 117-128.
Chism, J. and Rowell, T.E. 1988. The natural history of patas monkeys. Cambridge University Press.
Dandelot, P. 1968. Primates: Anthropoidea. In: J. Meester (ed.), Smithsonian Institution Preliminary
Identification Manual for African Mammals, part 24, pp. 1–80. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC,
USA.
Dandelot, P. 1974. Order Primates. Part III. In: J. Meester and H.W. Setzer (eds), The Mammals of Africa:
An Identfication Manual, pp. 1-45. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.
De Jong, Y.A. 2004. Distribution and abundance of patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) in Kenya and
their use of human instristructures. MSc thesis. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
de Jong, Y. A. and Butynski, T.M. 2012. The primates of East Africa: country lists and conservation
priorities. African Primates 7: 135–155.
de Jong, Y.A. and Butynski, T.M. 2013. Kenya’s Elusive Patas Monkeys. National Geographic Explorers
Journal.
De Jong, Y.A. and Butynski, T.M. 2017. Survey of eastern patas monkey Erythrocebus patas pyrrhonotus,
other primates, warthogs, dik-diks, and waterbuck in Laikipia County, central Kenya. Unpublished report
for Primate Conservation Inc. and Lolldaiga Hills Ranch.
De Jong, Y.A. and Butynski, T.M. 2018. Primates of East Africa: Pocket Identification Guide. Global
Wildlife Conservation.
De Jong, Y.A., Butynski, T.M. 2014. Notes on the Primates of Northwestern Kenya. Unpublished report by
the Eastern Africa Primate Diversity and Conservation Program. .
De Jong, Y.A., Butynski, T.M. and Nekaris, K.A.-I. 2008. Distribution and conservation of the patas
monkey Erythrocebus patas in Kenya. Journal of East African Natural History 97(1): 83-102.
De Jong, Y.A., Butynski, T.M., Isbell, L.A. and Lewis, C. 2009. Decline in the geographical range of the
southern patas monkey Erythrocebus patas baumstarki in Tanzania. Oryx 43: 267-274.
Dekeyser, P.L. 1950. Contributions à l’étude de l’Aïr. Mammifères. Mémoire Institute Francoise Afrique
Noire 10: 388-425.
DESA. 2017. Probabilistic population projections based on the world population prospects: the 2017
revision. Available at: https://population.un.org/wpp/.
Disotell, T. 2000. Molecular systematics of the Cercopithecidae. In: P.F. Whitehead and C.J. Jolly (eds),
Old World Monkeys, pp. 29-56. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Enstam, K.L. and Isbell, L.A. 2004. Microhabitat preferences and vertical use of space by patas monkeys
(Erythrocebus patas) in relation to predation risk and habitat structure. Folia Primtologica 75: 70-84.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
10
Eva, H.D., Brink, A. and Simonetti, D. 2006. Monitoring Land Cover Dynamics in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Report by the Institute for Environment and Sustainability Joint Research Centre of the European
Commission. Luxembourg.
FAO. 2005. State of the World's forests 2005. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations,
Forestry Department, Rome.
Gippoliti, S. 2017. On the Taxonomy of Erythrocebus with a Re-evaluation of Erythrocebus poliophaeus
(Reichenbach, 1862) from the Blue Nile Region of Sudan and Ethiopia. Primate Conservation 31: 53-59.
Goldman, E.N. and Loy, J. 1997. Longitudinal study of dominance relations among captive patas
monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 42: 41-51.
González-Martínez, J. 1998. The ecology of the introduced patas monkey (Erythrocebus patas)
population of southwestern Puerto Rico. . American Journal of Primatology 45: 351-363.
Groves C.P. 2001. Primate Taxonomy. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Groves, C.P. 2001. The Taxonomy of Primates. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Groves, C.P. 2005. Order Primates. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds), Mammal Species of the World,
pp. 111-184. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Grubb, P., Butynski, T.M., Oates, J.F., Bearder, S.K., Disotell, T.R., Groves, C.P. and Struhsaker, T.T. 2003.
