Rondon’s Marmoset, Mico rondoni

RONDON'S MARMOSET

Mico rondoni

Geographic Distribution and Habitat

Rondon’s marmosets live in a small stretch of land between rivers in the southwestern Amazon. Their range is bordered by the Mamoré, Madeira, and Ji-Paraná rivers, with the Serra dos Pacaás Novos mountains to the south. They are geographically separated from other marmosets by natural barriers like the Ji-Paraná River and the Pacaás Novos highlands. Most of their population lives in Rondônia, a Brazilian state where the Amazon rainforest is fast disappearing due to deforestation.

The southwestern Amazon has a hot, humid climate with heavy rainfall year-round. The region gets about 63 to 94 inches (1,600–2,400 millimeters) of rain each year, most of it falling between October and May. Temperatures usually hover between 75 and 82 °F (24–28 °C). 

Much of the Amazon Basin is made up of forests that flood during parts of the year. These include várzea forests that flood with whitewater, and igapó forests, which flood with dark, blackwater rivers. But Rondon’s marmosets prefer the thick, leafy lower layers of terra firme rainforest—upland forest that stays dry all year because it sits above the floodplain. In these forests, the tree canopy can grow as high as 100 to 150 feet (30–45 meters), with towering Brazil nut trees, rubber trees, and hardwoods draped in liana vines.

Although these marmosets have been seen in secondary forests and small patches of urban forest near cities like Porto Velho, they are uncommon outside untouched “intact” forest. Even in areas that seem like good habitat, researchers have found their distribution to be scattered. This may mean they depend on specific environmental conditions that we don’t yet understand.

TAXONOMIC NOTES

For many years, scientists in the field and in museums thought Rondon’s marmosets were just a local version of other nearby species, like Emilia’s marmoset (Mico emiliae) and Black-tailed marmoset (Mico melanurus). Apart from coat color, they looked nearly identical. Because early classification systems relied mostly on how animals looked, it was easy to confuse them for the same species. 

However, recent DNA analysis revealed that Rondon’s marmoset is genetically distinct. They’re now recognized as a separate species with no known subspecies.

Rondon's marmoset range, IUCN 2025

Size, Weight, and Lifespan

Male and female Rondon’s marmosets are sexually monomorphic, meaning that aside from their genitalia, they have few obvious physical differences. 

These petite monkeys weigh between 10 and 14 ounces (300–400 grams). Adults measure 8 to 10 inches (20–25 cm) in body length, with tails that add another 12 inches (30 cm). 

We don’t yet know exactly how long Rondon’s marmosets live. Although the species was described over a decade ago, it remains one of the least studied Amazonian marmosets. They live in remote forests and are small and naturally cautious, making them difficult to observe closely in the wild.

However, other species in the Mico genus, such as the silvery marmoset (Mico argentatus), have been studied more thoroughly and are known to live 10 to 16 years in the wild. Rondon’s marmosets may have a similar lifespan, but more research is obviously needed.

Appearance

Rondon’s marmosets look like ethereal creatures dreamt up for a dark fantasy American film like The Dark Crystal or The NeverEnding Story. They have bare, unpigmented faces and ears that practically glow against white-silver bodies. Their dark-irised eyes are wide-set and face forward, sitting above a flat, non-projecting nose. A few fine facial whiskers sprout from the face. You’ll often see them in the trees, tilting their round, baby-like heads in quick, jerky movements as they appraise their surroundings. 

Over evolutionary time, marmosets traded body mass and leaping power for stability and precision on vertical tree surfaces. Their arms and legs are short relative to their long, non-prehensile tails, giving them a compact body shape that helps with balance. For gripping trunks and branches, marmosets have dexterous hands and feet tipped with claws on all their fingers and toes, except for the big toe, which has a nail. 

