Range Description: Ctenodactylus gundi ranges from eastern Morocco, through Algeria and Tunisia, to western Libya. It occurs mainly on the southern slope of. Ctenodactylus gundi, the North African gundi, can be found in Southeastern Morocco, Northern Algeria, Tunisia and Libya (Macdonald, ; Walker, ). IUCN LEAST CONCERN (LC). Facts about this animal. The gundi is a guinea pig -sized rodent with a head-body length of cm and a short tail of cm.

Author: Kajiran Zolokasa
Country: Chad
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 8 March 2015
Pages: 167
PDF File Size: 4.58 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.29 Mb
ISBN: 752-9-76455-971-8
Downloads: 66945
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kajibar

Val’s gundi – Wikipedia

Gundis Ctenodactylus gundi are gregarious, rock-dwelling rodents found in northern Africa. Very little is known about the behavioral ecology of C. The current study uses mark and recapture data of social groups of C. The majority of groups were found to be multimale and multifemale.

Group size averaged 5. Examination of ctenodacfylus data suggests that groups of C. This study provides evidence that C. Rock formations are found throughout the cgenodactylus and, almost everywhere that they occur, one or more species of rock-dwelling mammal can be found living within the fissures and crevices. In Africa, rocky habitat is home to rock and bush hyrax Procavia and Heterohyraxrockhares Pronolagusand dassie rats Petromus typicus — George and Crowther ; Hoeck ; Nowak Even the tiny island of East Plana Cay in the Bahamas has ctenodadtylus endangered rock-dwelling mammal, the Bahamian hutia Geocapromys ingrahamiliving within crevices of rock formations Ctenodctylus Despite the fact that there are so many rock-dwelling mammals found throughout the world, very little is known about the behavior of most species in the wild Mares and Lacher ; Nutt, in press.

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Most information that has been accumulated is largely ctenodactylis or anecdotal. There are perhaps 4 reasons why so little is known about the natural history, behavior, and ecology of most rock-dwelling mammals: What little is known about the sociobiology of petrophilic mammals suggests that the majority of species are social Mares and Lacher ; Nutt, in press. In a review of behavioral, morphological, and ecological convergences among rock-dwelling mammals, Mares and Lacher found that 9 of the 10 rodentiform petrophiles for which information on social structure was available could be classified as group living.

Of these 9 species, 7 lived in harems that contained multiple females per male the bushy-tailed woodrat [ Neotoma cinerea ], the rock cavy [ K. The only petrophilic mammal that could not be classified as social was the solitary American pika [ Ochotona princes ], which presumably lives alone because limited access to strips of vegetation at the base of talus piles restricts the number of animals that can live on any one territory Brown et al.

A recent compilation of information on rodents that are restricted to living in rocky crevices further supports the notion that petrophilic mammals tend to be social Nutt, in press. The ctenodactylid family of rodents contains 5 species in 4 genera, all of which are restricted to living within rock outcrops in the desert and semidesert regions of northern Africa George In this paper I characterize the social group structure of 1 ctenodactylid rodent, Ctenodactylus gundi the common name gundi has been recommended for this species by Wilson and Cole [].

Gundis occupy territories that contain 1 or more main crevices in which the entire group generally spends the night. Additional crevices throughout the territory are used during the day while foraging George ; Gouat Previous studies have described C. Social group sizes of up to 20 individuals have been recorded Gouat and Gouatyet the exact number of males and females within groups has not previously been reported in the literature.

Furthermore, despite the fact that C. In particular, it is not known whether multiple males reside within a group as a result of natal philopatry, or whether multiple males immigrate into a social group.

ctenodatcylus Both types of group formation have been observed in other rodents. For example, male natal philopatry leads to the formation of multimale groups in many cooperatively breeding rodents Solomon and Getzwhereas multimale groups in capybara Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris form by the immigration of multiple males into a social group, gndi order of arrival of each male influencing his dominance status, his acceptance by females, and his ability to obtain matings Herrera and Macdonald The current paper has 2 primary objectives.


First, I document the occurrence and prevalence of multimale, multifemale groups in C. Second, I attempt to ctenodactlus how groups of C. In essence, this is the 1st study of C. Ctenodactylus gundi is a diurnal rodent found in the northwestern corner of Africa from Morocco to northwestern Libya.

Despite the fact that C. The following information has been accumulated from several different studies on captive animals and a few observations of gundis in the wild. Reproduction and life-history information.

In Tunisia, offspring observed in March were most likely born sometime between January and March George In Algeria, young were observed at ctenocactylus end of February and the end of June; these animals presumably had been born in 1 of 2 breeding seasons, the 1st occurring in February and March, the 2nd occurring in May in conjunction with a prepartum estrus Gouat In captivity, female C.

The earliest evidence of sexual receptivity for a female was at 75 days Gouatbut the earliest a female became pregnant was at 5 months of age Honigs et al. In general, sexual maturity can be reached at between 8 and 12 months of age Gouat and Gouat a.

Although ggundi life span of wild gundis is unknown, the longest an animal is known to have lived in captivity is 6 years S. Females are thought to be primarily philopatric, with the exception that small groups of females may fission from larger groups Gouat b.

