Abstract
Like catarrhines, some platyrrhines show exposed and reddish skin, raising the possibility that reddish signals have evolved convergently. This variation in skin exposure and color combined with sex‐linked polymorphic color vision in platyrrhines presents a unique, and yet underexplored, opportunity to investigate the relative importance of chromatic versus achromatic signals, the influence of color perception on signal evolution, and to understand primate communication broadly. By coding the facial skin exposure and color of 96 platyrrhines, 28 catarrhines, 7 strepsirrhines, 1 tarsiiform, and 13 nonprimates, and by simulating the ancestral character states for these traits, we provide the first analysis of the distribution and evolution of facial skin exposure and color in platyrrhini. We highlight ways in which studying the presence and use of color signals by platyrrhines and other primates will enhance our understanding of the evolution of color signals, and the forces shaping color vision.
Keywords: chroma, color vision, communication, luminance, New World monkeys, skin
1. INTRODUCTION
Colorful visual signals, their evolution, and their role in communication within and between species have captivated biologists for centuries.1, 2 While bold and high‐contrasting colors and patterns are seen throughout diverse animal taxa (e.g. velvet ants [Dasymutilla occidentalis],3 strawberry poison‐dart frog [Oophaga pumilio],4 and glass eye squirrel fish [Heteropriacanthus cruentatus]5), these signals are typically aposematic in function.6 Yet some taxa make extensive use of color for intraspecific social and sexual signaling.7, 8 Arguably the most visually striking of all taxa, the birds are well known for using complex color patterns in their plumage—or more rarely, skin—combined with other signals in conspicuous multimodal displays that often seem to be evaluated by conspecifics and used in female mate choice.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 While most mammals are typically dull in coloration, nonhuman primates (hereafter, primates) are one obvious exception. Unlike other large mammals, primates often exhibit conspicuous color patterns, most especially on their faces and rumps. A role of colorful signals among primates is perhaps unsurprising, given that visual communication is extensively used in this clade, which exhibit large eyes, high visual acuity, and a heavy reliance on the visual sense for daily activities.14, 15 Primate skin coloration appears to be of exceptional comparative interest. Unlike in birds, in which coloration is often a product of female mate choice for male ornamentation, in primates, colors seem more commonly linked to male–male competition, and status signaling (e.g. vervet monkeys16; geladas17; drills18; mandrills19). Nonetheless, a number of species appear to show traits that are primarily under intrasexual selection and associated with male–male signaling, but that might be secondarily under intersexual selection as mate choice ornaments (e.g., mandrills19, 20), or conversely, primarily under intersexual selection as mate choice ornaments, but secondarily under intrasexual selection and associated with male–male signaling (e.g., male rhesus macaques21, 22). Together, this provides a unique and exciting opportunity to investigate total sexual selection—how multiple mechanisms of sexual selection are acting in concert or antagonistically on the same trait.23 Additionally, unlike clades like birds, in which all diurnal species are thought to be tetrachromatic, primates exhibit great intraorder diversity in color perception.24 Primates also exhibit a stunning range of social organizations, and mating systems, including monogamy, polygyny, polyandry, and polygynandry. The latter includes extreme interspecific variation in the distribution of matings and genetic reproduction.25
Understanding the evolutionary selective pressures acting on color variation of the faces, genitals, hindquarters, and elsewhere, within and between primate species has long been of interest to evolutionary biologists and anthropologists, dating back to Darwin.1, 26 However, with few recent exceptions,27, 28, 29 the vast majority of research has focused on one particular taxonomic lineage, the African and Asian monkeys (part of the Parvorder Catarrhini).30 A more comprehensive understanding of primate color variation—as well as a broader intraorder comparative framework for interpreting the radiation of catarrhine color patterns, is currently lacking. Our aim here is to highlight the potential of the other major diurnal radiation of haplorhine primates, the platyrrhines (monkeys inhabiting Mexico, Central, and South America), for new studies of visual communication, which are likely to offer new insights into our understanding of sexual selection and communication in primates.
2. SKIN COLOR AND EXPOSURE IN PRIMATES: ROLES IN VISUAL COMMUNICATION
Catarrhine primates are well known to possess large patches of exposed skin on their faces and hindquarters, and to possess skin color that varies in response to fertility, pregnancy, and other reproductive phases, as well as social status.31 In addition to chroma (the hue and saturation components of color), patterns of luminance variation is a frequent but often underemphasized component of color signaling in catarrhines.32, 33 Chromatic and achromatic components of signals seem to have different mechanisms of inheritance34 but often covary.35 For example, red male rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) receive more sexual solicitations by more females than pale pink males, suggesting the potential importance of both chroma and luminance.21, 36 A now impressively large body of work has focused on the reddish and other colorful signals of African and Asian primates, and their roles in socio‐sexual communication (Table 1).
Table 1.