Coat colors distinguish the very similar-appearing Mico marmosets from one another. Rondon’s marmosets can be identified by blackish freckles near the lips, nostrils, and between the eyes. A dusty charcoal helmet of hairs covers the top and sides of the head. In the center of the forehead sits a bright white patch that contrasts with the darker crown. These charcoal tones lighten near the ears and neck. Graphite-colored fur cloaks their upper backs, deepening at the forearms and darkening into ink-dark hands. Pale brown shades muddy the gray at the saddle and rump, while their underparts fade from dusky orange to a solid black tail.

These colorations are believed to be a form of camouflage that helps them blend into their surroundings. Their pale, silvery coats and unpigmented faces may help them stay hidden when clinging to tree trunks blotched with pale green lichen—a slow-growing plant made of algae and fungi.

Juvenile Rondon’s marmosets resemble lighter, fluffier versions of the adults. Their silvery coats are softer, with less pronounced facial markings and paler limbs.

Photo: © Kenny Uéslei/iNaturalist/Creative Commons
Diet

Rondon’s marmosets eat a variety of foods, including insects, flowers, fungi, and small animals like snails and frogs. But in the Amazon’s terra firme forests, high-energy foods like fruit and insects can be hard to find. The soil is poor, and while there are many tree species, only a few of each kind grow close together. Since many insects depend on specific trees, they’re spread out, too.

That’s why marmosets often turn to tree exudates—plant fluids that leak from trees when they are injured. When exposed to air, these fluids harden and stick to the bark as gums, resin, latex, or sap. Gums don’t have much fat or sugar, but they provide minerals like calcium and iron when other foods are scarce.

To reach the gums, marmosets must first make a wound in the bark. Clinging vertically to a tree, they open their mouths wide and bite into the bark using forward-facing, chisel-shaped lower teeth. Surprisingly, they don’t need a strong bite to gouge trees. Their jaw shape, muscles, and a flexible joint called the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) let them wedge their teeth in and pry out chunks with little effort. Once the gum begins to flow, they return to feed on it over a few days. Like other marmosets, Rondon’s marmosets likely rotate between feeding trees to avoid overusing a single tree and allow gum to replenish.

But eating tree gum can really “gum up” the works if an animal isn’t built for it. It’s made of complex carbohydrates that many animals can’t break down. Marmosets have an enlarged, ridged cecum (a pouch-like part of the intestine) that acts like a fermentation chamber. It slows digestion, giving helpful bacteria time to break down tough foods like gum or fiber. This process is similar to how cows digest grass—except cows do it in multi-chambered stomachs, and marmosets, who have simple stomachs, do it farther along in their gut.

Behavior and Lifestyle

Rondon’s marmosets are diurnal, meaning they are active during the day. They are primarily arboreal (tree-dwelling) and spend most of their time in the lower to middle canopy, about 16 to 50 feet (5 to 15 meters) above the ground. At sunrise, the group emerges from a tree hollow and begins a day filled with feeding, grooming, and traveling. Exactly how they divide their day’s activities isn’t known, but some marmoset species spend up to 80% of the day foraging.

They get around the forest using several types of movement. They often travel on all fours along branches—a style called arboreal quadrupedalism—with their bodies low and their spines held level. But they also cling to trunks and leap between branches when needed. 

Their claw-like nails dig into bark, helping them grip both flat and vertical surfaces. Long, balancing tails steady them as they sprint, turn, or pause mid-movement. When crossing narrow gaps, marmosets use quick, four-limbed jumps powered by their hind legs.

There are no confirmed predators of Rondon’s marmosets, but this probably reflects their patchy distribution and elusiveness to humans more than an absence of risk. In April 2020, three domestic cats attacked a group in Porto Velho, Rondônia’s state capital. An infant Rondon’s marmoset fell from an adult’s back during the escape and would have been taken had a human not intervened.

