Laboratory Primate Newsletter



Articles and Notes

A Pivotal Year for Lab Animal Welfare........1
. . . Tighter Regulations, Higher Costs, and Refined Methodologies Likely to Lead to Increased Animal Use
. . . Tight Money Squeezes Out Animal Models

News, Information, and Announcements

Custody Battle over Taub's Animals........8

News Briefs........9
. . . Funds Reinstated at Columbia; NIH Funds Reinstated at City of Hope

Conference Announcement: Animal Testing, Animal Welfare and Public Relations ........9

Conference Announcement: Welfare of Laboratory Animals ........10

Legislative Front: Some Activity at the State Level........10

Establishment of a Primatological Library in Puerto Rico........10

Upcoming Primate Meetings........17


Recent Books and Articles ........11

* * *

A Pivotal Year for Lab Animal Welfare

Tighter Regulations, Higher Costs, and Refined Methodologies Likely to Lead to Decreased Animal Use

The past year has been a pivotal time for the animal welfare movement and a difficult one for scientists whose work involves experimental animals. Two major federal actions--amendments to the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and revisions of the Public Health Service's (PHS) animal care guidelines--tighten standards for the humane use of animals and emphasize that the main responsibility for proper animal care lies at the institutional level.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also acted to withhold research money from two institutions--the City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, California, and the head trauma laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania--in the aftermath of raids by the Animal Liberation Front. And, in its first action under the new guidelines, in February the NIH suspended grants for research on vertebrates other than rodents at Columbia University.

Compliance with the new rules will unquestionably be costly, particularly when combined with the darkening fiscal picture created by Gramm-Rudman and the indirect costs crunch. They are also likely to lead to a reduction in animal use at least in some institutions. But in general, the scientific community has accepted the changes as necessary.

All is not totally serene, however. Although moderate animal welfare groups accept the need for animals in research, there is a growing wing of the movement, made up of old-line antivivisectionists and new "animal rights" groups who see recent developments as only a step toward the real goal: total elimination of laboratory animals in research. These are the people who have staged laboratory break-ins, the latest being a raid last May at the University of California (Riverside) in which 467 animals were stolen.

It may be partly out of apprehension over future actions by these groups that the scientific community is rallying around to the new regulations. If scientists feel that the regulations are unduly intrusive, they are not saying so in public.

The major regulatory development is the move to locate oversight and monitoring of animal use and care firmly at the institutional level. To this end, the new PHS guidelines require every research institution to appoint an "institutional animal care and use committee." Every committee must have a veterinarian and an outside member on it. Research protocols must be reviewed by the committee to be sure they adhere to established standards. Committees must inspect facilities twice a year. Institutions must designate clear lines of authority for those involved in animal research, submit exhaustive information on the animal care program, and supply a detailed "assurance" from facilities that have not been accredited by the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC). The accompanying NIH "Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals" specifies in excruciating detail requirements for personnel training, animal housing, and veterinary care.

The amendments to the Animal Welfare Act [sponsored by Representative George Brown (D-CA) and Senator Robert Dole (R-KS)] and passed as part of the 1985 farm bill, are designed to harmonize with the PHS guidelines and extend their coverage to other facilities. They cover all research facilities--about 2000--that are engaged in interstate commerce. The amendments, which were the product of several years of intense lobbying and consideration of alternate bills, also mandate the establishment of animal care committees. The new law directs investigators to consider alternatives to animal use and specifies measures to minimize pain and distress. It also has two brand-new provisions--one requires exercise for laboratory dogs, the other [insisted upon by Senator John Melcher (D-MT)] says that primates must be furnished with a "physical environment adequate to promote" their "psychological well-being." This last vague provision could prove quite troublesome. Its official meaning is yet to be determined by the Department of Agriculture which is supposed to issue regulations on the act by the end of this year.

According to a recent report from the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), on "Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education," the revised Animal Welfare Act and the new PHS policy, taken together, "bring the overwhelming majority of experimental-animal users in the United States under the oversight of a structured, local review committee."

It is impossible as yet to assess the impact of the regulatory changes on the costs of doing research. Over half of the 800 or so institutions getting PHS funds already had animal care committees, but many have not been particularly active. About half the facilities have AAALAC accreditation according to William Gray of NIH, and many more will probably seek it.

The National Association for Biomedical Research, according to its director Frank L. Trull, believes that the costs of bringing facilities up to snuff--not to mention the increased costs for staff work for animal care committees--may compel some smaller universities to get out of the animal business altogether. "We are seriously concerned that research institutions may be reaching the point where research will be sacrificed for economic reasons," she says. To many observers, the recent crackdown on Columbia University was a significant indication that NIH, at least, intends to interpret its standards rigorously. "We were all [happily] shocked," comments John McArdle of the Humane Society of the United States.

A greater threat to research may be posed by the increasing volubility of animal activists. "Universities can only take so much PR heat," says Trull--ultimately some may count the benefits of obscurity to be greater than the potential benefits of a research project that some animal rights group wishes to halt. If universities succumb to this kind of pressure, "an awful lot of research is not going to get done."

There is considerable debate over just how many laboratory animals are used in the United States today. The best guess from OTA, based largely on figures from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the Department of Agriculture, is that between 17 and 22 million vertebrates are used for research each year, about 70% of them rats and mice. However, the Animal Welfare Act specifically excludes rats, mice, and birds, and reporting these species on the APHIS forms is voluntary. Other groups, such as the Humane Society, put the figure closer to 60 million--including animals bred for research but not used. OTA's Gary Ellis says that it is impossible to guess how many animals have not been accounted for in various reporting schemes. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) hopes to supply more definitive figures in the current survey by its Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources (ILAR), which covers all facilities using vertebrate species.

There is evidence that animal use has been on the decline--chiefly for economic reasons--for some time. According to ILAR, total acquisitions among federal grantees dropped from 33.4 million in 1968 to 19.9 million in 1978.

Animal rights activists are now suggesting that the number can be drastically reduced with the introduction of alternatives to animals. These are commonly defined as the "three R's": replacement of animals with in vitro cultures, lower organisms, and nonanimal models; refinement of methodologies so as to reduce animal pain and stress; and reduction of the number of animals used in a test. McArdle claims, for example, that 80 to 90% of animal use could be curtailed immediately and the rest by the end of the century.

In fact, the picture is far too complex and fraught with uncertainty for any authoritative projections to be made. Animal advocates tend to blur the line between the use of animals in testing and their use in basic research, although the two uses are in many ways quite separate in their problems and prospects. Money problems are nowhere near as severe in private industry, where most toxicity testing occurs, as they are in academia, the locus of basic research. Animal use accounts for a miniscule proportion of the costs in industry.

It is true that in toxicity testing, significant advances have been made in the past few years in the direction of refining research methodology and the use of in vitro and mathematical models. Short-term toxicity testing has been where most of the progress has occurred--particularly with regard to the Draize eye irritation test and the LD-50 (lethal dose that will kill 50% of the test population). While trends in academic research have largely been in response to financial pressures, social pressures have had a dramatic effect in industrial testing, particularly in well-known consumer products such as cosmetics and household cleansers. Companies that a few years ago regarded research on alternatives as somewhat offbeat are now trumpeting their various initiatives and boasting of substantial reductions in animal use.

The rapidity with which this has all come about can, in large measures, be traced to the activities of one man: Henry Spira, a New York activist who in 1980 organized an anti-Draize campaign that stirred widespread public response. In swift succession, several new research programs were set up, notably one at Rockefeller University, subsidized by $1.25 million from Revlon, and the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins University, launched with a $2.1 million grant from the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association.