Studies conducted on primate coloration in relation to social and sexual selection in Catarrhini (African and Asian) and Platyrrhini (Mexican, Central, and South American) monkeys
| World region | Species studied | Conclusions | Study methods | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Africa and Asia | Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) | Females show a peak in skin coloration during the ovarian cycle | Free‐ranging and captive; color charts; color scores | 37 |
| Females exhibit preferences for the red version of male faces | Free‐ranging; behavior experiment with color‐manipulated digital images of faces | 38 | ||
| Males display longer gaze durations in response to reddened versions of females’ hindquarters, but not to reddened versions of faces | Free‐ranging; behavior experiment with color‐manipulated digital images of faces | 39 | ||
|
Females had longer gaze durations toward red in comparison to nonred females faces and hindquarters Pregnancy coloration might be an attention‐grabbing stimulus to males |
Free‐ranging; behavior experiment with color‐manipulated digital images of faces and hindquarters Free‐ranging; behavior experiment with color‐manipulated digital images of faces |
|
||
| Facial skin color covaries with the timing of the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle | Free‐ranging; digital photography; objective measure of color | 42 | ||
| Facial skin luminance covaries with the timing of the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle | Free‐ranging; digital photography; species‐specific visual models | 43 | ||
| Males distinguish ovulatory from preovulatory faces, but familiarity seems to be important to perceive signals related to reproductive status | Free‐ranging; behavior experiment with printed color‐calibrated images of faces | 44 | ||
| No evidence that skin coloration is related to male dominance rank or used in female mate choice | Free‐ranging; digital photography; species‐specific visual models | 35 | ||
| Dark red males receive more sexual solicitations, by more females, than pale pink ones | Free‐ranging; digital photography; species‐specific visual models and behavior assessment | 21 | ||
| Adult females and males looked longer at dark male faces compared with pale pink ones | Free‐ranging; behavior experiment with printed color‐calibrated images of faces | 36 | ||
| Trichromacy confers a better ability to detect meaningful variation in primate face coloration than dichromacy does | Digital images of free‐ranging rhesus macaques; species‐specific visual models | 45 | ||
| Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) |
Degree of facial redness and occurrence of copulation were closely synchronized during the ovarian cycle and peaked around ovulation Female facial skin coloration triggers male's selective behavior |
Wild; subjective color scores
Free‐ranging; behavior experiment with color‐manipulated digital images of faces |
|
|
| Facial luminance decreases between the pre‐conceptive month to the pregnancy period | Free‐ranging; digital photography; species‐specific visual models | 48 | ||
| No evidence that female facial color is an indicator of age, dominance rank, parity or health | Free‐ranging; digital photography; species‐specific visual models | 49 | ||
| Mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx) | The increase in redness of the sexual skin on the face and genitalia of males is related to social rank | Semi free‐ranging; color charts; color scores | 50 | |
| Females show preference for brightly colored males, independent of dominance rank | Semi free‐ranging; color charts; color scores | 20 | ||
| Males may use red coloration to facilitate the assessment of dominance and subordination | Semi free‐ranging; color charts; color scores | 19 | ||
| Color is not related to female rank or quality but may be a signal of reproductive quality | Semi free‐ranging; digital photography; objective measure of color | 51 | ||
| Male facial redness is likely to reflects an honest signal of androgen status, competitive ability and willingness to engage in fights | Semi free‐ranging; digital photography; objective measure of color | 52 | ||
| Red coloration is unrelated to parasitism and hematological parameters in male and females | Semi free‐ranging; digital photography; objective measure of color | 53 | ||
| No relationship between red color and glucocorticoid levels | Semi free‐ranging; digital photography; objective measure of color | 54 | ||
| Facial color increases with fecal androgen concentrations across females | Semi free‐ranging; digital photography; objective measure of color | 55 | ||
| Drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus) | Male coloration indicates rank status. | Semi free‐ranging; digital photography; objective measure of color | 18 | |
| Baboon (Papio sp.) | Skin color is not related to menstrual cycle but is influenced by parity | Captive; color charts; color scores | 56 | |
| Skin color is not related to the timing of ovulation but may contain information about female parity | Wild; digital photography; objective measure of color | 32 | ||
| Skin color is uninformative concerning the intracycle probability of fertility | Semi free‐ranging; digital photography; objective measure of color | 57 | ||
| Gelada (Theropithecus gelada) | Red chest is a signal of one male unit holding status | Wild; digital photography; objective measure of color | 17 | |
| Black‐and‐white snub‐nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus bieti) | Lip redness increases with age and in the mating season | Semi‐provisioned; digital photography; objective measure of color | 33 | |
| Vervet monkey (Cercopithecus sp.) |
Genital coloration is associated with intermale agonism; regulates the behavior of male competitors and may facilitate the evolution of multimale social system Males with darker scrotal color dominate males with pale scrota |
Free‐ranging and captive; subjective color scores
Captive; color charts; color scores; color manipulation and behavior assessment |
|
|
|
Females pay attention to male coloration, but do not bias their interactions towards males solely based on coloration Scrotum color varies between species; However, color variation may function as an age‐related signal to all species. Color is also related to morphological features (canine and body length) |
Captive; color charts; color scores; color manipulation and behavior assessment Free‐ranging and captive; digital photography; objective measure of color |
|
||
| Sanje mangabey (Cercocebus sanjei) | Increase of skin luminance during ovulation period but not during gestation | Wild; subjective color scores | 61 | |
| Mexico, Central and South America | Common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) | Skin chroma and luminance varies during the weeks surrounding parturition | Captive; spectrometry; species‐specific visual models | 62 |
Facial skin that is distinctly reddish and/or exhibits large luminance contrast relative to surrounding pelage is also present in the other major radiation of haplorhine primates, the monkeys of Mexico, Central and South America (Parvorder Platyrrhini) (Figure 1). Intriguingly, a wide diversity of social systems occurs in platyrrhines, including polyandry and monogamy, begs investigating the impact of mating systems on signal evolution. However, comparative studies of platyrrhine coloration are almost absent in the literature. The only study investigating intraspecific skin color variation in platyrrhines demonstrates that female genital skin color (luminance and hue) varies across pregnancy and parturition in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus).62 It is possible that this color variation is a nonadaptive by‐product of hormonal variation with no signaling purpose.63, 64 Alternatively skin color may be part of a suite of sensory cues associated with triggering preparation for male care,65 or female reproductive suppression.66 Although speculative, this work calls attention to the potential for intraspecific skin color signals in platyrrhine monkeys and highlights the need and potential for color signal studies within this clade.
Figure 1.

Examples of exposed facial skin in platyrrhine monkeys. Golden lion tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia, a); red‐faced spider monkey (Ateles paniscus, b); and bald‐headed uakari (Cacajao calvus, c). Photo credits: Jeroen Kransen (a), Dan Sloan (b), and Marc Wisniak (c)
In addition to color variation, the extent of exposed skin among the monkeys of the Americas ranges from the most extensive seen in the order (bald uakaris [Cacajao calvus]) to a complete absence of exposed skin (e.g. moustached tamarins [Saguinus mystax]). The increased surface area of exposed skin in African and Asian monkeys has been hypothesized to enhance communication based on skin color signals.31, 67 However, causal explanations are only supported if they are both explicable and predictable—that is, they demonstrate regularity and independence in their evolution in response to similar selective conditions.68 The platyrrhines provide an independent test of the hypothesis that the amount of exposed facial and genital skin is evolutionarily plastic, and when present, used in socio‐sexual communication. To be convergent with catarrhines, we would expect increased facial skin exposure to have evolved independently in platyrrhine species that use colorful skin signals.
3. EVOLUTION OF SKIN COLOR AND EXPOSURE IN PLATYRRHINE MONKEYS: A CHARACTER MAPPING APPROACH
To motivate future studies of visual signals and their role in communication among platyrrhine primates, we here provide the first analysis of exposed facial skin, variation, distribution, and evolution in Platyrrhini. Concordantly, we aim to uncover patterns underlying red, conspicuous skin. Because a dataset of color‐calibrated images across the platyrrhines is not yet available, our analysis is color‐subjective. We analyzed two to five forward‐facing images found in a current encyclopedia of living primate species69 and from online image libraries (Table S1). We quantified facial skin exposure and color for 96 platyrrhines, and for comparative purposes, 28 catarrhines, 7 strepsirrhines, 1 tarsiiform, and 13 nonprimate outgroups. Coding of skin color and exposure was done independently by L.A.A.M. and G.D. In case of any discrepancy, we recoded the images together to reach consensus. We did not include Homo sapiens in our analyses because of high intraspecific phenotypic variation and numerous derived features.