Given their small size and low position in the canopy, it’s possible that, besides domestic cats, juvenile Rondon’s marmosets may fall prey to mid-sized predators that share the same forest stratum. Tayras are bold, opportunistic weasel-like animals who live on the ground to mid-canopy, climb trunks and branches easily, and often pursue squirrels or raid nests. Amazon tree boas are also abundant in southwestern Amazonia; they wait in branch tangles and tree hollows 6 to 32 feet (2–10 meters) above ground—the marmoset’s usual feeding height. Several raptor species also hunt in the upper and mid-canopy. Some, like harpy eagles, are known to strike monkeys and sloths directly from perches 80-130 feet (25–40 meters) high.

While none of these have been confirmed as predators, they share the same forest strata and hunt similar-sized prey as Rondon’s marmosets, making them plausible threats.

Fun Facts

Locals call Rondon’s marmosets “sagüi-branco” or “macaquinho-branco” due to their silvery coat.

Named after the Brazilian explorer Cândido Rondon, who commanded the first terrestrial expeditions through southwestern Amazonia. The state of Rondônia is also named after him. 

Daily Life and Group Dynamics

Most marmosets live in small, cooperative family groups of four to fifteen individuals, and Rondon’s marmosets probably follow this pattern. A breeding pair typically anchors the group, raising their young with help from siblings, extended relatives, or even unrelated adults.

In other Amazonian marmosets, adult females within a group are usually close relatives, such as sisters or a mother and daughter. Breeding males often immigrate from a neighboring group. If a male is too closely related to the group’s dominant female, he typically doesn’t reproduce.

The dominant female holds priority over food, infant care, and sets the group’s pace and direction. Her mate is usually second in command. If there’s more than one breeding female, one tends to outrank the other. 

Among nonbreeding group members, the social hierarchy is fuzzier and generally age-based, with older individuals displacing younger ones. Because group success depends on cooperation, marmosets keep the peace with mostly mild, low-stakes displays. Disagreements are settled through open-mouth threats, chasing, nipping, or piloerection (puffing up their body hair to appear larger). Overt aggression is infrequent.

Dispersal and territory use haven’t been studied directly in Rondon’s marmosets. However, related species living in terra firme forests travel between 2,070 to 3,420 feet  (630 to 1,042 meters) per day and maintain home ranges of 25 to 75 acres (10 to 30 hectares) centered around the gum trees they feed on. Groups use scent and vocal marking to communicate their presence, though researchers aren’t sure how rigid and exclusive their territories are. While territoriality is common in cooperatively breeding species, most encounters between groups don’t escalate to serious aggression.

Rondon’s marmosets are sympatric (share their range) with Weddell’s saddle-back tamarin (Saguinus fuscicollis weddelli), and the two species are often spotted using the same feeding trees or forest patches. At a glance, this can look like a mixed-species group. In truth, they’re simply crossing paths in overlapping home ranges, drawn to the same gum trees or insect hotspots. Marmosets search for insects along leaves and small branches, while saddlebacks are more likely to explore crevices and tree holes closer to the ground. 

Observations suggest they may be in the same area up to 40% of the time, but their interaction is probably opportunistic, not coordinated. How long they tolerate each other often depends on how much food is available—and who got there first.

Communication

Scent yields a lot of social information for marmosets. Males and females have scent glands on the chest and near the tail, which they rub along branches to leave messages unseen by humans. These signal to other marmosets who made the mark, what sex they are, their rank, sexual receptivity, or simply claiming a feeding tree as theirs.

Marmosets are also keenly attentive to faces. The small muscles under their skin that move the lips, brows, nose, and cheeks are more “set,” so they don’t have as much expressivity as larger monkeys. They combine small facial cues with posture and voice to express mood or intent. 

Across Mico and Callithrix species, communication includes high-pitched calls that help individuals coordinate movement, warn of danger, or assert territory. Calls vary by species and region, forming dialects that help individuals recognize one another. 

Reproduction and Family

Marmosets are cooperative-breeding; therefore, not everyone in the group reproduces. The dominant female’s hormonal control (via pheromones and social behavior) can suppress ovulation in subordinate females, keeping them non-breeding. This generally prevents reproduction, but doesn’t always stop mating. 