The classic LD-50 test has now been virtually eliminated in favor of tests using judiciously selected dosages on fewer animals. A cosmetics association membership survey last year, for example, revealed that there had been a 75-90% reduction of animal use in oral toxicity tests. Although there is no in vitro substitute for the LD&s'50., Kurt Enslein of Health Designs, a private firm in Rochester, New York has developed a computer program to screen new chemicals that contains the results of over 6000 LD-50 tests.

The Draize test is still widely used, although usually in a modified form which entails testing much weaker solution on rabbit's eyes. Procter and Gamble reported at a recent meeting of the Toxicology Forum that the "low volume" rabbit test is more predictive than the Draize test itself. At least a dozen in vitro alternatives to the Draize--ranging from cell cultures to whole rabbit eyes to testing substances on chick embryo membranes--are now under active investigation.

Alan Goldberg, head of the Johns Hopkins center, says he believes there are now enough potential alternatives for a full-scale validation study and is working on a report, a "critical evaluation of eye irritancy testing," to be ready next summer. He estimates that it will take 5 or 6 years to validate a battery of tests--validated against data from accidental human exposures--and get it widely adopted by industry.

Goldberg says progress has been so rapid that the time is ripe to address the "next big issue"--chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity. The Ames test, based on Salmonella bacteria, has long been in use for screening chemicals for possible carcinogenicity, but not until recently have investigators considered that in vitro techniques could be adapted to long-term studies.

In contrast to testing, the sprawling enterprise of basic research is an area about which it is difficult to make generalizations. Spira thinks "basic researchers still have a fortress mentality." The OTA report states, however, that "it is not clear whether targeted funding efforts would produce alternatives faster than they are already being devised." Developing replacements in particular, it says, "is far more likely to be incidental than targeted."

Nonmammalian models, such as the aplysia, the squid, and the horseshoe crab, have become very popular with neuroscientists, but the choices have been dictated by science and practicality, not by the urge to replace mammals. When it comes to the deliberate development of alternatives, reduction and refinement (rather than replacement) appear to hold the main promise in the short term. Some of the reduction is driven purely by economic considerations. But refinements have been taking place on many levels, such as new instrumentation which makes possible painless and noninvasive animal procedures. The main thrust in basic research is to squeeze more out of the same amount of data by refinements in methodology, such as increased sophistication in statistics, better selection of models, reduction in control groups, and the sharing of animals and tissue samples.

It may be that the greatest advances could be made in more complex and comprehensive information systems--resulting in the reduction of duplicative studies and extrapolations which could obviate the need for preliminary experiments as well as suggest useful models on the primitive end of the phylogenetic chain. The OTA report supports the idea of a computer-based registry--including data on studies that show negative results--but warns that it would be a huge undertaking.

The more moderate branch of the animal welfare movement appreciates the complexity of the problems in developing alternatives. Christine Stevens, founder of the Animal Welfare Institute (who is credited as being a major force in getting the Animal Welfare Act amended), agrees that the real promise in the near future is in refining methodologies, getting researchers better trained in the use of animal models, and improving information systems.

The revised Animal Welfare Act provides legislative basis for what could become a major information resource by directing the National Agricultural Library to provide a new information service in improved methods of animal experimentation with the help of the National Library of Medicine. However, money for this project would presumably come from APHIS, which would need a dramatically expanded budget to do it.

With questions of proper animal care now resolved, at least on paper, the most significant public policy question probably relates to the role of the federal government in encouraging the development and use of alternatives.

The government does not have targeted programs for research on alternatives, but there is some federal activity in the field of testing. For example, the National Toxicity Program, through the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, has spent about $70 million over the past 5 years to lay a basis for validation of in vitro tests. The National Cancer Institute is putting several million dollars into work on in vitro models for carcinogenesis. And the Environmental Protection Agency plans to spend $1.5 million to validate structure activity relationships, a computerized method for screening chemicals.

The main administrative focus for encouraging work on alternative in NIH's new Biological Models and Materials Resources Section within the Division of Research Resources. Its director, James Willett, is in charge of formulating a plan for NIH, due in October, which will be largely based on an NAS report, "Models for Biomedical Research: A New Perspective," issued last spring (Science, 21 June 1985, pp. 1412-1413).

As for immediate goals, the research community and the mainstream of the animal welfare community appear to be willing to work together on one, which is to get APHIS adequately enforced and funded. Inspection of laboratories covered by the Animal Welfare Act has always been a minor APHIS duty. A report last year by the General Accounting Office revealed that the inspections were infrequent (the new legislation mandates twice yearly inspections) and that it's veterinarians were poorly trained in laboratory animal care. The inspection budget has limped along at about $4.8 million a year, and the President's budget regularly calls for that to be zeroed out--the ideal being that local agencies and humane groups can do the job.

Richard Rissler of APHIS says inspections have increased since the heat has been on and that inspectors are now getting training. But observers, while happy with the law now, are very concerned that it will not get beyond the stage of lip service. And if it does not, university laboratories are probably right to anticipate more "inspections" conducted by the Animal Liberation Front. Indeed, some are bracing for it--Gay says he has heard some universities have spent up to $100,000 in the past 18 months on improved security measures.

New regulations notwithstanding, the animal rights forces continue to grow, fed by an enormous amount of publicity over the past year, including an article in Parade magazine which resulting in 10,000 letters to the Humane Society, and massive interest engendered by figures such as talk show host Phil Donahue and commentator Paul Harvey. McArdle says Humane Society membership has doubled over the past year to 450,000 and that most of the new members are animal rightists. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the country's largest radical group, says its membership has quadrupled, to over 120,000.

These activists want to eliminate all research that impinges on any animal's quality of life. They do not perceive that any tradeoffs are necessary because they maintain that animal research has not made any contributions of consequence to human health. At the NAS meeting, for example, speakers claimed that there had been no progress for decades in the reduction of cancer or mental illness despite extensive animal research ("the health of the average citizen continues to decline", observed Dale Armon of Pet Rescue).

The use of animals in behavioral research--the area that offers the slimmest prospects for replacing whole animals--is particularly abhorrent to these groups. They cite, for example, experiments in "learned helplessness" (which have made a major contribution to the understanding of depression), which demonstrate that animals suffer far more stress when they have no control over the timing of a noxious stimulus (electric shock). Animal rightists also oppose using animals for research on substance abuse--the attitude being that we know already that these things are bad, and we have no right to inflict disorders on healthy animals that they are not naturally prey to.

The other major focus (outside of toxicity testing) is the use of animals in trauma research. The University of Pennsylvania shut down its project using baboons to study head trauma after a highly publicized 1984 break-in. Activists have also succeeded in getting the Department of Defense to stop using cats and dogs for training in the treatment of wounds. More recently, in January, animal activists helped sabotage a plan by University of Florida researchers who wanted to use dogs to test the Heimlich maneuver on drowning victims--a technique they suspect is ineffective. PETA stages a demonstration and the researchers called off the experiment, explaining that it did not look as though medical groups planned to endorse the technique anyway.

Whether or not more raids occur, more political action can be expected directed at county and municipal governments. Animal groups will have what has become an annual show of force on 24 April for "World Laboratory Animals Day," when selected companies and universities will be taken to task for their animal practices. This year will see "more and more peaceful civil disobedience" according to Lori Gruen of PETA. "Scientists aren't going to be able to do anything without a public backlash." Among immediate goals on the activists' agenda are inclusion of animal advocates as the public members of institutional care committees, coverage of rats and mice by the Animal Welfare Act, and the elimination of "former pets" (pound animals) as research subjects.