We created five categories to code patterns of increasing surface area of exposed facial skin: (a) completely exposed skin (cheeks, nose, eyes, forehead [Figure 2a,b]); (b) exposed skin around the eyes, nose and mouth [Figure 2c,d]; (c) exposed skin around the nose and eyes, or exposed skin around the nose and mouth [Figure 2e,f]; (d) exposed skin around eyes [Figure 2g,h]; and (e) exposed skin around the nostrils [Figure 2i,j]. We coded for skin color using established categories29: (a) depigmented (white skin [Figure 3a]); (b) hypervascularized (red skin [Figure 3b]); (c) mottled (depigmented skin with very small pigmented patches [Figure 3c]); and (d) hyperpigmented (dark skin [Figure 3d]). We then performed an ancestral state reconstruction by mapping the facial exposure (Figure 4) and color traces (Figure 5) on a current phylogenetic tree (auto‐correlated rates, soft‐bounded constraints).70, 71
Figure 2.

Examples of categories of exposed skin in primates. Completely exposed face (cheeks, nose, eyes, forehead), a, b); exposed skin around the eyes, nose, and mouth, c, d); exposed skin around the nose and eyes; or exposed skin around the nose and mouth, e, f); exposed skin around eyes, g, h); exposed skin around the nostrils, i, j). Photo credits: Marc Wisniak (a), Zyance (b), David M. Jensen (c), David V. Raju (d), Frank Wouters (e), Fabio Manfredini (f), Leszek Leszczynski (g), Halley Pacheco de Oliveira (h), Brocken Inaglory (i), and Jik jik (j)
Figure 3.

Examples of categories of skin color in primates. Depigmented (Cebus capucinus), a); hypervasculated (Cacajao calvus), b); mottled (Brachyteles hypoxanthus), c); hyperpigmented (Alouatta pigra), d). Photo credits: Steven G. Johnson (a), Kevin O'Connel (b), Peter Schoen (c), and Dave Johnson (d)
Figure 4.

Ancestral state reconstruction of skin exposure visualized on a phylogeny of primates using Maximum Likelihood under the Ornstein‐Uhlenbeck (OU) model. The phylogenetic tree was redrawn from70 and adapted to include 96 platyrrhines, along with 28 catarrhines, 7 strepsirrhines, 1 tarsiiform, and 13 nonprimate groups to reconstruct ancestral types. The color map represents observed and reconstructed ancestral states for skin exposure ranging from a completely exposed face (brown) to only exposed skin on the nose (green)
Figure 5.

Ancestral state reconstruction of skin color visualized on a phylogeny of primates using 1,000 stochastic character maps under the Equal Rates (ER) model. The phylogenetic tree was redrawn from70 and adapted to include 96 platyrrhines, along with 28 catarrhines, 7 strepsirrhines, 1 tarsiiform, and 13 nonprimate groups to reconstruct ancestral types. Branch colors represent posterior probability densities of the skin color states along the edges and pie charts show the relative probabilities of each state at the internal nodes. Pink indicates depigmented skin, red indicates hypervasculated skin, light blue indicates mottled skin, and dark blue indicates hyperpigmented skin. Images of hypervasculated skin are shown on the right of the species names. Photo credits: Marc Wisniak (Cacajao calvus), Valdir Hobus (Chiropotes albinasus), Kitty Terwolbeck (Ateles paniscus) and David Raju (Macaca mulatta)
The ancestral character states for skin exposure (continuous trait) were simulated using the Maximum Likelihood method. We tested three models of evolution: Brownian Motion (BM), Ornstein‐Uhlenbeck (OU), and Early Burst (EB), before selecting the best‐fitting model (OU). Skin exposure evolution was plotted using the phytools contMap function in R.72 Because the evolutionary history of monkeys in the Americas is still debated, we repeated our analyses across multiple potential phylogenies (Figures S1 and S2).73, 74 We inferred the evolutionary history of skin color (discrete trait) using a stochastic mapping approach implemented in the R phytools package.72 The ancestral states at each node were estimated under three basic models: equal rates (ER), all rates different (ARD), and symmetrical transition rate (SYM). The best model fitting (ER) was selected and 1,000 character histories were simulated across the phylogeny using the phytools make.simmap function in R version 3.5.2.75
Our results indicate that exposure of facial skin is an evolutionarily plastic trait, with shifts from relatively hairy to relatively exposed skin and vice versa being relatively common among platyrrhines (Figure 4). The last common ancestor (LCA) of catarrhines and platyrrhines is reconstructed to have predominantly exposed skin, that is, exposed skin around the eyes, mouth, and nose. Many species of platyrrhines possess a lesser amount of exposed skin than catarrhines. Yet, there are radiations of platyrrhines with facial skin that is largely to entirely exposed (Figure 4). Increases in exposed facial skin appear to have evolved independently in platyrrhines at least five times. We see this trait in the genus Saguinus, and among the Atelidae family, with interesting variation within the genus Cacajao. There is also considerable exposed skin within the genera Cebus and Sapajus, and the callitrichids, including some but not all species of Callithrix, some Saguinus, and all examined members of the genus Leontopithecus (Figure 4). Interestingly, some lineages including the genus Pithecia and the white‐nosed saki (Chiropotes albinasus) seem to have experienced re‐covering of the face in hair. Faces covered by hair are reconstructed as ancestral for strepsirrhines, although at least one genus (including nine species) Propithecus, has exposed facial skin.
Turning to chroma, we find a conspicuous reddish patch is present on the nose of the (seemingly inappropriately named) white‐nosed saki (Chiropotes albinasus), and for at least four species (bald uakaris [Cacajao calvus], red‐faced spider monkeys [Ateles paniscus], black‐faced spider monkey [Ateles chamek], and white‐cheeked spider monkey [Ateles marginatus]) the facial skin is predominantly red (Figure 5). Both bald uakaris and red‐faced spider monkeys are also among those with the most exposed facial skin, consistent with the hypothesis that the evolution of exposed faces and red signals are correlated.31 However, it is important to note that while this relationship occurs, many species with completely or predominantly exposed skin do not have red pigmentation, highlighting the presence of considerable variation (e.g., Saguinus bicolor; Figures 4 and 5).