Raising infants is no small feat for these little monkeys. Marmoset mothers almost always give birth to twins after a gestation of about 145 days. Each infant weighs roughly 20–25% of her body weight, and together they may exceed half her mass. Without assistance, she couldn’t carry, nurse, and protect them as she forages and evades predators.

In marmoset society, it quite literally takes a village. Fathers are the primary caregivers, only passing infants to mothers to nurse. Older siblings and other group members may act as alloparents, taking turns carrying, guarding, and grooming the baby. Research suggests that each infant requires at least four dedicated caregivers to have the best chance at survival. Permitting multiple females to breed at once could overwhelm the group’s caregiving capacity and threaten the survival of all young.

Marmosets reach sexual maturity between 12 and 18 months. Because lactation doesn’t suppress ovulation, a female can become fertile again within 8–10 days of giving birth, making it possible for her to spend most of her adult life either pregnant or nursing. This high reproductive output can be risky, yet it’s sustained by extensive alloparental care.

Photo: © Paulo Henrique Bonavigo/iNaturalist/CC 4.0
Ecological Role

Though small in stature, the Rondon’s marmoset’s daily activities (particularly feeding and foraging) are vital to rainforest regeneration and resilience. Many Amazonian plant species rely on animals to disperse their seeds away from the parent tree. Seeds that fall too close to the parent tree may not get enough sunlight, space, or nutrients to survive. As marmosets travel and consume fruit, they defecate viable seeds where new plants are more likely to take root. 

Their gum-feeding behavior also stimulates regrowth. Each tree wound becomes a micro-hub of biological activity: the leaking sap attracts insects, birds, lizards, and other primates that come to feed on it, or on one another. Meanwhile, the tree begins to heal, producing new tissue in the process.

Because of these cumulative effects, researchers have called marmosets “micro-engineers”—animals whose small, repeated actions help shape and restore their environment. But when gum-producing trees are overharvested, marmoset populations decline, and their ecological services vanish. Heavily logged forests lacking marmosets may take more than 50 years to regenerate. Even then, the forests may never fully recover their original structure, biodiversity, or function.

Conservation Status and Threats

The Rondon’s marmoset (Mico rondoni) is classified as Vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2020), appearing on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. While the total number of mature individuals isn’t known, the species is considered rare and occurs in small, scattered groups across its range in Rondônia, a state located within the Amazon’s so-called “Arc of Deforestation.” These populations are believed to be in decline.

For 65 million years, Amazonian forests withstood changing climates. Today, however, humans are pushing the ecosystem to its breaking point: increasingly exposing its plants and animals to unprecedented stress from warming temperatures, extreme droughts, deforestation, unsustainable exploitation, and slash-and-burn land clearing, even in remote parts of the basin. 

One of the hardest-hit areas cuts through the Arc of Deforestation, in the southern and eastern edges of the Amazon basin. Once an expansive, unbroken band of rainforest, this region has, since the late 1960s, been carved into fragments surrounded by crop farms, cattle pastures, and growing towns.

When the forest is cleared, Rondon’s marmosets lose their food sources and the canopy routes that keep them safe. Open areas such as fields and roads act as barriers, and marmosets have been found dead after being struck by cars while attempting to cross. Over time, isolated groups become more vulnerable to local extinction, as their genes are literally trapped within pockets of disconnected forest.

Fragmented habitats also bring the species closer to danger. Forest edges are hotter and drier, trees die faster, and roads give people and domestic animals deeper access to the forest—raising risks of hunting, pet trade, and disease. Each of these “edge effects,” alone or combined, further endangers this already fragile primate.

Conservation Efforts

The Rondon’s marmoset is listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the highest level of protection offered by this international agreement between governments.

Species in Appendix I are considered at the greatest risk of extinction. This status bans all international commercial trade and places strict limits on non-commercial use, including scientific research and relocation.