There is little doubt that the combination of political pressure, financial stringency, and new and improved methodologies will result in the continued reduction of animal use at least in the near future. There is also little doubt that confrontations between the scientific community and the radical fringe of the animal welfare movement will continue. [A reprint of an article by Constance Holden in the April 11, 1986 issue of Science. Reprinted with permission.]

Tight Money Squeezes Out Animal Models

As Linda Cork of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine described her research on Rottweiler dogs at a recent National Institutes of Health meeting about diseases that affect nerve axons(1), she gave no indication that the experiments would be her last that that particular genetic model. Later, in an interview, Cork explained that restricted funding had forced her to terminate not just one, but two colonies of dogs carrying genes for degenerative neuronal diseases that are models for human diseases.

Cork is not the only researcher to lose animal models in recent years. Colonies of large animals, including cats, dogs, horses, and primates, are expensive to maintain and seem to suffer most often from the budget axe, but too little money is not the only issue. An increasing number of research scientists think that pressures from animal rights groups will jeopardize the use of certain animals in research.

Concern from scientists that valuable animal models are being lost recently prompted the National Research Council (NRC) to establish a new committee on the preservation of laboratory animal resources. Cork is a member of the committee, which met last month for the first time.

Not everyone agrees that important animal models have been squeezed out by the current funding crunch. James Willett of the Research Resources Branch at NIH says, "If you look at the number of projects NIH supports, or the dollars spent over the period from 1977 to 1984, research depending on animal models received a flat percentage of total support money. I find it hard, in light of that information, to see reductions in mammalian models during the past 7 years." Willett does not know what that means in terms of individual animal systems, but NIH is working with the National Academy of Sciences to see how specific models are being affected.

At least two general categories of animal models are used in biomedical research--genetic models for particular diseases and nondisease models used to study normal body functioning. Some researcher think that endangered models fall into both categories.

Cork describes the first group, "There are specific animal models which duplicate human disease in every respect. But more often, we are dealing with an animal model which replicates only certain aspects of human disease." The latter includes Cork's former colony of Rottweiler dogs which develop a movement disorder that worsens as they age. The dogs were a model for human neuroaxonal dystrophy, a group of inherited diseases in which nerve axons in the brain and spinal cord degenerate.

Although normal aging brain and spinal cord neurons show some signs of axonal dystrophy, the cellular changes in the disease state are more pronounced. Typically the end regions of axons swell first, forming spheroid structures. Ultimately the entire cell is affected. Cork and her colleagues at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine showed that spheroids form in many different kinds of nerve cells, a finding that disspelled the theory that only a single population of neurons was a risk.

Cork says that the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke has been supportive of animal models, has held a workshop, and will sponsor two exhibits on the topic. "But," she adds, "research in cats and dogs takes more time and more money than research in rats and mice. You get fewer animals to work with so you do fewer experiments. In large animal models it may take longer to demonstrate productivity. And to keep a grant funded one has to have publications and show productivity."

When a grant typically lasts for 3 years and it takes 2 years for an animal model to develop its inherited disease, researchers are hard pressed to crank out enough papers to satisfy NIH study sections. "If you could be assured of 5 years of funding, it could be crucial to the success of the research," says Cork, who has recently received a 5-year grant to work on a different dog model.

Even researchers who work with rodents are having serious problems maintaining colonies. For example, Thomas Gill of the University of Pittsburgh says "I personally know of three major rat colonies that have been closed down and three investigators that have been put out of business."

Gill describes himself as "an immunogeneticist whose interest is in rat genetics." He and his colleagues study reproductive immunology and transplantation and have "discovered a set of genes linked to the major histocompatability complex that causes malformations and small size in the newborns. These same genes predispose the animal to cancer if it has been exposed to chemical carcinogens." The major histocompatibility complex is a family of genes that regulates immune responses and determines whether an individual will reject transplanted tissue.

Gill's ability to do research has been adversely affected by funding because the increased costs of maintaining rats have not been accompanied by increased money to support them. His studies require large and diverse colonies of rats, and he says, "If you don't have the colony, you can't do the research. It is getting harder and harder to preserve animal models."

Gill's personal opinion about the preservation of animal models is that "the scientific community in this country has been too slow to respond to this issue." He is the chairman of NRC's Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources standing committee on animal models and genetic stocks and is also a member of the newly formed NRC committee on the preservation of laboratory animal resources.

A second category of animal models includes those used to study how the body performs normal functions. Perhaps the animal models most at risk in this group, in terms of their vulnerability to funding pressures and as potential targets for animal rights activists, are primates.

For instance, Mortimer Mishkin and his colleagues at the National Institute of Mental Health use Old World monkeys to study how the brain works. Mishkin fears that he and other primatologists, along with researchers who use cats and dogs, are primary targets for animal rights groups because "this is the topic most likely to incite the public."

Furthermore, the cost of obtaining a monkey has skyrocketed from about $100 about 10 years ago to $1500 today. The animal is usually maintained for 1 to 3 years, adding food, housing, veterinary, and security costs to the total bill. Mishkin sees restricted money as an increasing source of pressure and says, "Surely there will come a time when NIH study sections will ask if a grant is really worth this tremendous financial outlay."

What are the research implications if the use of primates is priced out of existence? Mishkin says, "We won't be able to study the neurobiology of the thought process--that's the implication. We're not going to have good neurobiological models, not just of disease states, but of how the whole damn thing works."

Mishkin is also looking ahead to the next level of research on brain function in chimpanzees. "There will come a time when we will know enough to investigate how the brain works in the next higher species. We should be foresighted and plan now to start breeding colonies of chimpanzees. But will Congress and the public support it?"

Douglas Bowden, of the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, is also a primatologists and neuroscientist. Like Mishkin, he thinks primates are essential for research in neurobiology and adds that "if research in primates were foreclosed, you would be foreclosing information about many aspects of human disease and normal function." For instance, monkeys are valuable models for studying AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome). They are unique models for research in orthodontics and cranial structure and development, they are essential for certain kinds of vision research, and they are the best models for certain metabolic studies, such as atherosclerosis and diabetes.

Bowden conducted his own survey of the use of mammals, including primates, in neuroscience research over the 1973-85 period. By sampling 20% of the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Society for Neuroscience, he found "some interesting trends." The relative number of neuroscience studies based on mammals has been steady at about 80%. But within that statistic, the number of studies based on rodents increased from about 45% in 1973 to almost 70% in 1985. Bowden says this "is a trend people should be aware of--that more and more information is based on studies with rats and mice."

The number of neuroscience studies of primates dropped only slightly over the 12-year period, from about 11% in 1973 to 8% by 1985. It seems that research with cats and dogs was squeezed out most by rodent studies. But these statistics are only for research in neuroscience. Bowden says that "from the late 1960's to the present the number of primates imported from the wild has dropped by about 90%." Overall, monkeys are used much less in research, and the development of alternative animal models and in vitro systems for much drug and toxicity testing are significant factors.

William Gay, director of NIH's Animal Resource Program expresses another point of view about the danger, or lack of it, in losing valuable animal models. "They don't tend to go out of existence like the passenger pigeon. I'm hard put to identify any models that have been lost that I feel terribly bad about. The researchers have to get support for these models. It is true that some are lost and if you start looking for these tales, you will find them. But they are gone because not enough research was done to support them."

With respect to any influence the animal right movement may have on the budget for animal models, Gay says, "It certainly isn't going to encourage NIH to spend more money for animal models. But I think NIH will continue to support animal models."

