NO. 3662 PRIMATE BIOLOGY—NAPIER 15 
of questions (the particular fields of study that might be expected 
to supply the answer are shown in parenthesis): 
Q. 1. Which is the most suitable primate for my purpose? (Anatomy, physi- 
ology, psychology. Evolution. Systematics and nomenclature.) 
Q. 2. Where can I obtain a regular supply of this species? (Zoogeography. 
Population dynamics.) 
Q. 3. How can I best maintain these animals in captivity? (Free-ranging 
behavior and ecology. Base-line data on captivity ecology.) 
It is in such fields of inquiry as these that the Smithsonian Primate 
Biology Program will concentrate its efforts. 
PRIMATE SYSTEMATICS.—Problems in primate systematics are 
many and great and constitute a major handicap in the rapid devel- 
opment of research programs employing nonhuman primates as 
experimental animals. The interpretation of results in fields of 
physiology, pharmacology, psychopathology and neuropsychiatry, 
comparative psychology and ethology often depends on a precise 
knowledge of the systematic status of the subject animal. With 
imperfect identification, the contributions of previous research workers 
cannot be utilized, experiments cannot be repeated, and hypotheses— 
dependent on the precise knowledge of relationships—cannot be 
developed or tested. 
A revision of primate systematics is long overdue for many groups 
and should rank high in the priorities of any program. Research in 
primate taxonomy should start with revision of genera. It is difficult 
to talk about species within a genus without knowing the exact limits 
of variations among genera themselves. Genera in most urgent need 
of revision, other than those already being examined, are found in 
most of the prosimians, many of the Cebidae, certain Cercopithecidae 
(particularly Cercopithecus and Cercocebus), and all the Colobinae. 
Only after restudying such genera can classifications be revised in 
a meaningful way. Many of these lists are half a century or more 
old and include species and subspecies that, in the light of modern 
theories, are quite invalid. The use of computers and advanced statis- 
tical techniques are providing new and more accurate means of zoo- 
logical classification. A recently (Groves, 1967) completed study of 
gorilla populations using these techniques is an example of the sort of 
results that can be obtained. Evolutionary studies are a necessary 
component of systematic revisions; for example, the arrangement of 
higher categories of Old World monkeys depends on understanding of 
the phylogenetic relationships among the Macaca-Papio ground-living 
group of Old World monkeys, the arboreal colobine monkeys, and the 
curiously intermediate Cercopithecus and Cercocebus groups. 
Inasmuch as modern systematics is based on the total biology of 
populations, a program of revision must be broadly based and must 