Our results are robust to phylogenetic uncertainty, that is, we come to similar conclusions when the models are run with different phylogenies (Figures S3 and S4). Overall, we demonstrate that there is extensive variation among platyrrhines in the presence of exposed facial skin, and high potential for reddish color signals. We suggest this group offers great promise for studies that mirror the research programs that have been undertaken to examine skin signal evolution in other taxa.
The analyses we present here consider only facial skin, as the diagnostic images of faces are more readily available for many species. However, like many African and Asian primates, the genital skin of at least some Central and South American monkeys is exposed, visible, and of high visual (luminance) contrast to body pelage (Figure 6). In some species of catarrhines, color is expressed on both the face and genitals, and this color variation is often correlated (e.g., rhesus macaques35; drills18). However, other species only exhibit conspicuous color on the genitals (e.g. vervet monkeys16). Variation in the conspicuity of genital skin among platyrrhines suggests that there may be convergent evolution on such traits, and that studies of inter‐ and intra‐specific variation in genital color alongside studies of face color are likely to be fruitful.
Figure 6.

Conspicuous scrotum relative to body pelage in mantled howler monkey (Alouatta palliata, a) and bearded saki (Chiropotes satanas, b). Photo credits: Scott Robinson (a) and Allan Hopkins (b)
4. COLOR VISION AND OPSIN GENE DIVERSITY
Characteristics of the color vision system are of critical importance to perception and interpretation of visual signals.76 Intriguingly, while catarrhine and platyrrhine primates share many aspects of their visual systems, there are important differences in their abilities to perceive color. Catarrhine primates have a uniform ability to discriminate among long‐wavelength hues (shades of red, orange, yellow, green) due to the duplication and divergence of an ancestral OPN1LW opsin gene.45, 77, 78, 79 Among platyrrhines, color vision is considerably more variable. Due to a uni‐locus OPN1LW polymorphism, all males and homozygous females have dichromatic (red‐green colorblind) vision, while a subset of females are heterozygous and have trichromatic color vision. This variation has important consequences for the perception of natural stimuli, including socially relevant scenes.45 To illustrate this impact of color vision type, we present an image of a female macaque with reddish facial skin as simulated for a trichromatic conspecific, and a hypothetical dichromatic observer (Figure 7). Accordingly, concomitant with studies of skin color variation in platyrrhines should be an assessment of species‐specific color vision, and development of species‐specific and individual‐specific models of skin conspicuity.21, 35, 43, 48, 49 Given the wide range of mating systems seen in platyrrhines, this group provides an unprecedented opportunity to ask questions about the role of skin chroma and luminance in attracting mates and competing with same‐sex conspecifics when communication may be occurring between individuals with different color perception systems.
Figure 7.

Simulated appearance of a female rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta; Cayo Santiago) for: a trichromatic observer (a); a dichromatic observer (b).80 Peak cone sensitivity values on simulations of trichromatic Rhesus macaque vision (S cone = 420 nm; M cone = 530 nm; L cone = 560 nm) and a protanomalous dichromatic type (S cone = 420 nm; M cone = 530 nm).45 Photo by ADM
With few exceptions81, 82 the entire body of work on platyrrhine color vision has assessed color vision variation through the lens of potential foraging adaptations. Although color vision has been linked to food detection and feeding efficiencies,83, 84, 85, 86 without an assessment of possible roles of color in socio‐sexual signaling, it is challenging to thoroughly assess the relative importance of diet in influencing color vision evolution. The sole study along this vein reveals exceptionally high frequencies of opsin polymorphism in uakari monkeys, thus presumably increasing the number of trichromatic females in the population; the high opsin diversity of this species might be linked to sexual selection and mate choice.81 Evaluating the diversity of opsin genes in other species with potential reddish signals, such as the red‐faced spider monkeys and the white‐nosed saki, would provide an independent test of this hypothesis.
5. NEW HORIZONS TO PURSUE AND CHALLENGES TO OVERCOME
Studying skin chroma and luminance variation in platyrrhines, alongside other understudied taxa (strepsirrhines, hylobatids), will add to the wealth of information now available for catarrhines and enable us to answer new questions about the variation and evolution of primate color signals. For example, this framework will promote tests of potential convergence in the evolution of color signals among distantly related species, and improve our ability to assess the socio‐sexual, ecological, and perceptual variables that shape the emergence, persistence, and form of different traits. Research questions could include the role of skin signals in male–male competition, mate choice, color signals as potential condition indicators, and the heritability of color traits, and their relationship to fitness. We suggest that studies in these areas should aim to: (a) document skin signal variation, (b) understand the genetic and physiological mechanisms involved in the production of skin color, (c) understand the relationship to behavior and/or biologically important traits such as ovulation, and (d) test these signals experimentally back to live animal receivers. The impressive array of work done on catarrhine primates, for which numerous viable methods have been developed (Table 1), provides excellent templates for such studies.
We hypothesize that luminance and/or chromatic variation is involved in socio‐sexual communication for at least some species of platyrrhine primates. Specifically, we predict that color variation of facial or genital skin plays a role in communication for species with exposed faces and genitals. If socio‐sexual communication among females along the red‐green channel is important, then those taxa are predicted to have greater numbers of opsin alleles and higher instances of trichromacy. By genotyping the OPN1LW opsins of platyrrhine primates with reddish, exposed faces, along with closely related species without red faces or patches, the hypothesis that red and visible facial skin is associated with increased diversity of opsin alleles in platyrrhines can be tested. It is of particular interest to note that among monkeys in the Americas, females may have a private color channel due to the sex‐linked nature of color vision variation in platyrrhines. A private channel is a signaling channel that only a subset of potential receivers can see. This has been suggested, for example, for bird UV signaling, which is visible to other birds, but not visible to mammalian predators.87 This terminology is also used commonly in the multimodal signaling literature, where signals expressed in different sensory channels are potentially available to different types of receivers.88 Redness may plausibly be a female–female specific signal of competitive ability, fertility and/or dominance, although some female observers may be excluded. If platyrrhine species are found to have reddish skin signals, and if there is evidence of trichromatic advantage in fitness, this may point to a role of heterozygote advantage in the socio‐sexual domain as a mechanism of balancing selection acting in these species. Such studies are therefore poised to make important contribution to our understanding of the diversity of evolutionary processes maintaining genetic variation.