Wayne Grogan is the executive director of the NRC's Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, which includes the standing committee on animal models and genetic stocks and the new committee on preservation of laboratory animal resource.(2) The new committee will study the current situation regarding animal models and issue an assessment within the next year or two. In response to scientist's concern that important animal models have been lost, Grogan says, "It's very compelling, but some argue that if the colony is so valuable then why shouldn't it be supported by the normal funding mechanism? These are factors the new committee will have to consider in their deliberations."

Why, indeed? Perhaps the only point of general agreement is that there is simply not enough money to support all the animal models--genetic and normal--currently used in biomedical research. [A reprint of an article by Deborah M. Barnes in the April 18, 1986 issue of Science. Reprinted with permission.]


(1)"Neuroaxonal Dystrophy and Axonal Transport", 19-24 February 1986, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. The symposium was organized by the Fogarty Center and the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke.

(2)Dorothy Greenhouse is the NRC staff officer for both committees.


* * *

Custody Battle over Taub's Animals

Fourteen macaque monkeys, currently in the care of NIH, are the subjects of a custody case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District. The animals are among those owned by the Institute of Behavioral Research (IBR), which lost its NIH-support after Dr. Edward Taub, in a widely publicized case, was convicted of cruelty to animals. His conviction was later overturned, but the monkeys are in the care of NIH at least until the settlement of this case. Several animal protection groups are asking the court for guardianship of the monkeys, which they intend to move to Primarily Primates, a naturalistic animal sanctuary in Texas.

Twenty-eight research organizations have filed an amicus curiae brief. The brief is concerned with the effect the case could have on the future of animal research and, hence, public health. The protection organizations claim that their interest is not in setting a precedent for interference in research, but only in rescuing these specific monkeys.

The research organizations claim, however, that many of the animals, which were subjects in stroke and spinal cord injury research, are receiving continuing veterinary care and would not survive in a naturalistic setting.

In addition, the research groups feel that the animals should be studied as they heal, so that the contributions they have made to science thus far will not be wasted, and they will continue to generate knowledge that could benefit victims of stroke and spinal cord injury.

Meanwhile, the protection organizations are pressing their position, not only in court, but in the press, by marches and demonstrations, and by lobbying Congress. These efforts have been successful to the extent that a fairly large number of Congressmen have signed a letter to NIH Director James B. Wyngaarden, asking NIH to release the monkeys. In response, the research groups are urging their members and supporters to write to their Representatives and Senators, conveying their own point of view.

Subsequently, the Department of Health and Human Services offered a plan to relocate the animals, probably to a Regional Primate Research Center, where they would not undergo any invasive procedures for research purposes, but would be autopsied after their natural deaths. The plan also calls for every reasonable effort to achieve resocialization of the animals, including incorporation into breeding colonies. In response, however, Representative Robert H. Smith (R-NH) introduced a resolution indicating that it is the sense of Congress that NIH should transfer the animals to Primarily Primates. An identical resolution was introduced in the Senate by Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA).

* * *

News Briefs

Funds Reinstated at Columbia

On June 2, 1986, NIH Director James B. Wyngaarden signed a letter lifting the suspension of grant funds for animal research projects at Columbia University's health sciences division that had been in effect since January 27, 1986.

In its report of assurances filed with NIH on December 15, 1985, the University noted certain deficiences in its program. This report, along with complaints from the public, prompted an unannounced site visit January 23-24, 1986, that led to the suspension.

Based on a revised animal welfare assurance document dated May 5, 1986, and another site visit on May 20 by the Office for Protection from Research Risks, NIH determined that all deficiences have been rectified. NIH concluded that the University has adequately enhanced its program in the areas in which it had previously been deemed unsatisfactory. For example, the health sciences division has enhanced its occupational health program and instituted a biosafety committee; has increased veterinary staff; has adequately developed survival surgery facilities; has upgraded housing for animals; and has improved training of laboratory personnel.

NIH Funds reinstated at City of Hope

On May 2, 1986, NIH Director James B. Wyngaarden lifted suspension of the NIH funds for research involving laboratory animals which he had imposed upon the City of Hope National Medical Center. His decision was based upon an investigation by NIH's Office of Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) and OPRR's two year approval of City of Hope's new animal welfare assurance. During this period, OPRR will continue to monitor the status of the City of Hope's laboratory animal program. The OPRR investigation was triggered by a break-in on December 9, 1984 by the Animal Liberation Front. More than 100 animals were stolen and laboratories were vandalized at that time.

* * *

Conference Announcement: Animal Testing, Animal Welfare and Public Relations

F.O.R.U.M./Emeritus will present this conference on October 20-21, 1986 at Crowne Plaza, White Plains, New York. The topics are: The Media and the Scientist, and The Industrial Perspective. Workshop presentations will address the issues of establishing better communications between the scientific community and the media, promoting public awareness of the medical benefits of research, participating in the legislative process, studying alternatives to animal testing, and strengthening collaboration among industry, academia, government, and animal welfare proponents.

Participating faculty include Ms. Frankie Trull (Executive Director, Association for Biomedical Research), Mr. Henry Spira (Coordinator, Coalition to Abolish LD50 and the Draize Tests), Mr. Larry Horton, (Vice President for Public Affairs, Stanford University), Dr. Marshall Steinberg (Vice President and Scientific Director, Hazleton Laboratories Corporation), Dr. Andrew Rowan (Assistant Dean for New Programs, Tufts School of Veterinary Medicine), Dr. Richard Bednarz (Vice President, Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association), Dr. Gary Ellis (Project Director, Biological Applications Program, Office of Technology Assessment), Dr. Sidney Green (Associate Director for Laboratory Investigations, Division of Toxicology, FDA), Ms. Roberta Garfinkle (Educational Program Coordinator, Office of Protection from Research Risks, NIH), Barbara Mishkin, Esq. (Law Offices of Hogan and Hartson), Dr. Edward Melby (Vice President, Research and Development, Smith, Klein Animal Health Products).

For information and registration contact: Dr. Evelyn B. Allen, President, Emeritus Enterprises, P.O. Box 2025, River Vale, NJ 07675 (Phone: 201-768-7621).

* * *

Conference Announcement: Welfare of Laboratory Animals

The Scientists Center for Animal Welfare announce a conference, "The Welfare of Laboratory Animals: Current Issues," to be held in cooperation with the University of Texas System Cancer Center on October 16-17, 1986 in Houston, Texas. Topics to be addressed include the new 1986 provisions of both the Public Health Service policy and the federal law, public concerns about animal experiments, perception and amelioration of animal pain, ethical issues, and scientists' responsibilities toward animals. Workshop sessions will discuss institutional Animal Care and Use Committees; euthanasia; alternatives for refinement, replacement, and reduction of animal use; anesthetics/analgesics/and postoperative care; animal facility inspections; how to conduct training courses for investigators; use of animals in eduction; use of pound animals; and computer programs for monitoring animal care and use. Among the scheduled speakers are Charles McCarthy, Amy Freeman Lee, Andrew Rowan, Gilbert Greenwald, Richard Simmonds, Jean Dodds, Dennis Cohn, Chris Smith, Derrell Clark, Janet Payeur, James Stevens, and Michael Giannelli.

For more information contact Dr. F. Barbara Orlans, Scientists Center for Animal Welfare, 4805 St. Elmo Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, U.S.A., telephone (301) 654-6390, or Dr. Kenneth Gray, University of Texas System Cancer Center, Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, 6723 Bertner, Box 63, Houston, TX 77030, telephone (713) 792-2780.