Nationally, Rondon’s marmosets are included in Brazil’s National Action Plan for Amazonian Primates (PAN Primatas Amazônicos), which outlines priorities such as population monitoring, disease tracking, and habitat protection for at-risk species across the region. However, no legislation or conservation group currently focuses solely on this species.

Given the extent of habitat loss in the southern Amazon, a region recognized as a top conservation priority in Latin America, some broader conservation initiatives may indirectly benefit the species. To curb further deforestation, Brazil’s Forest Code mandates that 80% of native vegetation on private Amazonian land remain intact. This helps preserve wildlife corridors and reduce the damaging edge effects discussed in the previous section. Although this law has been successful in some zones, its uneven enforcement has allowed heavy logging and land clearing to continue in others. The Bom Futuro National Forest, for example, has been illegally occupied by loggers, miners, and squatters since the early 2000s. 

As of 2020, only 29% of its 20,525 square miles (53,149 km²) known range fell within protected areas. Confirmed sightings have been recorded in just four: Samuel Ecological Station, Jamari National Forest, Environmental Protection Area Rio Pardo, and Extractivist Reserve Ouro Preto.

A new protected area was later established in northern Rondônia in response to Bom Futuro’s situation, but it lies north of the Madeira River. The river is a well-known natural barrier, and Rondon’s marmosets haven’t been observed on the other side. As such, it likely falls outside the species’ viable range.