In studies of the evolution of platyrrhine color vision, we urge a more holistic approach that integrates the role of natural selection in foraging and predator detection strategies with pressures linked to sexual selection and socio‐sexual communication. For example, species that are less reliant on cryptically colored foods, for which dichromacy is advantageous,83, 89 may have higher rates of opsin polymorphism, and greater opportunity for the evolution of reddish signals in social and sexual contexts. This scenario has been hypothesized to be a possible explanation for the highly polymorphic opsins of uakaris,81 but has not been systematically examined in any species. Similarly, if luminance is a salient and important channel for visual signals, selective pressure to communicate may impact balancing selection acting on opsin genes by favoring dichromatic phenotypes, as trichromatic color vision may corrupt perception of the luminance channel, which may in turn impact foraging ecology.76 Howler monkeys (Alouatta sp.), whose routine trichromacy has evolved independently from that of catarrhines, and monochromatic owl monkeys (Aotus sp.) may provide unique test cases that generate new insight into primates color vision evolution.86, 90 Finally, we note that it is important to explicitly evaluate female–female signaling, male–male signaling, female‐to‐male signaling, and male‐to‐female signaling separately in platyrrhines, given the sex‐linked nature of color vision variation.
Challenges to studying skin color signals in platyrrhines include: (a) difficulties in measuring coloration of small, highly arboreal primates; (b) finding appropriate populations for testing attention to signals through experimental image and/or model presentation; and (c) collecting biological samples with appropriate sampling of wild populations to assess opsin gene diversity within and between species. Sampling wild populations is crucial, as captive populations can have low sample sizes and decreased genetic heterozygosity, yet this is increasingly difficult given shrinking primate populations across Central and South America and Mexico. Possible solutions for each of these issues include: (a) innovating methods in color‐calibrated digital photography91 for low‐light conditions, or research designs that capitalize on opportunities to capture images of primates when they are relatively still and well lit, perhaps near canopy gaps; (b) integrating field experiments on platforms92 or study of captive or semi‐captive populations holds considerable promise93; (c) relying on DNA from noninvasively collected fecal samples, rather than blood, hair, or tissue, to increase the feasibility of population‐level sampling. Fortunately, study of opsin genes from fecal DNA is well established, alleviating need to capture and release wild monkeys.94, 95, 96 Careful and comprehensive sampling of wild populations is possible, if time consuming.97, 98
Finally, although we have focused on skin color and intraspecific communication, we would be remiss if we failed to highlight the potential of interspecific pelage and skin color variation to contribute to key evolutionary processes. For example, species boundaries may be enhanced via conspicuous character displacement among callitrichid and titi monkey lineages that have radiated widely in short time periods.99, 100, 101 Sensory ecology is at the heart of evolutionary anthropology—the major differences between the haplorhines and the strepsirrhines, and similarly between catarrhines and platyrrhines, are in the ways in which they receive and process information from their environment. A more comprehensive study of primate visual communication, to include understudied major radiations, will enhance our understanding of the evolution of our improved color vision and of social communication, key elements of what it means to be a primate.
Supporting information
Figure S1 Ancestral state reconstruction of skin exposure visualized on an alternate phylogeny of the Order Primates73 using Maximum Likelihood under the Ornstein‐Uhlenbeck (OU) model. The color map represents observed and reconstructed ancestral states for skin exposure ranging from completely exposed face (brown) to only exposed skin on the nose (green).
Figure S2 Ancestral state reconstruction of skin exposure visualized on a Bayesian inference of primate phylogeny reconstructed by the 10kTrees Project.74 Ancestral states were inferred using Maximum Likelihood under the Ornstein‐Uhlenbeck (OU) model. The color map represents observed and reconstructed ancestral states for skin exposure ranging from completely exposed face (brown) to only exposed skin on the nose (green).
Figure S3 Ancestral state reconstruction of skin color visualized on a Bayesian inference of primate phylogeny reconstructed by the 10kTrees Project.74 Ancestral states were inferred using 1,000 stochastic character maps under the Equal Rates (ER) model. Branch colors represent posterior probability densities of the skin color states along the edges and pie charts show the relative probabilities of each state at the internal nodes. Pink indicates depigmented skin, red indicates hypervasculated skin, light blue indicates mottled skin, and dark blue indicates hyperpigmented skin.
Figure S4 Ancestral state reconstruction of skin color visualized on an alternate phylogeny of the Order Primates73 using 1,000 stochastic character maps under the Equal Rates (ER) model. Branch colors represent posterior probability densities of the skin color states along the edges and pie charts show the relative probabilities of each state at the internal nodes. Pink indicates depigmented skin, red indicates hypervasculated skin, light blue indicates mottled skin, and dark blue indicates hyperpigmented skin.
Table S1 Additional sources of images for platyrrhine skin assessment. Most coding was done by consulting a current encyclopedia of living primate species.69 Here we list additional image sources used to code skin exposure and color for species included in our analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Chris Schmitt for useful discussions on red‐faced spider monkeys. We thank Jason Kamilar and anonymous reviewers who provided helpful feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. Finally, we are grateful to Joanna Setchell and anonymous reviewers who provided helpful feedback on a previous manuscript on a similar topic.
Biographies
Laís A. A. Moreira is a PhD candidate in the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Calgary. She is a Brazilian biological anthropologist interested in primate socio‐sexual communication, and the role of intra‐ and interspecific sensory variation in shaping the evolution of morphology and behavior.
Gwen Duytschaever is the supervisor of the Primate Genomics Laboratory at the University of Calgary. After completing her PhD at the University of Ghent, Belgium, she applied numerous ‘omics methods to studying diversity and evolution in different study systems in several countries around the world before settling in Calgary.
James P. Higham is an Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology at New York University. His approaches span ethology, endocrinology, quantitative and functional genetics, computational photography and computer vision, and comparative psychology, to study the evolutionary and behavioral ecology of primates, with a focus on sexual selection, reproduction, and communication.
Amanda D. Melin is an Assistant Professor and Canada Research Chair in the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Calgary and co‐director of the Santa Rosa Primate Project, Costa Rica. She studies primate ecology and evolution, with a focus on sensory systems, integrating approaches from behavioral observation, ecology, and genetics.
Moreira LAA, Duytschaever G, Higham JP, Melin AD. Platyrrhine color signals: New horizons to pursue. Evolutionary Anthropology. 2019;28:236–248. 10.1002/evan.21798
Contributor Information
Laís A. A. Moreira, Email: lais.pacheco@ucalgary.ca.
Amanda D. Melin, Email: amanda.melin@ucalgary.ca.