Assessment of the diversity of African primates. International Journal of Primatology 24(6): 1301-1357.
Hall, K. R. L. 1968. Behavior and ecology of the wild patas monkey. Erythrocebus patas, in Uganda. In: J.
Phillis (ed.), Primates studies in adaptation and variability, pp. 32. Holt, Reinhardt and Winston, New
york, USA.
Howell, F.C. and Bourlière, F. 1963. African Ecology and Human Evolution. Aldine Publishing Company,
Chicago.
Isbell, L.A. 1998. Diet for a small primate: insectivory and gummivory in the (large) patas monkey
(Erythrocebus patas pyrrhonotus). American Journal of Primatology 45: 381-398.
Isbell, L.A. 2013. Erythrocebus patas Patas Monkey (Hussar Monkey, Nisnas). In: T.M. Butynski, J.
Kingdon and J. Kalina (eds), The Mammals of Africa. Volume II: Primates, pp. 257-264. Bloomsbury
Publishing, London.
Isbell, L. A. and Chism, J. 2007. Distribution and abundance of patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) in
Laikipia, Kenya, 1979-2004. American Journal of Primatology 69: 1223-1235.
Isbell, L.A., Young, T.P., Jaffe, K.E., Carlson, A.A. and Chancellor, R.L. 2009. Demography and life histories
of sympatric patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) and vervets (Cercopithecus aethiops) in Laikipia,
Kenya. International Journal of Primatology 30: 103-124.
IUCN. 2017. Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves. International Union for Conservation of Nature and UN
Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
IUCN. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 13 June 2020).
Jong, Y. A., de, Butynski, T. M., Isbell, L. A. and Lewis, C. 2007. Historic and current distribution of the
patas monkey Erythrocebus patas in Tanzania, with notes on other primate species. Unpublished report,
Eastern Africa Primate Diversity and Conservation Project, Nanyuki, Kenya.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
11
Kingdon, J. 1997. The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, California,
USA.
Kingdon, J. 2015. The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals. Bloomsbury, London.
Kingdon, J., Butynski, T.M. and De Jong, Y.A. 2008. Erythrocebus patas. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2008(e.T8073A12884516).
Kingdon, J.S. 1971. East African Mammals. An Atlas of Evolution in Africa. Academic Press, London, UK.
Kurpiers L.A., Schulte-Herbrüggen B., Ejotre I. and Reeder D.M. 2016. Bushmeat and emerging infectious
diseases: lessons from Africa. In: F. Angelici (ed.), Problematic Wildlife, pp. 507-551. Springer
International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
Loy, J. 1974. Changes in facial color associated with pregnancy in patas monkeys. Folia Primatologica 22:
251-257.
Loy, J. 1987. The sexual behavior of African monkeys and the question of estrus. In: E.L. Zucker (ed.),
Comparative Behavior of African Monkeys, pp. 197-234. Alan R. Liss, New York.
Masseti, M. and Bruner, E. 2009. The primates of the western Palaearctic: a biogeographical, historical,
and archaeozoological review. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 87: 33-91.
Musila, S., Monadjem, A., Webala, P.W., Patterson, B.D., Hutterer, R., De Jong, Y.A., Butynski, T.M.,
Mwangi, G., Chen, Z.Z. and Jiang, X.L. 2019. An annotated checklist of mammals of Kenya. Zoological
research 40(1): 3.
Napier, J. R. and Napier, P. H. 1967. A Handbook of Living Primates. Academic Press, London, UK.
Napier, P.H. 1981. Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History) and elsewhere in the
British Isles. Part II. Family Cercopithecidae, subfamily Colobinae. London, UK.
Oates, J.F. 2011. Primates of West Africa: A Field Guide and Natural History. Conservation International,
Arlington, VA.