References:
  • Alfaro, J. L. (2017). The Monkeying of the Americas: Primate Biogeography in the Neotropics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46, 317–336. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44866093
  • Bredin, Y. K., Hawes, J. E., Peres, C. A., & Haugaasen, T. (2020). Structure and Composition of Terra Firme and Seasonally Flooded Várzea Forests in the Western Brazilian Amazon. Forests, 11(12), 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11121361
  • Burkart, J. M., Adriaense, J. E. C., Brügger, R. K., Miss, F. M., Wierucka, K., & van Schaik, C. P. (2022). A convergent interaction engine: Vocal communication among marmoset monkeys. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 377(1859), 20210098. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0098
  • Burkart, J. M., & van Schaik, C. P. (2020). Marmoset prosociality is intentional. Animal Cognition, 23(3), 581-594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01363-6
  • Camarotto, M. (2024, April 9). Brazil’s first forest concession moves forward with consultation phase. Valorinternational. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://valorinternational.globo.com/environment/news/2024/09/04/brazils-first-forest-concession-moves-forward-with-consultation-phase.ghtml
  • Caro, T. (2005). The adaptive significance of coloration in mammals. BioScience, 55(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0125:TASOCI]2.0.CO;2 
  • Cawthon Lang, K. A. (2005, May 18). Primate factsheets: Common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus): Taxonomy, morphology, & ecology. University of Wisconsin–Madison, Primate Info Net. http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/common_marmoset/taxon
  • Costa-Araújo, R., Silva-Jr, J. S. e., Boubli, J. P., Rossi, R. V., Canale, G. R., Melo, F. R., Bertuol, F., Silva, F. E., Silva, D. A., Nash, S. D., Sampaio, I., Farias, I. P., & Hrbek, T. (2021). An integrative analysis uncovers a new, pseudo-cryptic species of Amazonian marmoset (Primates: Callitrichidae: Mico) from the arc of deforestation. Scientific Reports, 11, Article 14468. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93943-w 
  • Costa-Araújo, R., Bergamasco, G., Roos, C., Farias, I. P., & Hrbek, T. (2023). Notes on the distribution and habitat use of marmosets (callitrichidae: Mico ) from south-central amazonia. Primate Biology, 10(2), 7-11. https://doi.org/10.5194/pb-10-7-2023
  • De Andrade, R., Mourthé, Í., Saccardi, V., & Hernández-Ruz, E. (2018). Eastern extension of the geographic range of Mico emiliae. Acta Amazonica. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392201704392. 
  • Eliades, S. J., & Miller, C. T. (2017). Marmoset vocal communication: Behavior and neurobiology. Developmental Neurobiology (Hoboken, N.J.), 77(3), 286-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/dneu.22464
  • Heymann, E. W., & Buchanan‐smith, H. M. (2000). The behavioural ecology of mixed‐species troops of callitrichine primates. Biological Reviews/Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 75(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.1999.tb00044.x
  • Hogg, R. T., Vinyard, C. J., Wall, C. E., Williams, S. H., & Hylander, W. L. (2011). The functional morphology of the anterior masticatory apparatus in tree-gouging marmosets (Cebidae, Primates). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 144(3), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21427
  • Lacher, T. E., Gustavo A. Bouchardet da Fonseca, Alves, C., & Magalhaes-Castro, B. (1984). Parasitism of Trees by Marmosets in a Central Brazilian Gallery Forest. Biotropica, 16(3), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.2307/2388053
  • Lima, J. M. T., Valle, D., Moretto, E. M., Pulice, S. M. P., Zuca, N. L., Roquetti, D. R., Beduschi, L. E. C., Praia, A. S., Okamoto, C. P. F., da Silva Carvalhaes, V. L., et al. (2016). A social–ecological database to advance research on infrastructure development impacts in the Brazilian Amazon. Scientific Data, 3, 160071. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.71
  • Ferrari, S. F., Sena, L., Schneider, M. P., & Silva Jr, J. S. (2010). Rondon’s marmoset, Mico rondoni sp. n., from southwestern Brazilian Amazonia. International Journal of Primatology, 31(5), 693–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-010-9422-6 
  • Ford, S. M., Porter, L. M., & Davis, L. C. (Eds.). (2009). The smallest anthropoids: The marmoset/callimico radiation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0293-1 
  • Garber, P.A. (1992). “Vertical clinging, small body size, and the evolution of feeding adaptations in Callitrichinae.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 88(4): 469–482.      
  • Garbino, G. (2015). How many marmoset (Primates: Cebidae: Callitrichinae) genera are there? A phylogenetic analysis based on multiple morphological systems. Cladistics, 31. https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12106.
  • Glavis-Bloom, C., Vanderlip, C., & Reynolds, J. (2022). Age-Related Learning and Working Memory Impairment in the Common Marmoset. The Journal of Neuroscience, 42, 8870 – 8880. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.07.495172. 
  • Groves, C. (2006). Primate taxonomy. In H. J. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology (pp. 1944–1948). Sage Publications.