REFERENCES
- 1. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Darwin C. 1876. Sexual selection in relation to monkeys. Nature 15:18–19.
- 3. Wilson JS, Jahner JP, Forister ML, Sheehan ES, Williams KA, Pitts JP. 2015. North American velvet ants form one of the world's largest known Müllerian mimicry complexes. Curr Biol 25:R704–R706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Maan ME, Cummings ME. 2012. Poison frog colors are honest signals of toxicity, particularly for bird predators. Am Nat 179:E1–E14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Fernandez‐Silva I, Ho HC. 2017. Revision of the circumtropical glasseye fish Heteropriacanthus cruentatus (Perciformes: Priacanthidae), with resurrection of two species. Zootaxa 273:341–361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Sherratt TN. 2002. The coevolution of warning signals. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:741–746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Olson VA, Owens IPF. 1998. Costly sexual signals: Are carotenoids rare, risky or required? TREE 13:510–514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Pryke SR, Andersson S. 2003. Carotenoid‐based epaulettes reveal male competitive ability: Experiments with resident and floater red‐shouldered widowbirds. Anim Behav 66:217–224. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Bloch NI. 2014. Evolution of opsin expression in birds driven by sexual selection and habitat. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 282:20142321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Pham TT, Queller PS, Tarvin KA, Murphy TG. 2014. Honesty of a dynamic female aggressive status signal: Baseline testosterone relates to bill color in female American goldfinches. J Avian Biol 45:22–28. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Jones JA, Tisdale AC, Bakermans MH, Larkin JL, Smalling CG, Siefferman L. 2017. Multiple plumage ornaments as signals of intrasexual communication in golden‐winged warblers. Ethology 123:145–156. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Madonia C, Hutton P, Giraudeau M, Sepp T. 2017. Carotenoid coloration is related to fat digestion efficiency in a wild bird. Sci Nat 104:96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Prum RO. 2006. Anatomy, physics, and evolution of avian structural colors In: Hill GE, McGraw KJ, editors. Bird coloration: Mechanisms and measurements, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; p 295–353. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Ross CF. 2000. Into the light: The origin of Anthropoidea. Annu Rev Anthropol 29:147–194. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Dominy NJ, Ross CF, Smith TD. 2004. Evolution of the special senses in primates: Past, present, and future. Anat Rec 281A:1078–1082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Gerald MS. 2001. Primate colour predicts social status and aggressive outcome. Anim Behav 61:559–566. [Google Scholar]
- 17. Bergman TJ, Ho L, Beehner JC. 2009. Chest color and social status in male geladas (Theropithecus gelada). Int J Primatol 30:791–806. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Marty JS, Higham JP, Gadsby EL, Ross C. 2009. Dominance, coloration, and social and sexual behavior in male drills Mandrillus leucophaeus . Int J Primatol 30:807–823. [Google Scholar]
- 19. Setchell JM, Wickings EJ. 2005. Dominance, status signals and coloration in male mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). Ethology 111:25–50. [Google Scholar]
- 20. Setchell JM. 2005. Do female mandrills prefer brightly colored males? Int J Primatol 26:715–735. [Google Scholar]
- 21. Dubuc C, Allen WL, Maestripieri D, Higham JP. 2014. Is male rhesus macaque red color ornamentation attractive to females? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1215–1224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Petersdorf M, Dubuc C, Georgiev AV, Winters S, Higham JP. 2017. Is male rhesus macaque facial coloration under intrasexual selection? Behav Ecol 28:1472–1481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Hunt J, Breuker CJ, Sadowski JA, Moore AJ. 2009. Male‐male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. J Evol Biol 22:13–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Hunt DM, Carvalho LS, Cowing JA, Davies WL. 2009. Evolution and spectral tuning of visual pigments in birds and mammals. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364:2941–2955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Petersdorf M, Higham JP. 2017. Mating systems, Primates In: International encyclopedia of biological anthropology, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
- 26. Darwin C. 1872. The expression of the emotions in man and animals. John Murray, London, England: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- 27. Kamilar JM, Heesy CP, Bradley BJ. 2013. Did trichromatic color vision and red hair color coevolve in primates? American Journal of Primatology 75:740–751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Rakotonirina H, Kappeler PM, Fichtel C. 2017. Evolution of facial color pattern complexity in lemurs. Sci Rep 7:15181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Santana SE, Alfaro JL, Alfaro ME. 2012. Adaptive evolution of facial colour patterns in Neotropical primates. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 279:2204–2211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Higham JP, Winters S. 2015. Color and mate choice in non‐human animals In: Elliot AJ, Fairchild MD, Frankin A, editors. Handbook of color psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p 502–530. [Google Scholar]
- 31. Changizi MA, Qiong Z, Shimojo S. 2006. Bare skin, blood and the evolution of primate colour vision. Biol Lett 2:217–221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Higham JP, MacLarnon AM, Ross C, Heistermann M, Semple S. 2008. Baboon sexual swellings: Information content of size and color. Horm Behav 53:452–462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Grueter CC, Zhu P, Allen WL, Higham JP, Ren B, Li M. 2015. Sexually selected lip colour indicates male group‐holding status in the mating season in a multi‐level primate society. R Soc Open Sci 2:150490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Dubuc C, Winters S, Allen WL, et al. 2014. Sexually selected skin colour is heritable and related to fecundity in a non‐human primate. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:20141602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Higham JP, Pfefferle D, Heistermann M, Maestripieri D, Steven M. 2013. Signaling in multiple modalities in male rhesus macaques: Sex skin coloration and barks in relation to androgen levels, social status, and mating behavior. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1457–1469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Dubuc C, Allen WL, Cascio J, et al. 2016. Who cares? Experimental attention biases provide new insights into a mammalian sexual signal. Behav Ecol 27:68–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Baulu J. 1976. Seasonal sex skin coloration and hormonal fluctuations in free‐ranging and captive monkeys. Horm Behav 7:481–494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Waitt C, Little AC, Wolfensohn S, et al. 2003. Evidence from rhesus macaques suggests that male coloration plays a role in female primate mate choice. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:S144–S146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Waitt C, Gerald MS, Little AC, Kraiselburd E. 2006. Selective attention toward female secondary sexual color in male rhesus macaques. Am J Primatol 68:738–744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Gerald MS, Waitt C, Little AC, Kraiselburd E. 2007. Females pay attention to female secondary sexual color: An experimental study in Macaca mulatta . Int J Primatol 28:1–7. [Google Scholar]
