Tupaia montana, Thomas, 1892
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.6779158 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6779216 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E75FB01D-FA56-FFA7-BA68-82ACFD556152 |
|
treatment provided by |
Valdenar |
|
scientific name |
Tupaia montana |
| status |
|
Mountain Treeshrew
French: Toupaye de montagne / German: Hochland-Spitzhérnchen / Spanish: Tupaya de montana
Taxonomy. Tupaia montana Thomas, 1892 View in CoL , “Mount Dulit, 5000 feet [= 1524 m],” northern Sarawak, Borneo, Malaysia .
Tupaia stuebingi was proposed as a new species by Kwai Hin Han in 2000 based on mtDNA and morphology, but without access to those data,it is included as a subspecies of 1. montana pending further research. Three subspecies recognized.
Subspecies and Distribution.
T.m.montanaThomas,1892—CSarawak(MtDulit,BatuSong,Kalulong,andUsunApau),Borneo.
T.m.baluensisLyon,1913—Sabah(MtKinabaluandMtPueh)andEKalimantan,Borneo.
T. m. stuebingi Kwai Hin Han, 2000 — lowlands of Lanjak Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary (SW Sarawak). View Figure
Descriptive notes. Head—body length 150-175 mm, tail 120-150 mm, ear 13-16 mm, hindfoot 38-43 mm; weight 110-150 g. The Mountain Treeshrew is medium-sized, with plush brown fur and faint agouti banding. Venter is tan to gray. Tail is relatively short and quite bushy, with fur tapering toward tip. Shoulder marking is not always present and faint on those that have it. Snout is not particularly elongated, and claws are not long like on the Large Treeshrew (71. tana ).
Habitat. Lowland dipterocarp forests to lower montane, upper montane, and subapline forests at elevations of 900 m to minimally 3200 m (holotype was collected at 260 m, but greatest densities occur above 1000 m).
Food and Feeding. The Mountain Treeshrew is an extreme generalist and can be trapped with a variety of baits; it was even trapped in an unbaited trap due to its curious nature. L. H. Emmons in 2000 found that the Mountain Treeshrew consumed a great deal of invertebrates, specifically ants, beetles, and grasshoppers, although this was in the lowest areas of its elevational distribution. At higher elevations, ants become less abundant, and M. T. R. Hawkins in 2013 observed it eating a variety offruits and berries. In a cage trap,it readily consumed local berries. It forages by searching primarily through leaflitter at lower elevations. The Mountain Treeshrew has been the focus of several studies related to mutualism between it and pitcher plants of the genus Nepenthes (Nepenthaceae) . The treeshrew licks the lid of the pitcher plant, which excretes a nectar that acts as a diuretic stimulating the treeshrew to defecate in the pitcher, fertilizing the plant.
Breeding. Mountain Treeshrews appear to have a similar absentee parental care system as other treeshrew species. Emmons found a lactating female, but when checking her nest, no offspring were found, implying they were left in a natal nest away from the mother. Females appear to have two offspring perlitter, with an occasional singleton. Gestation lasts 49-51 days, and captive individuals have had pseudopregnancies with 23-29day cycles. Limited data are available on seasonality of breeding, but Emmons caught pregnant females in June-July. It is unknown if breeding occurs nearly yearround as it does for other species of Bornean treeshrews.
Activity patterns. Mountain Treeshrews are diurnal and terrestrial. They are active throughout the day, although they do not travel great distances. Most time is spent traveling along the ground or along substratesless than 1 m off the ground, digging in leaflitter, and scanning for predators.
Movements, Home range and Social organization. The Mountain Treeshrew has a very small home range and is found at very high densities, where it appears a male and female have nearly identical, overlapping ranges. This corroborated data generated by Hawkins in 2018 where this species was by far the most commonly trapped species along the elevational gradient of Mount Kinabalu. The same pattern was observed by S. M. Nor in 2001. After radio-telemetry studies, Emmons in 2000 estimated average home range of the Mountain Treeshrew at 2-3 ha, with one of the lowest distances traveled per day of 958 m at a rate of 84 m/hour. The only species with lower daily distances traveled and rates of movement was the Lesser Treeshrew ( T. minor ), an arboreal species. The Mountain Treeshrew appears to tolerate conspecifics more than other treeshrew species and is often heard vocalizing to other
individuals. Nests were composed entirely of leaves and constructed in natural crevices and holes on the ground. As with other treeshrew species, Mountain Treeshrews do not appear to use the same nest site for many days in a row and alternate among several nests. A raspy bark is used as an alarm call, often in presence of perceived predators, combined with tail flicking. It has been noted to be more vocal than several other species of Bornean treeshrews. Individuals often chase each other; they also chase and are chased by Bornean Mountain Ground Squirrels (Sundasciurus everetti ), which look very similar to the Mountain Treeshrew. Mountain Treeshrews appears to be more tolerant of high densities, and in captive situations, fewer aggressive encounters were observed for the Mountain Treeshrew than other treeshrew species such as the Common Treeshrew (7. glis ). Along the mountain climbing trail of Mount Kinabalu (Sabah, Malaysia), Mountain Treeshrews are often found searching (with the Bornean Mountain Ground Squirrels) for food from climbers and are readily observed.
Status and Conservation. CITES Appendix II. Classified as Least Concern on The [UCN Red List. The Mountain Treeshrew is abundant. Research into the population structure in Sabah found several populations that appear locally adapted and might warrant population-level conservation.
Bibliography. Cassola (2016b), Chin Lijin et al. (2010), Clarke et al. (2009), Emmons (2000), Kwai Hin Han (2000), Nor (2001), Sorenson & Conaway (1968).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