Pacifici, M., Santini, L., Di Marco, M., Baisero, D., Francucci, L., Grottolo Marasini, G., Visconti, P. and
Rondinini, C. 2013. Generation length for mammals. Nature Conservation 5: 87–94.
PRB. 2019. World Population Data 2019, Africa. Washington DC Available at: www.prb.org.
UNEP. 2012. Land Health Surveillance: An Evidence-Based Approach to Land Ecosystem Management
Illustrated with a Case Study in the West Africa Sahel. Summary for Decision Makers. United Nations
Environment Programme, Nairobi.
Verheyen, W.N. 1962. Contribution à la craniologie comparée de Primates. Musée Roy. Afr. Central
Tervuren, Belgique. Ser. 8. Sci Zool 105: 1-156.
Citation
de Jong, Y.A., Rylands, A.B. & Butynski, T.M. 2020. Erythrocebus patas. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2020: e.T174391079A17940998. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-
2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
12
External Resources
For Supplementary Material, and for Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the
Red List website.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
13
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Habitat Season Suitability Major
Importance?
1. Forest -> 1.5. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Dry Resident Suitable Yes
2. Savanna -> 2.1. Savanna - Dry Resident Suitable Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.5. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry Resident Suitable Yes
4. Grassland -> 4.5. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry Resident Suitable Yes
4. Grassland -> 4.6. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Seasonally
Wet/Flooded
Resident Suitable Yes
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.1. Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land Passage Marginal -
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.2. Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland Passage Marginal -
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.3. Artificial/Terrestrial - Plantations Passage Marginal -
Use and Trade
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
End Use Local National International
Research Yes No No
Food - human No Yes Yes
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder
farming
Ongoing Unknown Rapid declines Unknown
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming
& ranching -> 2.3.2. Small-holder grazing, ranching or
farming
Ongoing Unknown Rapid declines Unknown
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.3. Persecution/control
Ongoing Unknown Slow, significant
declines
Unknown
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
14
5. Biological resource use -> 5.3. Logging & wood
harvesting -> 5.3.5. Motivation
Unknown/Unrecorded
Ongoing Unknown Slow, significant
declines
Unknown
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Conservation Actions in Place
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Action in Place
In-place land/water protection
Conservation sites identified: Yes, over entire range
Occurs in at least one protected area: Yes
In-place education
Included in international legislation: Yes
Subject to any international management / trade controls: Yes
Conservation Actions Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Action Needed
3. Species management -> 3.2. Species recovery
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields
Distribution
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Yes
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): Yes
Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Lower elevation limit (m): 0
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
15
Distribution
Upper elevation limit (m): 2,050
Population
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Extreme fluctuations: No
Habitats and Ecology
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Yes
Generation Length (years): 10
Movement patterns: Not a Migrant
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
16
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2020: T174391079A17940998
Scope(s): Global
Language: English
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens
Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew;
Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Erythrocebus patas – published in 2020.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T174391079A17940998.en
17
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Patas monkey Erythrocebus patas, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008, iucn.org
Article
Full-text available
Kenya has a rich mammalian fauna. We reviewed recently published books and papers including the six volumes of Mammals of Africa to develop an up-to-date annotated checklist of all mammals recorded from Kenya. A total of 390 species have been identified in the country, including 106 species of rodents, 104 species of bats, 63 species of even-toed ungulates (including whales and dolphins), 36 species of insectivores and carnivores, 19 species of primates, five species of elephant shrews, four species of hyraxes and odd-toed ungulates, three species of afrosoricids, pangolins, and hares, and one species of aardvark, elephant, sirenian and hedgehog. The number of species in this checklist is expected to increase with additional surveys and as the taxonomic status of small mammals (e.g., bats, shrews and rodents) becomes better understood.