* * *

Legislative Front: Some Activity at the State Level

An ominous development at the state level is bills which would vest animal rights and animal welfare groups with authority--or increased authority--to inspect research facilities, detain alleged violators, and even prosecute. The most notable example is in Massachusetts. There are eight animal welfare groups that have special police powers in Massachusetts (five have been added in the last decade). While a Senate committee there voted down S 1208 to add the Massachusetts office of the Fund for Animals to that list, another committee is studying H 2064 that would expand those groups' power, as well as H 1145 that would establish a licensing commission whose membership would probably consist largely of these activities.

In California, the Senate passed SB 1405 that would enable humane officers appointed by animal activist groups to lawfully enter research facilities and animal dealer facilities for inspection. The bill is now in an Assembly committee.

There were two proposals to increase penalties for break-ins at research facilities, yet neither succeeded. H 1797 was voted down in committee in Massachusetts. The other--the Filanti bill in California (AB 2404)--passed the Assembly, but a Senate committee has entirely changed the subject of the bill.

* * *

Establishment of a Primatological Library in Puerto Rico

The Caribbean Primate Research Center of the University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus, a minority institution, is in the process of establishing a library of books, journals and reprints on the social behavior and biology of nonhuman primates. Tax-deductible corporate, library, or personal donations or contributions would be most appreciated. They may be sent to the Director, Caribbean Primate Research Center, P.O. Box 1053, Sabana Seca, PR 00749. An official letter documenting all donations and contributions will be provided immediately.

* * *

Recent Books and Articles

(Addresses are those of first authors)


Current Perspectives in Primate Biology. David M. Taub & Frederick A. King (Eds.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1986. 315 pp. [Price: $44.50]
. . . Selected papers concerned with primates as biological entities from the XIth Congress of the International Primatological Society, held at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Atlanta, Georgia, August 8-13, 1982. Contents: PART I: REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR, BIOLOGY, AND ENDOCRINOLOGY. 1. Evolution of sex pheromones in higher primates, by G. J. Fox. 2. A primate model for assessing estrogenicity--The castrate female rhesus monkey, by G. B. Fuller, B. Burnett, & W. C. Hobson. 3. Overt behavior correlates of menstruation and ovulation in a lowland gorilla, by D. Quiatt, L. Miller, & R. Cambre. 4. Determination of estrogen concentrations and ovulation detection in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) by an enzymatic technique, by T. E. Ziegler & G. C. Stott. 5. Effects of lactate and pyruvate on in vitro fertilization of squirrel monkey oocytes, by P. J. Chan & W. R. Dukelow. 6. Cryopreservation of squirrel monkey ova, by F. J. DeMayo, R. J. Hutz, and W. R. Dukelow. 7. Primate colony management of harem breeding groups of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), by G. P. Goo. 8. Captive breeding in a source country, by J. G. Else.
. . . PART II. PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY. 9. Systematic position and evolution of primates within eutheria: Amino acid and nucleotide sequence findings, by J. E. Beeber, J. Czelusniak, & M. Goodman. 10. Dermatoglyphics and subspecific systematics of mantled howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata), by J. W. Froehlich & P. H. Froehlich. 11. On size of the semicircular canals organ in the Tarsius bancanus, by S. Matano, T. Kubo, T. Matsunaga, C. Niemitz, & M. Gunther. 12. Relative position of the foramen magnum in primates, by S. Matsumota. 13. Morpho-functional study of Tarsius' foot as compared to the galagines': What does an elongate calcaneus mean?, by C. Berge & F. K. Jouffroy. 14. Computerized tomographical biometry of the distal humerus: A new method in osteological studies, by P. P. Le Floch-Prigent. 15. Computed tomography of distal humerus in some living hominoid primates, by B. Senut. 16. The knee joint in three hominoid primates: Application to plio-pleistocene hominids and evolutionary implications, by C. Tardieu. 17. Morphological characteristics of upper molars of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri) and their individual variation, by M. Natori. 18. Relations between morphology and function of the dentition in the Stirtonia-alouatta lineage (Ceboidea), by T. Setoguchi. 19. Inbreeding in the maternal and paternal lines of four captive groups of rhesus monkeys ( Macaca mulatta), by D. G. Smith. 20. Evolutionary cytogenetics of the siabon (gibbon-siamang) hybrid apes, by D. A. Shafer.
. . . PART III. BIOMEDICINE. 21. Studies on lymphocyte subpopulations in primates, by K. Ben, B. Song, W. Dai, & R. Zhou. 22. Color vision tests of Japanese and rhesus monkeys, by T. Oyama, T. Furusaka, & T. Kito. 23. Handedness and cerebral asymmetry in nonhuman primates, by B. Preilowski, M. Reger, & H. C. Engele. 24. Retention and pathologic effects after plutonium injection into tupaias, by A. Seidel, G. Darai, P. Moller, W. Sontag, D. M. Taylor, & W. G. Thiess. 25. Natural trypanosome infection in neotropical monkeys with special reference to saimiri sciureus, by. B. L. Travi, O. J. Colillas, & E. L. Segura. 26. Procurement and standardization of nonhuman primates for biomedical research in South Africa, by D. J. Goosen, M. W. Odendaal, H. Van Der Laarse, and E. Alberts.