- 41. Gerald MS, Waitt C, Little AC. 2009. Pregnancy coloration in macaques may act as a warning signal to reduce antagonism by conspecifics. Behav Processes 80:7–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Dubuc C, Brent LJN, Accamando AK, et al. 2009. Sexual skin color contains information about the timing of the fertile phase in free‐ranging Macaca mulatta . Int J Primatol 30:777–789. [Google Scholar]
- 43. Higham JP, Brent LJ, Dubuc C, et al. 2010. Color signal information content and the eye of the beholder: A case study in the rhesus macaque. Behav Ecol 21:739–746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Higham JP, Hughes KD, Brent LJN, et al. 2011. Familiarity affects the assessment of female facial signals of fertility by free‐ranging male rhesus macaques. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:3452–3458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Hiramatsu C, Melin AD, Allen WL, Dubuc C, Higham JP. 2017. Experimental evidence that primate trichromacy is well suited for detecting primate social colour signals. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 284:20162458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Fujita S, Sugiura H, Mitsunaga F, Shimizu K. 2004. Hormone profiles and reproductive characteristics in wild female Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Am J Primatol 64:367–375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Pflüger LS, Valuch C, Gutleb DR, Ansorge U, Wallner B. 2014. Colour and contrast of female faces: Attraction of attention and its dependence on male hormone status in Macaca fuscata . Anim Behav 94:61–71. [Google Scholar]
- 48. Rigaill L, MacIntosh AJJ, Higham JP, et al. 2015. Multimodal advertisement of pregnancy in free‐ranging female Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). PLoS One 10:e0135127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Rigaill L, MacIntosh AJJ, Higham JP, et al. 2017. Testing for links between face color and age, dominance status, parity, weight, and intestinal nematode infection in a sample of female Japanese macaques. Primates 58:83–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Setchell JM, Dixson AF. 2001. Changes in the secondary sexual adornments of male mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx) are associated with gain and loss of alpha status. Horm Behav 39:177–184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Setchell JM, Wickings EJ. 2006. Signal content of red facial coloration in female mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:2395–2400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Setchell JM, Smith T, Wickings EJ, Knapp LA. 2008. Social correlates of testosterone and ornamentation in male mandrills. Horm Behav 54:365–372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Setchell JM, Charpentier MJE, Abbott KM, Wickings EJ, Knapp LA. 2009. Is brightest best? Testing the Hamilton‐Zuk hypothesis in mandrills. Int J Primatol 30:825–844. [Google Scholar]
- 54. Setchell JM, Smith T, Wickings EJ, Knapp LA. 2010. Stress, social behaviour, and secondary sexual traits in a male primate. Horm Behav 58:720–728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Setchell JM, Smith T, Knapp LA. 2015. Androgens in a female primate: Relationships with reproductive status, age, dominance rank, fetal sex and secondary sexual color. Physiol Behav 147:245–254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Gauthier CA. 1999. Reproductive parameters and paracallosal skin color changes in captive female guinea baboons, Papio papio . Am J Primatol 47:67–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Rigaill L, Higham JP, Lee PC, Blin A, Garcia C. 2013. Multimodal sexual signaling and mating behavior in olive baboons (Papio anubis). Am J Primatol 75:774–787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Henzi SP. 1985. Genital signalling and the coexistence of male vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops pygerythrus). Fol Primatol 45:129–147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Gerald MS, Ayala J, Ruíz‐Lambides A, Waitt C, Weiss A. 2010. Do females pay attention to secondary sexual coloration in vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops)? Naturwissenschaften 97:89–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Cramer JD, Gaetano T, Gray JP, et al. 2013. Variation in scrotal color among widely distributed vervet monkey populations (Chlorocebus aethiops pygerythrus and Chlorocebus aethiops sabaeus). Am J Primatol 75:752–762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Fernández D, Doran‐Sheehy D, Borries C, Ehardt CL. 2017. Exaggerated sexual swellings and the probability of conception in wild Sanje mangabeys (Cercocebus sanjei). Int J Primatol 38:513–532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Moreira LAA, Oliveira DGR, Sousa MBC, Pessoa DMA. 2015. Parturition signaling by visual cues in female marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). PLoS One 10:e0129319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 205:581–598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Gould SJ, Vrba ES. 1982. Exaptation—A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8:4–15. [Google Scholar]
- 65. Yamamoto ME, Araujo A, Arruda MF, Lima AKM, Siqueira JO, Hattori WT. 2014. Male and female breeding strategies in a cooperative primate. Behav Processes 109:27–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Abbott DH. 1984. Behavioral and physiological suppression of fertility in subordinate marmoset monkeys. Am J Primatol 6:169–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Wickler W. 1967. Socio‐sexual signals and their intraspecific imitation among primates In: Morris D, editor. Primate ethology, Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London, UK; p 69–147. [Google Scholar]
- 68. Cartmill M. 2003. Historical explanation and the concept of progress in primatology. Evol Anthropol Issues News Rev 11:12–15. [Google Scholar]
- 69. Rowe N, Myers M. 2016. All the world's primates, Pogonias Press: Charlestown, RI. [Google Scholar]
- 70. Springer MS, Meredith RW, Gatesy J, et al. 2012. Macroevolutionary dynamics and historical biogeography of primate diversification inferred from a species supermatrix. PLoS One 7:e49521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Arbour JH, Santana SE. 2017. A major shift in diversification rate helps explain macroevolutionary patterns in primate species diversity: A shift in primate diversification. Evolution 71:1600–1613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Revell LJ. 2013. Two new graphical methods for mapping trait evolution on phylogenies. Methods Ecol Evol 4:754–759. [Google Scholar]
- 73. Perelman P, Johnson WE, Roos C, et al. 2011. A molecular phylogeny of living primates. PLoS Genet 7:e1001342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Arnold C, Matthews LJ, Nunn CL. 2010. The 10kTrees website: A new online resource for primate phylogeny. Evol Anthropol Issues News Rev 19:114–118. [Google Scholar]