  • Hannibal, W., Renon, P., Figueiredo, V. V., Oliveira, R. F., Moreno, A. E., & Martinez, R. A. (2019). Trends and biases in scientific literature about marmosets, genus Callithrix (Primates, Callitrichidae): biodiversity and conservation perspectives. Neotropical Biology and Conservation, 14(4), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.3897/neotropical.14.e49077
  • Jaakkola, K. (2025). Do marmosets really have names? Learning & Behavior, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-024-00662-z
  • Lopez, M., Seidl, A., & Phillips, K. A. (2024). Cortisol levels across the lifespan in common marmosets (callithrix jacchus). American Journal of Primatology, 86(4), e23597-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23597
  • Marques, A., Schneider, M., & Alho, C. (2011). Translocation and radiotelemetry monitoring of black-tailed marmosets, Callithrix (Mico) melanura(É. Geoffroy in Humboldt), in a wildlife rescue operation in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 71, 983-989. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1519-69842011000500018.
  • Maruhashi, T., Takahashi, T., & Inoue, M. (2012). Life span of common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) at CLEA Japan breeding colony. Biogerontology, 13(4), 439–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10522-012-9388-1
  • Messias, M. R., Valença-Montenegro, M. M., & Ferrari, S. F. (2021). Mico rondoni (amended version of 2019 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T136804A192401067. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-1.RLTS.T136804A192401067.en 
  • Miller, C., & Thomas, B. (2012). Individual recognition during bouts of antiphonal calling in common marmosets. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 198, 337 – 346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-012-0712-7.
  • Ochoa‐Quintero, J. M., Chang, C. H., Gardner, T. A., Messias, M., Sutherland, W. J., & Delben, F. A. C. (2017). Habitat loss on Rondon’s marmoset potential distribution. Land, 6(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6010008
  • Oliveira, M. A., & Fernandes, M. (2021). Predation attempt by domestic cats (Felis catus) on a Rondon’s marmoset (Mico rondoni) infant in an urban forest reserve in Porto Velho, Rondônia, Brazil. Neotropical Primates, 27(1), 48-50.
  • Reveles, K. R., Patel, S., Forney, L., & Ross, C. N. (2019). Age‐related changes in the marmoset gut microbiome. American Journal of Primatology, 81(2), e22960-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22960
  • Rylands, A., Coimbra-Filho, A., & Mittermeier, R. (2009). The Systematics and Distributions of the Marmosets (Callithrix, Callibella, Cebuella, and Mico) and Callimico (Callimico) (Callitrichidae, Primates). , 25-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0293-1_2.
  • Rylands, A. B., Mittermeier, R. A., & Silva Jr, J. S. (2012). Neotropical primates: taxonomy and recently described species and subspecies. International Zoo Yearbook, 46(1), 11-24.
  • Saito, A. (2018). The marmoset as a model for primate parental behavior. In M. Ludwig, & G. Levkowitz (Eds.), Model animals in neuroendocrinology (pp. 297-312). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119391128.ch13
  • Selig, K. R., Winchester, J. M., Lazzari, V., & Martin, L. B. (2020). A novel method for assessing enamel-thickness distribution in primate teeth. Folia Primatologica, 91(4), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1159/000504723
  • Silva, F. E., Bizri, H. R. E., Da Rosa Gonçalves, J., Lemos, L. P., Costa-Araújo, R., Lima, I. J., Santos, A. T., Santana, M. I., Franco, C. L. B., & Boubli, J. P. (2018). The Roosevelt–Rondon expedition marmoset Mico marcai: unveiling the conservation status of a Data Deficient species. Oryx, 54(4), 539–545. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605318000303 
  • Silva, M. A. F., Verona, C. E., Conde, M., & Pires, A. S. (2017). Frugivory and potential seed dispersal by the exotic-invasive marmoset Callithrix jacchus (Primates: Callitrichidae) in an urban Atlantic forest, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Mammalia, 82(4), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2017-0011 
  • Siqueira, G. H. L., Silva, F. E., & Santana, M. I. S. (2018). Morphological description of male genital organs of marca’s marmoset (mico marcai). Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia, 47(4), 372-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/ahe.12365
  • Souza-Alves, J. P., Barbosa, G. V., & Hilário, R. R. (2020). Parasitism of trees by marmosets (Primates: Callitrichidae) enhance tree turnover. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.29.971325
  • Tardif SD, Mansfield KG, Ratnam R, Ross CN, Ziegler TE. The marmoset as a model of aging and age-related diseases. ILAR J. 2011;52(1):54-65. doi: 10.1093/ilar.52.1.54. PMID: 21411858; PMCID: PMC3775658.
  • Tisovec, K. C., Cassano, C. R., Boubli, J. P., & Pardini, R. (2014). Mixed‐species groups of marmosets and tamarins across a gradient of agroforestry intensification. Biotropica, 46(2), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12098 
  • Vinyard, C. J., & Schmitt, C. A. (2009). The evolutionary morphology of tree gouging in marmosets. In S. M. Ford, L. M. Porter, & L. C. Davis (Eds.), The smallest anthropoids: The marmoset/callimico radiation (pp. 395–409). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0293-1_20 
  • Wahab, F., Drummer, C., & Behr, R. (2015). Marmosets. Current Biology, 25(18), R780–R782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.042

Written by Alyssa Hanes, Nov 2025