Book
Full-text available
70 taxa • 32 distribution maps • 73 drawings
Technical Report
Full-text available
The eastern patas monkey Erythrocebus patas pyrrhonotus is a subspecies whose abundance and geographic range are in decline. Laikipia County, central Kenya, supports a small, isolated, population which forms the stronghold and eastern limit of Kenya’s patas population. This report presents the results of the third survey of the abundance and distribution of patas in eastern Laikipia. Additional aims of this survey were to: (1) answer, or contribute towards answering, several questions important to primate conservation, both in eastern Laikipia and globally; (2) stimulate further interest in primate research and conservation in eastern Laikipia; (3) improve on the information available for the IUCN Red List assessments of the primate species and subspecies of eastern Laikipia; and (4) obtain information on the biogeography and taxonomic status of the region’s warthogs, dik-diks, and waterbucks. The finding presented here are based on field surveys, questionnaires and communications with long-term residents and property managers/owners. Eastern Laikipia appears to hold 145–155 patas. These occur in about 13 groups (mean group size = c. 12 individuals). Twenty of the 60 properties (33%) surveyed in eastern Laikipia County supported patas during 2010–2017. No property has more than two groups and most groups use at least two properties. Groups range in size from two to 25 individuals. There are at least four solitary individuals (all probably adult males) in this region. The extent of occurrence of patas in eastern Laikipia is c. 1,750 km². The north and northwest limit of the geographic range of patas in Laikipia is Loisaba Conservancy were solitary individuals (but no groups) are occasionally observed. Borana Conservancy represents the east and southeast limit. Central Solio Ranch is the south and southeast limit. The west and southwest limit may be ADC Mutara Ranch, but a survey of patas in western Laikipia County is required to confirm this. Comparisons with earlier studies show that the number of patas in eastern Laikipia has declined. This decline has occurred mainly through reduction in group size rather than through a reduction in the number of groups. Patas have been extirpated, or groups sizes reduced, in areas affect by habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation, loss of perennial water sources, and severe competition with livestock over access to water. Habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation are predominantly caused by over-grazing and over-browsing by livestock, conversion of large areas to agriculture, uncontrolled logging, charcoal production, high concentrations of savanna elephant Loxodonta africana, and spread of invasive plants, particularly prickly pears Opuntia spp. Damage is most severe in and around rural and communal areas---where the human population is most dense and where the extraction of natural resources is most intense and unsustainable. With the fast-growing human and livestock populations it is increasingly difficult for patas and other wildlife to find suitable habitat and to access water outside well-managed ranches. During the time of this study, eastern Laikipia experienced a drought and many, if not most, dams and rivers were dry for several months. In addition, pastoralist illegally brought very large numbers of livestock onto well-managed ranches for most of 2017. As a result, water on these ranches became difficult or impossible for patas and other wildlife to access. In order to assess the abundance and distribution of patas for all of Laikipia County, a survey in western Laikipia is needed. Additional recommendations for patas research and conservation action in Laikipia are provided in this report. Fifty-nine groups of diurnal primates, belonging to four genera and four species, were encountered during this survey (olive baboon Papio anubis, Hilgert’s vervet monkey Chlorocebus pygerythrus hilgerti, Kolb’s monkey Cercopithecus mitis kolbi, Mount Kenya guereza colobus Colobus guereza kikuyuensis). Only one species of nocturnal primate was observed--- Kenya lesser galago Galago senegalensis braccatus. Somali lesser galago Galago gallarum was encountered in Samburu County during this survey. Both species of warthog Phacochoerus (common warthog Phacochoerus africanus and desert warthog Phacochoerus aethiopicus) and two species of dik-dik (Smith’s dik-dik Madoqua smithi and Kirk’s dik-dik Madoqua kirkii) were found in northeast Laikipia (Lekurruki Conservancy and Il ‘Ngwesi Conservancy). These are the first records of desert warthog and Kirk’s dik-dik for Laikipia County. During this survey, the geographic ranges of defassa waterbuck Kobis ellipsiprymnus defassa and of common waterbuck K. e. ellipsiprymnus in Laikipia, Isiolo, and Samburu Counties were better defined, as was their ‘hybrid zone’.