- 75. Bollback JP. 2006. SIMMAP: Stochastic character mapping of discrete traits on phylogenies. BMC Bioinformatics 7:88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Osorio D, Vorobyev M. 2005. Photoreceptor spectral sensitivities in terrestrial animals: Adaptations for luminance and colour vision. Proc R Soc B 272:1745–1752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Jacobs GH. 1996. Primate photopigments and primate color vision. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93:577–581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Carvalho LS, Pessoa DMA, Mountford JK, Davies WIL, Hunt DM. 2017. The genetic and evolutionary drives behind primate color vision. Front Ecol Evol 5:34. [Google Scholar]
- 79. Kawamura S, Melin AD. 2017. Evolution of genes for color vision and the chemical senses in primates In: Saitou N, editor. Evolution of the human genome I. Evolutionary studies, Tokyo: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- 80. Melin AD, Kline DW, Hickey CM, Fedigan LM. 2013. Food search through the eyes of a monkey: A functional substitution approach for assessing the ecology of primate color vision. Vision Res 86:87–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Corso J, Bowler M, Heymann RC, Mundy NI. 2016. Highly polymorphic colour vision in a New World monkey with red facial skin, the bald uakari (Cacajao calvus). Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 283:20160067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Pessoa DMA, Maia R, Ajuz RCA, Moraes PZPMR, Spyrides MHC, Pessoa VF. 2014. The adaptive value of primate color vision for predator detection: Predator detection and color vision. Am J Primatol 76:721–729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Melin AD, Fedigan LM, Hiramatsu C, Sendall CL, Kawamura S. 2007. Effects of colour vision phenotype on insect capture by a free‐ranging population of white‐faced capuchins, Cebus capucinus . Anim Behav 73:205–214. [Google Scholar]
- 84. Hiramatsu C, Melin AD, Aureli F, et al. 2008. Importance of achromatic contrast in short‐range fruit foraging of primates. PLoS One 3:e3356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Melin AD, Matsushita Y, Moritz GL, Dominy NJ, Kawamura S. 2013. Inferred L/M cone opsin polymorphism of ancestral tarsiers sheds dim light on the origin of anthropoid primates. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 280:20130189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Melin AD, Khetpal V, Matsushita Y, et al. 2017. Howler monkey foraging ecology suggests convergent evolution of routine trichromacy as an adaptation for folivory. Ecol Evol 7:1421–1434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Stevens M, Cuthill IC. 2007. Hidden messages: Are ultraviolet signals a special channel in avian communication? BioScience 57:501–507. [Google Scholar]
- 88. Higham JP, Hebets EA. 2013. An introduction to multimodal communication. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1381–1388. [Google Scholar]
- 89. Melin AD, Fedigan LM, Young HC, Kawamura S. 2010. Can color vision variation explain sex differences in invertebrate foraging by capuchin monkeys? Curr Zool 56:300–312. [Google Scholar]
- 90. Mundy NI, Morningstar NC, Baden AL, Fernandez‐Duque E, Dávalos VM, Bradley BJ. 2016. Can colour vision re‐evolve? Variation in the X‐linked opsin locus of cathemeral Azara's owl monkeys (Aotus azarae azarae). Front Zool 13:9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Stevens M, Párraga CA, Cuthill IC, Partridge JC, Troscianko TS. 2007. Using digital photography to study animal coloration. Biol J Linn Soc 90:211–237. [Google Scholar]
- 92. Janson CH. 1998. Experimental evidence for spatial memory in foraging wild capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella . Anim Behav 55:1229–1243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Winters S, Dubuc C, Higham JP. 2015. Perspectives: The looking time experimental paradigm in studies of animal visual perception and cognition. Ethology 121:625–640. [Google Scholar]
- 94. Hiramatsu C, Tsutsui T, Matsumoto Y, Aureli F, Fedigan LM, Kawamura S. 2005. Color‐vision polymorphism in wild capuchins (Cebus capucinus) and spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) in Costa Rica. Am J Primatol 67:447–461. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Valenta K, Edwards M, Rafaliarison RR, et al. 2016. Visual ecology of true lemurs suggests a cathemeral origin for the primate cone opsin polymorphism. Funct Ecol 30:932–942. [Google Scholar]
- 96. Jacobs RL, Spriggs AN, MacFie TS, et al. 2016. Primate genotyping via high resolution melt analysis: Rapid and reliable identification of color vision status in wild lemurs. Primates 57:541–547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Hiwatashi T, Okabe Y, Tsutsui T, et al. 2010. An explicit signature of balancing selection for color‐vision variation in New World monkeys. Mol Biol Evol 27:453–464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Jacobs RL, MacFie TS, Spriggs AN, et al. 2017. Novel opsin gene variation in large‐bodied, diurnal lemurs. Biol Lett 13:20170050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Rylands AB, Heymann EW, Alfaro JL, et al. 2016. Taxonomic review of the New World tamarins (Primates: Callitrichidae). Zool J Linn Soc 177:1003–1028. [Google Scholar]
- 100. Byrne H, Rylands AB, Carneiro JC, et al. 2016. Phylogenetic relationships of the New World titi monkeys (Callicebus): First appraisal of taxonomy based on molecular evidence. Front Zool 13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Allen WL, Stevens M, Higham JP. 2014. Character displacement of Cercopithecini primate visual signals. Nat Commun 5:42–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Figure S1 Ancestral state reconstruction of skin exposure visualized on an alternate phylogeny of the Order Primates73 using Maximum Likelihood under the Ornstein‐Uhlenbeck (OU) model. The color map represents observed and reconstructed ancestral states for skin exposure ranging from completely exposed face (brown) to only exposed skin on the nose (green).
Figure S2 Ancestral state reconstruction of skin exposure visualized on a Bayesian inference of primate phylogeny reconstructed by the 10kTrees Project.74 Ancestral states were inferred using Maximum Likelihood under the Ornstein‐Uhlenbeck (OU) model. The color map represents observed and reconstructed ancestral states for skin exposure ranging from completely exposed face (brown) to only exposed skin on the nose (green).
Figure S3 Ancestral state reconstruction of skin color visualized on a Bayesian inference of primate phylogeny reconstructed by the 10kTrees Project.74 Ancestral states were inferred using 1,000 stochastic character maps under the Equal Rates (ER) model. Branch colors represent posterior probability densities of the skin color states along the edges and pie charts show the relative probabilities of each state at the internal nodes. Pink indicates depigmented skin, red indicates hypervasculated skin, light blue indicates mottled skin, and dark blue indicates hyperpigmented skin.
Figure S4 Ancestral state reconstruction of skin color visualized on an alternate phylogeny of the Order Primates73 using 1,000 stochastic character maps under the Equal Rates (ER) model. Branch colors represent posterior probability densities of the skin color states along the edges and pie charts show the relative probabilities of each state at the internal nodes. Pink indicates depigmented skin, red indicates hypervasculated skin, light blue indicates mottled skin, and dark blue indicates hyperpigmented skin.
Table S1 Additional sources of images for platyrrhine skin assessment. Most coding was done by consulting a current encyclopedia of living primate species.69 Here we list additional image sources used to code skin exposure and color for species included in our analysis.