Current Perspectives in Primate Social Dynamics. David M. Taub & Frederick A. King (Eds.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1986. 531 pp. [Price: $54.50]
. . . Selected papers concerned primarily with primates as social animals from the same Congress indicated above. Contents: PART I: SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT. 1. Relationships among peers in kindergarten: A cross-cultural study, by G. Attili, B. Hold, & M. Schleidt. 2. Affinity: An ethological perspective of the infant-father relationship in humans, by W. T. Bailey. 3. Two sub-cultures of maternal care in the United States, by M. F. Elias, N. A. Nicolson, & M. Konner. 4. The pair-bond of the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus jacchus), by S. Evans. 5. Relation of allomothering to infant age in howlers, Alouatta pigra, with reference to old world monkeys, by R. H. Horwich & K. Gebhard. 6. Conflict, affiliation, mating, and the effects of spatial confinement in a captive group of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus), by S. I. Perloe. 7. The structure of social attention and its coordination with cohesive and dispersive activities in captive groups of squirrel monkeys, by F. F. Strayer & J. L. Gariepy. 8. Development of behavioral sex differences in neonatal pigtail macaques, by R. L. Wheeler. 9. Empirical techniques for the identification of dominance class, R. Gauthier & F. F. Strayer.
. . . PART II: ECOLOGY. 10. Habitat structure and feeding behavior of Cebus apella (Cebidae) in El Rey National Park, Argentina, by A. D. Brown. 11. A summary of the ranging and activity patterns of the pigtailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) in relation to those of sympatric primates in peninsular Malaysia, by J. O. Caldecott. 12. Time budgets and foraging behavior in wedge-capped capuchins (Cebus olivaceus): Age and sex differences, by D. M. Fragaszy. 13. Alouatta caraya: Habitat and resource utilization in northern Argentina, by D. I. Rumiz, G. E. Zunino, M. L. Obregozo, & J. C. Ruiz. 14. Distribution of tropical rain forest primates of Africa: Insular biogeographical evidence, by C. A. Chapman. 15. The effects of commercial logging on a West Malaysian primate community, by A. D. Johns. 16. Determining range size for arboreal monkeys: Methods, assumptions and accuracy, D. K. Olson. 17. Shape as a factor in primate thermoregulation, by J. D. Paterson. 18. Thermoregulation and social structure of a captive group of rhesus macaques, by J. F. Dahl, I. S. Bernstein, & L. E. Williams. 19. Controlling primate pests: The feasibility of conditioned taste aversion, by D. L. Forthman-Quick. 20. Relationship of reproductive condition to food intake and sucrose consumption of female rhesus monekys, by J. W. Kemnitz, J. R. Gibber, S. G. Eisele, & K. A. Lindsay. 21. Baboons, diet, and disease: Food plant selection and schistosomiasis, by J. E. Phillips-Conroy. 22. Evolutionary biology and ecology of rhinopithecus, by R. Happel & T. Cheek.
. . . PART III: COMMUNICATION. 23. A comparative study of common chimpanzee and human infant sounds, by H. R. Bauer. 24. Vocalizations and social relationships of wild gorillas: A preliminary analysis, A. J. Harcourt, K. J. Stewart, & D. E. Harcourt. 25. Influence of moonlight level on travelling and calling patterns in two sympatric species of Galago in Kenya, by L. T. Nash. 26. Interspecific and intraspecific responses to some species-specific vocalizations in marmosets, tarmarins, and Goeldi's monkeys, by N. Masataka. 27. Complexities in the study of vervet monkey grunts, by R. M. Seyfarth & D. L. Cheney. 28. Ontogeny of primate vocalizations: Models from bird song and human speech, by C. T. Snowdon, J. A. French, & J. Cleveland. 29. Stage 5 cognition in an infant gorilla, by F. Antinucci, G. Spinozzi, & F. Natale. 30. Acquisition and generalization of numerical labeling by a chimpanzee, by T. Matsuzawa, T. Asano, K. Kubota, & K. Murofishi. 31. Studies of concept formation by stumptailed monkeys: The concept "humans", by A. M. Schrier, R. Angarella, & M. L. Povar. 32. Aspects of space representation in an infant gorilla, by E. Visalberghi. 33. Eye movements of monkeys engaged in visual search, by E. G. Keating, S. E. Pratt, & D. V. Kenney. 34. Individual differences in tool-using by two captive orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), by B. J. King. 35. Food exchange in captive chimpanzees, by L. Lefebvre & T. A. Hewitt. 36. Comparison of component patterns in threatening and friendly gestures in Macaca sylvanus of Gibraltar, by A. C. Zeller. 37. Grooming site preferences as a form of tactile communication and their role in the social relations of rhesus monkeys, by M. L. Boccia. 38. The use of emotional displays in decisions about intention by children of different ages, K. G. Dolgin & M. Azmitia.

Major Topics in Primate and Human Evolution. Bernard Wood, Lawrence Martin, & Peter Andrews (Eds.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1986. 364 pp. [Price: $39.50]
. . . The papers in this book stemmed from a symposium sponsored jointly by the Anatomical Society and the Primate Society of Great Britain and held at the Middlesex Hospital Medical School. Also incorporated into the volume are the Osman Hill Lecture of the Primate Society and the Annual Review Lecture of the Anatomical Society. Contents: 1. Primates: A definition, by R. D. Martin. 2. Plesiadapis and the delineation of the order primates, by P. D. Gingerich. 3. The relationships of the Tarsiiformes: A review of the case for the Haplorhini, by L. C. Aiello. 4. Platyrrhines, catarrhines and the anthropoid transition, by A. L. Rosenberger. 5. Problems of dental evolution in the higher primates, by P. M. Butler. 6. Molecular evidence for catarrhine evolution, by P. M. Andrews. 7. The fossil record of early catarrhine evolution, by J. G. Fleagle. 8. Molecular sequences and hominoid phylogeny, by M. J. Bishop & A. E. Friday. 9. Hominoid evolution: molecular and palaeontological patterns, by M. Ruvolo & D. Pilbeam. 10. Relationships among extant and extinct great apes and humans, by L. Martin. 11. Bipedalism: Pressures, origins, and modes, by M. H., Day. 12. Dental trends in the australopithecines: The allometry of mandibular molar dimensions, by W. L. Jungers & F. E. Grine. 13. Australopithecus: Grade or clade? 14. Homo and Paranthropus: Similarities in the cranial base and developing dentition, by M. C. Dean. 15. The credibility of Homo habilis, by C. B. Stringer. 16. The origin and fate of Homo erectus, by A. Bilsborough & B. A. Wood. 17. The origin of Homo sapiens: The genetic evidence, by J. S. Jones. 18. The origin of Homo sapiens: The fossil evidence, by D. R. Pilbeam.


Hepatic enzymes of nonhuman primates: A bibliography, 1980-1985. Seattle: Primate Information Center, 1986. [Price: $6.50. Send order to: Primate Information Center, Regional Primate Research Center, SJ-50, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.]

Infections, diseases and physical disorders of zoo captive monkeys and prosimians: A bibliography, 1976-1985, 2nd ed. Seattle: Primate Information Center, 1986. (273 citations, primate index). [Price: $7.50. Ordering information same as above.]

Group formation in captive nonhuman primates: A bibliography, 1975-1986. J. W. Williams. Seattle: Primate Information Center, 1986. (212 citations, primate index) [Price: $6.50. Ordering information same as above.]

Hemodynamics (non-cerebral) of conscious nonhuman primates: Physiologic, pharmacologic, and pathologic studies: A bibliography, 1965-1985. B. Caminiti. Seattle: Primate Information Center, (in preparation). (292 citations, approx) [Price: $7.50. Ordering information same as above.]


IPPL Newsletter, 1986, 13[1]. (Dian Fossey Memorial Issue.)
. . . The International Primate Protection League has dedicated this issue of its Newsletter to the memory of Dian Fossey, who was killed last year in Rwanda. The issue contains tributes, memorials, and photographs. Individual copies are available at no cost from the International Primate Protection League, P.O. Box 766, Summerville, SC 29484.


Report of the American Society of Primatologists Subcommittee on the status of primates in the wild. Southwick, C. H., Mittermeier, R. A., Robinson, J. G., & Tenaza, R. A. American Journal of Primatology, 1986, 10, 371-378.
. . . The report outlines the status of primates in South and Central America, Asia, and Africa based on 16 replies to the subcommittee's request for recent news on the question. The report outlines some of the positive accomplishments that provide encouraging examples of what can be accomplished in the area of conservation of primates. Also outlined are some of the more pressing problems toward a solution of which ASP members, among others, are asked to lend their support. (The subcommitte was chaired by Charles H. Southwick, Dept. of EPO Biology, University of California, Boulder, CO 80309.)


Retroperitoneal fibromatosis and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in macaques: Clinical and immunologic studies. Tsai, C.-C., Giddens, W. J. Jr., Ochs, H. D., Morton, W. R., Knitter, G. H., Blakley, G. A., & Benveniste, R. E. (Regional Primate Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.) Laboratory Animal Science, 1986, 36, 119-125.
. . . A simian acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (SAIDS) associated with retroperitoneal fibromatosis (RF) has been observed in several species of macaque at the Washington Regional Primate Research Center. Clinical signs were recurrent diarrhea, weight loss, mesenteric lymphadenopathy, and opportunistic infections. Most affected macaques in the later stages of illness showed marked immunodeficiency. Response of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to mitogens were impaired significantly. There was sharply depressed primary and secondary antibody response to the T-cell dependent antigen, bacteriophage OX174. Affected monkeys did not switch from IgM to IgG antibody following a secondary immunization, as did normal macaques. 24 of 36 affected animals with progressive RF or deteriorated stages of illness had hypoproteinemia and hypoalbuminemia. Quantitative serum immunoglobulins of 23 cases showed that eight had hypogammaglobulinemia, six had hypergammaglobulinemia, and the remainder were within the normal range. Opportunistic infections were predominantly bacterial pathogens. Type D retrovirus appeared to be closely associated with RF-affected macaques (12/12). The case fatality rate (including animals sacrificed after prolonged illness) was 98%. The leading cause of death was due directly to RF lesions in 43%, to enterocolitis in 36%, septicemia in 12%, amyloidosis in 5%, and malignant lymphoma 2%. Clinical, immunologic and pathologic changes reveal an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome that has many similarities to human AIDS. SAIDS and RF may be a useful model for studying human AIDS.

