Mazama nemorivaga (Cuvier, 1817)

Voss, Robert S. & Fleck, David W., 2017, Mammalian Diversity And Matses Ethnomammalogy In Amazonian Peru Part 2: Xenarthra, Carnivora, Perissodactyla, Artiodactyla, And Sirenia, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2017 (417), pp. 1-1 : 1-

Mazama nemorivaga (Cuvier, 1817)

VOUCHER MATERIAL (TOTAL = 3): Nuevo San Juan (MUSM 11186, 13148), Santa Cecilia (FMNH 86898).

OTHER INTERFLUVIAL RECORDS: Anguila ( Escobedo-Torres, 2015), Quebrada Pobreza ( Escobedo-Torres, 2015), Río Yavarí (Salovaara et al., 2003), Río Yavarí-Mirím (Salovaara et al., 2003), San Pedro (Valqui, 1999), Tapiche ( Jorge and Velazco, 2006), Wiswincho ( Escobedo-Torres, 2015).

IDENTIFICATION: The voucher material we examined corresponds closely to the qualitative description of Mazama nemorivaga provided by Rossi et al. (2010), who recognized the Amazonian brown brocket as a distinct species from M. gouazoubira , with which it was formerly synonymized (e.g., by Grubb, 2005). Among other diagnostic craniodental traits of M. nemorivaga , the premaxillary does not contact the nasal, from which it is widely separated on each side by a dorsolateral process of the maxillary. Unusually, one of our vouchers ( FMNH 86898) retains welldeveloped canine teeth.

Measurement data that we obtained from adult specimens collected in the Yavarí-Ucayali interfluve ( table 19 ) broadly overlap those previously reported from Amazonian brown brockets by Husson (1978: table 61) and Bisbal (1991: table II), although an adult male from Santa Cecilia ( FMNH 86898) is somewhat larger than the topotypical specimens measured by Voss et al. (2001: table 16 ).

The recognition of Mazama nemorivaga as a species distinct from M. gouazoubira by recent authors is consistent with molecular evidence that these are not sister taxa ( Duarte et al., 2008), but the same analyses also suggest that Mazama is not monophyletic. Since the type species of Mazama is M. americana , it is plausible that M. nemorivaga will eventually be referred to another genus if Duarte et al.’s results are confirmed by additional research. However, few of the relevant nodes in Duarte et al.’s phylogeny are strongly supported, so it is not clear what nomenclatural solution is appropriate. Additionally, few morphological characters apart from size and pelage color appear to distinguish M. nemorivaga from M. americana , so describing new genera based only on molecular results is likely to cause problems for generic assignments of fossil odocoileines.

ETHNOBIOLOGY: The gray brocket is called senad tanun (“gray deer”). A few Matses recognize a small and large variety of this species, but most do not.

The gray brocket is a game animal of secondary importance (due to its small size). It is hunted in the same manner as the red brocket.

All the Matses beliefs associated with deer are the same for red and gray brockets.

MATSES NATURAL HISTORY: The gray brocket is gray, has light-colored undersides, and is smaller than the red brocket. The male’s antlers are shorter than those of the red brocket. The young are spotted and thin.

The gray brocket prefers upland forest, away from rivers and large streams. It does not come near Matses villages, nor does it enter secondary forest growing in abandoned swiddens. It is often found on hilltops where the understory is dominated by thatch palms ( Lepidocaryum tenue [ Arecaceae ]). The gray brocket is encountered much less frequently than the red brocket.

(The rest of the natural history information for this species is the same as for the red brocket, except for the foods eaten in abandoned and active swiddens.)

REMARKS: The only ecological distinction that the Matses report between the gray and red brockets, that Mazama nemorivaga is an upland species that avoids river floodplains, is corroborated by field research ( Bodmer, 1991; Tobler et al., 2009). However, the Matses’ failure to distinguish these sympatric cervids in other ecobehavioral respects is hard to reconcile with published evidence that gray brockets are primarily diurnal and do not visit mineral licks, whereas red brockets are often active at night and commonly visit mineral licks (Tobler et al., 2009; Blake et al., 2012, 2013).