Study site and study population. Field research was timed ctfnodactylus coincide with what was believed to be the breeding season of C.

During91 gundis from at least 22 separate ctenodactlus were gundj from 10 sites throughout Tunisia Fig. Inall research was carried out at the Desert Site, a single site near the edge of the Sahara Desert approximately 20 km southwest of the village of Beni Kheddache, Tunisia Fig.

During the field season, animals from 22 neighboring groups were studied at this Desert Site.

All gundis were trapped by using single-and double-door live traps models andTomahawk Live Trap Co. Individuals were marked for permanent identification with Monel ear tags applied with a s applicator National Band and Tag Co.

Location of sites throughout Tunisia at which gundis were trapped. Sites 2—9 are all within 20 km of the village of Beni Kheddache, Tunisia.

Global positioning system GPS coordinates are given for each site, as well as the number of animals caught at each site Nand the approximate number of families Nf represented by those N individuals.

In the morning when they emerged, my field assistants and I censused group membership by using binoculars. Group membership of marked individuals was confirmed at this time, and new, unmarked individuals were targeted for trapping. Individuals were assigned to a group if they were observed to interact with other members of the group or were trapped within the group’s territory. Once all members of a group were trapped and marked, that group was monitored for 3 h at least once a week for the duration of the field season to confirm group composition.

Territories were defined based on crevice usage; a crevice that was used by members of a group was considered to be part of that group’s territory. The outermost crevice used by a group member delineated that group’s territorial boundary.

Territories were well defined and exclusive. Only on 3 occasions did the members of 1 group use the outlying crevice of a neighboring group when the neighboring group was in another part of their territory. Group membership also was well defined. Individuals from neighboring groups were not observed to interact with one another. The only exception was the Green group, whose members were considered to be part of the Rainbow group in Inthese groups were not observed to interact with one another but 1 adult male originally thought to be a member of the Green group apparently dispersed to Rainbow shortly after the disappearance of 1 of the adult males in that group.

For the purpose of analysis of group composition, these 2 groups were considered independent and the adult male who dispersed from 1 group to the other was considered to be part of his original group, the Green group. For individuals trapped multiple times during a field season, mean body weight during that year was used for analyses. The weight distributions for males and females in and were compared to illustrate the virtual lack of reproduction in Group composition was determined for all groups that were enumerated totally and whose territory was known.


Groups for which complete membership was undetermined, or for whom individuals could not be assigned as adults unambiguously, were excluded from calculations.

The 17 resultant focal groups had all been studied ctnodactylus and contained only adult individuals. The number of adult males and females in these groups could therefore be defined as the total number of each sex present. Five groups at the Desert Site were studied in both and Data from individuals captured in these groups in were compared to recapture information from to assess patterns of natal philopatry, dispersal, and group formation.

Nonparametric 2-tailed tests were used when at least 1 variable was not normally distributed. Inthe best-fit nonparametric density curves for both males and females indicated a bimodal distribution of body weights.

Neither data set was normally distributed Shapiro-Wilk W -test: Moreover, both distributions had a negative value of kurtosis signifying that they were platykurtic, but only the distribution of weights of females was statistically significant in this respect 2-tailed test: The weight ctenodactylys for both females and males were not extensively bimodal even though they had negative values of kurtosis, nor were they significantly deviant from a normal distribution Shapiro-Wilk W-test: Both females and males exhibited a statistically significant shift in distribution of weights between and Kolmogorov-Smirnov 2-sample test: The mean weight of females increased by 17 g, whereas that of males increased by 28 g.

However, this change in mean weight was significant only for males Mann-Whitney U -test: Weight distributions for all individual Ctenodactylus gundi caught in and Distributions for females are shown on the top row, those for males on the bottom row. Best-fit nonparametric density curves are illustrated. The observed changes in weight distributions provide evidence that there was very little reproduction at the study site in This lack of reproduction was most likely the result of a drought that encompassed much of northern Africa for the duration of my fieldwork.

Because few offspring were born between the and field seasons, the majority gunsi individuals caught in were most likely at least 7 months old at the start of my field season, and therefore could be considered adults. Only 4 individuals caught inall from the same social group, could have been born in These 4 individuals weighed between and g when they were 1st caught between 26 March and 14 May According to the growth curves of captive animals, the smallest of these gundis could have been 5—11 weeks old at 1st capture George ; Gouat ; Honigs et al.

However, growth curves for gundis in the wild have not yet been established and it is likely that weight gain takes longer in the wild than in ctenodctylus. For example, a g female caught cfenodactylus on my study site weighed only g the next time she was caught, days later. A similar weight gain for a captive animal would have taken approximately 2—3 weeks George ; Gouat ; Honigs et al.

File:Ctenodactylus gundi-left.jpg

Because not all members of the group that contained the putative juveniles were captured, this group was not included in the analyses of group composition. Groups contained an average of 2. There were 1—4 adult males in a group, and 1—6 adult females per group, with no significant difference in the number of adults of each sex in a group Fig.

Ninety-four percent of all groups 16 of ctenodactylsu contained 2 or more adult males Fig. Seventy-one percent of all groups 12 of 17 also contained more than 1 adult female Fig.