Article
Full-text available
Erythrocebus taxonomy has been dormant for almost a century now, with the consequent costs in our understanding of the biology of the genus and for the conservation of these remarkable monkeys. New data on the distribution and physical appearance of patas monkeys in Ethiopia, together with a review of the old taxonomic literature, allows to us disentangle some questions concerning the taxonomy of Erythrocebus in northeast Africa. Specifically, I resurrect Erythrocebus poliophaeus (Reichenbach, 1862) as a valid species that is found along the Blue Nile Valley at the extreme northeastern portion of the range of the genus. The still little-known, but certainly limited, extent of the range of the species is a cause for conservation concern, but it may be that Erythrocebus poliophaeus could serve as a flagship species for conservation in the biologically rich Western Ethiopian Escarpment region and adjoining Sudan. The proposed common English names for the new species are Heuglin's patas monkey (Heuglin was the famous German explorer who discovered it) or the Blue Nile patas monkey.
Article
Full-text available
Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation by Jodi A. Hilty, William Z. Lidicker, Jr & Adina M. Merenlender (2006), xix + 324 pp., Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. ISBN 1559630477 (hbk), USD 60.00; ISBN 1559630965 (pbk), USD 30.00. - - Volume 41 Issue 1 - Anton Nurcahyo
Article
Full-text available
Mortality patterns are thought to be strong selective forces on life history traits, with high adult mortality and low immature mortality favoring early and rapid reproduction. Patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) have the highest potential rates of population increase for their body size of any haplorhine primate because they reproduce both earlier and more often. We report here 10 yr of comparative demographic data on a population of patas monkeys and a sympatric population of vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops), a closely related species differing in aspects of social system, ecology, and life history. The data reveal that 1) adult female patas monkeys have significantly higher mortality than adult female vervets; 2) infant mortality in patas monkeys is relatively low compared to the norm for mammals because it is not significantly different from that of adult female patas monkeys; and 3) infant mortality is significantly higher than adult female mortality in vervets. For both species, much of the mortality could be attributed to predation. An epidemic illness was also a major contributor to the mortality of adult female patas monkeys whereas chronic exposure to pathogens in a cold and damp microenvironment may have Int contributed to the mortality of infant vervets. Both populations experienced large fluctuations during the study period. Our results support the prediction from demographic models of life history evolution that high adult mortality relative to immature mortality selects for early maturation.
Chapter
Full-text available
Zoonotic diseases are the main contributor to emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) and present a major threat to global public health. Bushmeat is an important source of protein and income for many African people, but bushmeat-related activities have been linked to numerous EID outbreaks, such as Ebola, HIV, and SARS. Importantly, increasing demand and commercialization of bushmeat is exposing more people to pathogens and facilitating the geographic spread of diseases. To date, these linkages have not been systematically assessed. Here we review the literature on bushmeat and EIDs for sub-Saharan Africa, summarizing pathogens (viruses, fungi, bacteria, helminths, protozoan, and prions) by bushmeat taxonomic group to provide for the first time a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge concerning zoonotic disease transmission from bushmeat into humans. We conclude by drawing lessons that we believe are applicable to other developing and developed regions and highlight areas requiring further research to mitigate disease risk.
Article
Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) are the most successful and diverse group of living non-human primates in terms of the number of species, behavioural repertoires and ecology. They have much to teach us about the processes of evolution and the principles of ecology, and are among our closest living relatives. This volume presents a broad, technical account of cercopithecoid biology including molecular, behavioural and morphological approaches to phylogeny, population structure, allometry, fossil history, functional morphology, ecology, cognitive capabilities, social behaviour and conservation. It will be the definitive reference on this group for professionals and graduate students in primatology, animal behaviour, paleontology, morphology, systematics and physical anthropology, but will also be useful to senior undergraduates.
Chapter
After spelling out the rationale for taxonomy, an annotated classification of living primates is given.