Salmonella osteomyelitis in a rhesus monkey. Klumpp, S. A., Weaver, D. S., Jerome, C. P., Jokinen, M. P. (Dept. of Comparative Medicine, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27103.) Veterinary Pathology, 1986, 23, 190-197.
. . . An adult male rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) developed clinical signs of severe osteomyelitis of the left femur 42 days after onset of enteritis. Salmonella sp. were cultured from feces, blood, and femoral lesions. Response to antibiotic therapy was poor, and the animal was euthanized. The left femur, with pathologic fracture and involucrum, and the right femur, tibia and fibula were most severely affected. Additionally, hepatic microgranulomas, mild tubulointerstital nephritis, medullary histiocytosis and erythrophagocytosis in the lymph nodes, and a mild colitis were diagnosed microscopically. The severity of the disease and serum electrophoresis findings were suggestive of lowered resisitance to the organism, possibly due to anemia or polychlorinated biphenyl toxicosis.

Case Report: Esophageal Spirura infection in a squirrel monkey (Saimiri sciureus). Blanchard, J. L. & Eberhard, M. L. (Delta Regional Primate Research Center, Three Rivers Road, Covington, LA, 70433.) American Journal of Primatology, 1986, 10, 279-282.
. . . Necropsy of an adult, wild-born squirrel monkey revealed 30 to 40 esophageal nematodes. The anterior end of each nematode was firmly attached to the mucosa, with the remaining portion free in the lumen. Histologic changes were limited to the superficial mucosa, where the eopithelium adjacent to the nematode was hyperplastic and increased keratin formed a bridge over the body of the parasite. The nematode was identified as belonging to the genus Spirura. The number of parasites in this animal was considered significant and contributed to the death of the animal.

Congenital cataract in a cynomolgus monkey. Suzuki, M. T., Narita, H., Hanari, K., Fukui, M., Cho, F., & Honjo, S. (The Corporation for Production and Research of Laboratory Primates, The National Institute of Health, Hachimandai, Yatabe-machi, Tsukuba-gun, Ibaraki-ken.) Experimental Animals, 1986, 35, 193-197.
. . . The anterior part of the eye was examined in 1,531 newborn Macaca fascicularis. One male was found to have white opacities in both eyes. This finding was diagnosed to be bilateral congenital cataract by observing with a slit-lamp biomicroscope. Partial resorption of the white opaque part occurred one week after birth in the right eye and three weeks after birth in the left eye. As a result of the resorption, observation of the ocular fundus by an ophthalmoscope became possible at two and seven weeks of age in the right and left eyes, respectively, even though the ophthalmoscopic figures were not complete. White opacities again occupied nearly the whole area of the lens at 10 months of age in the left eye and at 14 months of age in the right eye. Breeding studies are needed to determine if this case has any genetic background.

Ecology and Field Studies

The Nigerian guenon, Cercopithecus erythrogaster: Ecological, behavioral, systematic and historical observations. Oates, J. F. (Dept. of Anthropology, Hunter College of CUNY, New York, NY 10021.) Folia Primatologica, 1985, 45, 25-43.
. . . Field observations and a study of museum skins showed that Cercopithecus erythrogaster is less variable than some accounts have suggested, and support its status as a valid species within the Cercopithecus cephus group. The species is still widespread in the lowland forest zone of southwest Nigeria, where it is most typically seen in dense, tangled growth below 15 m. Throughout the range of C. erythrogaster, forests are being destroyed at a rapid rate and hunting for meat is intense, threatening the survival of the species. Alternative hypotheses for the existence of an endemic guenon in southwest Nigeria are discussed, and it is concluded that at present there is insufficient evidence to choose between them. "Cercopithecus signatus" is shown not be synonymous with C. erythrogaster; the signatus specimens may be hybrids.

Facilities, Care and Breeding

Gelatin as a vehicle for food and vitamin administration to marmosets. Pereira, L. H., Melo, A. L., & Resende, D. M. (Department de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciencias Biologicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Caixa Postal 2486, 30 000 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil.) Laboratory Animal Science, 1986, 36, 189-190.
. . . Feeding marmosets in captivity has often been a problem since there is a marked difference between the natural feeding habits of these primates in nature and artifical food administration in captivity. Due to inadequate feeding, captive marmosets, as well as other Callitrichidae genuses, frequently suffer from malnutrition. They often refuse dietary components and show low interest in a monotonous diet. For a period of three years, gelatin was used as a vehicle for administration of food, vitamin complex and drugs to laboratory maintained Callitrix penicillata and Callithrix jacchus marmosets and a breeding colony of C. penicillata. In both circumstances, results were satisfactory. The animals survived for long periods of time, with adult, young and juvenile primates in the breeding colony showing good physical condition. The advantages of using gelatin are the high protein content, ease of preparation due to its physical properties and ease of addition of liquid or solid particles such as drugs, fruits, sugar and other foodstuffs.

Isolation of females prior to parturition reduces neonatal mortaility in Galago. Izard, M. K. & Simons, E. L. (Duke University Primate Center, 3705 Erwin Road, Durham, NC 27705.) American Journal of Primatology, 1986, 10, 249-255.
. . . 18 years of birth records for three species of Galago at the Duke University Primate Center were examined to determine the effects of isolation of pregnant females on neonatal mortality rates. Isolation significantly decreased neonatal mortality rates in all three species over neonatal mortality rates in infants born to unisolated females. The frequency of cannibalism of infants did not differ between isolated and unisolated females. Secondary sex ratio differed significantly from 1:1 for all three species, but higher mortality in males in the first 10 days of life resulted in sex ratios that did not differ from 1:1 in G. garnetti and G. crassicaudatus.

A demographic analysis of the Wisconsin Regional Primate Center Rhesus Colony, 1962-1982. Dyke, B., Gage, T. B., Mamelka, P. M., Goy, R. W., & Stone, W. H. (Dept. of Genetics, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, P.O. Box 28147, San Antonio, TX 78284.) American Journal of Primatology, 1986, 10, 257-269.
. . . A detailed demographic analysis was made of the Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center rhesus colony from vital statistics recorded over a 20-year period. Techniques used were based on demographic and epidemiological methods developed for human populations, which provide the potential for making standardized measurements within captive primate colonies. A life table based on 1,086 deaths showed an abnormally high survivorship at the older ages, probably caused by a tendency to retain especially robust animals for breeding purposes. During the period of study, 2,194 animals were removed for sale or research. Removal rates were relatively uniform across ages. Age-specific fertility rates based on 1,616 births occuring during the second decade showed a relatively rapid increase in births from about age 2 through 12, with peak fertility persisting until about age 20. Vital events showed significant seasonality, with a birth peak in April and May. Analysis of the stable age structure (excluding removal) showed an intrinsic growth rate of 6.3%. With removal rates added, the growth rate dropped to -0.3%. Although the use of these methods is probably warranted only by the level of detail found in captive colony records, analysis of captive colonies can provide information relevant to the demography of wild primates.

The detection of ovulation and early pregnancy in the baboon by direct measurement of conjugated steroids in urine. Hodges, J. K., Tarara, R., Hearn, J. P., & Else, J. G. (Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London NW1 4RY, U.K.) American Journal of Primatology, 1986, 10, 329-338.
. . . The pattern of excretion of urinary steroid metabolites in the olive baboon (Papio anubis) was examined during the menstrual cycle and in conception cycles in which embryos were surgically removed at intervals between day 11 and 21 (day 0 = day of preovulatory estrogen peak). Results showed that measurement of urinary conjugated estrone reflected preovulatory estrogen output and that pregnanediol-3alpha-glucuronide was an abundant urinary metabolite of progesterone. There was a defined postovulatory increase in the excretion of conjugated estrone during conception cycles in 8 of 10 animals. The timing of the increase ranged between day 13 and day 19 and was related to the appearance of elevated levels of urinary gonadotrophin. In four animals, increased estrogen excretion was first detected after the day of embryo removal, but this was most likely a response to chorionic gonadotrophin secreted before surgery. The findings demonstrate that measurement of conjugated estrone offers a rapid and practical approach for monitoring ovulation and implantation in the baboon by a single assay technique.

Enclosure design and reproductive success of baboons used for reproductive research in Kenya. Else, J. G., Tarata, R., Suleman, M. a., & Eley, R. M. (Institute of Primate Research, National Museums of Kenya, Box 24481, Karen, Nairobi, Kenya.) Laboratory Animal Science, 1986, 36, 168-172.
. . . Three 125cu-m enclosures were designed to enable collection of urine from female baboons (Papio sp.) during early pregnancy, while maintaining them in close continuous social contact to permanent breeding groups. Attached to each enclosure were individual cages to which females were confined for urine collections. Over the 18-month period following group formation, 60 of 67 femals became pregnant and then 51 reconceived following surgical termination of pregnancy. A total of 181 pregnancies were recorded. Over 75% of reconceptions occurred within the first two cycles following surgery. The enclosures have proved to be extremely versatile, allowing sampling of individual animals maintained in group conditions with the ability to interact socially.

Instruments and Techniques

Acute restraint device for rhesus monkeys. Robbins, D. O., Zwick, H., Leedy, M., Stearns, G. (Dept. of Psychology, Ohio Western University, Delaware, OH 43015.) Laboratory Animal Science, 1986, 36, 68-70.
. . . A practical and inexpensive alternative to the standard primate chair is described. The apparatus is designed to allow easy removal of rhesus monkeys from their home cages and to allow restraint without anesthesia. A portable Plexiglas cage, which can be adjusted to accommodate rhesus monkeys of varying sizes, is placed against an animal's home cage. The animals is then trained to avoid the squeeze mechanism of the home cage by going into the Plexiglas cage. The animal's head can them be secured by means of poles hooked to a light weight collar worn permanently. This device and procedure allows an investigator to work with a restrained animal withough resorting to drugs, unnecessary force or chronic restraint. Animals can be transferred daily with this technique with minimal conditioning and cooperation.

Security in the research laboratory: Part 2. Communications, personnel, and publicity. Clifford, D. H., Green, K. A. (K. A. Green, Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine, Medical College of Ohio, C.S. 10008, Toledo, OH 43699.) Lab Animal, 1986, 15[3], 23-24 & 28-29.
. . . In the last issue of this magazine (see April, 1986 issue of the Newsletter, p. 13), security devices and systems for perimeter and internal control were examined, providing research facilities with a guide for evaluation of their existing security systems. While certain aspects of facility design as well as the security devices themselves comprise the heart of a total security system, personnel, communications, and publicity are equally important aspects of a functional security system. Many reported laboratory animal facility break-ins have involved inside persons, and in many cases, entry was gained with a master key, thus one way or another, facility personnel have usually had a hand in these break-ins. Part two of this article deals with personnel security as well as communications and publicity.


Dental eruption in captive-born Cebus apella: From birth to 30 months old. Galliari, C. (Centro Argentino de Primates, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnica, Casilla de Correo 145, 3400, Corrientes, Argentina.) Primates, 1985, 26, 506-510.
. . . This work reports on the ages of gingival eruption of deciduous and permanent teeth in captive-born individuals observed from the time of birth until 30 months. All of the animals were born with the protrusive d1 already through the gingival border. The dpm4 were the last teeth of the deciduous series which emerged at 24.5 +/- 3.11 weeks in the males and 27.8 +/- 2.95 weeks in the females. Significant sexual differences were found between the eruption period of the dpm2., dpm4., and dpm4 with the males being more precocious than the females. The first permanent tooth that emerged, usually, was the M1 at 13.50 +/- 2.12 months in the males, and 14.00 +/- 0.82 months in the females. At 30 months of age, not one individual had replaced his deciduous canine or premolar teeth with the permanent ones and, moreover, the M3-3 had not yet emerged.

Selected coagulation reference values for adult and juvenile baboons. Kelly, C. A., & Gleiser, C. A. (Laboratory Animal Medicine Dept., Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, San Antonio, TX 78284.) Laboratory Animal Science, 1986, 36, 173-175.
. . . Sodium citrated blood samples were collected from clinically normal baboons of various ages. Prothrombin times, activated partial thromboplastin times and quantitative fibrinogen levels were determined using current, widely available techniques. Arithmetic mean values and observed ranges were determined for 61 animals.


On a new species of squirrel monkey, genus Saimiri, from Brazilian Amazonia (Primates, Cebidae). Ayres, J. M. (Subdept. of Veterinary Anatomy, Tennis Court Rd., Cambridge CB2, 1US, U.K.) Papeis Arulses Zoologia (Sao Paulo), 1985, 36, 147-164.
. . . A new species of the boliviensis species group is described, from the very complex area of the mouth of the Japura River and adjacent islands. The species, Saimiri vanzolinii, was observed in its habitat and notes on its natural history are presented. It was possible to determine its range with reasonable accuracy; it is areally restricted and ecologically peculiar, which leads to a discussion of the conservation status. The distributions of the forms of Saimiri occuring in the region are discussed based on new evidence.


In many cases, the original source of references in this section has been the Current Primate References prepared by The Primate Information Center, Regional Primate Research Center SJ-50, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98l95. Because of this excellent source of references, the present section is devoted primarily to presentation of abstracts of articles of practical or of general interest. In most cases, abstracts are those of the authors.


* * *

Upcoming Primate Meetings

An international symposium on "Primates - The New Revolution" will be hosted by the Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007, India. The symposium will be held December 26-31, 1986. The tentative programming categories are: past and present trends--an overview; primate radiations--newer interpretations; behaviour dynamics; evolving genes and proteins; endangered species; conservation; data management; statistical analysis of data; reproductive biology; applications of VCRs in field studies; future studies. For registration forms and further information contact: Dr. P. K. Seth, Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007, India.

* * *

NOTE: All printed back issues of the Laboratory Primate Newsletter are available at $3 each.

All correspondence concerning the Newsletter should be addressed to:
Judith E. Schrier, Psychology Department, Box 1853, Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912. (Phone: 401-863-2511)


The Newsletter is supported by U. S. Public Health
Service Grant RR-00419 from the Animal Resources Program,
Division of Research Resources, N.I.H.

We are grateful to Linda Straw Coelho of San Antonio, Texas, for providing the cover drawing of a slow loris, Nycticebus coucang.

Copyright @1986 by Brown University

Editor: Allan M. Schrier
Consulting Editor: Morris L. Povar
Managing Editor: Janice E. Viticonte