Animal Diversity Web

Ge­o­graphic Range

Pygmy tree shrews (Tu­paia minor) are dis­trib­uted on the Malay Penin­sula and the is­lands of Bor­neo, Suma­tra, Banggi, Bal­am­ban­gan, and the Lingga Is­land group. (Nowak, 1999)

• Biogeographic Regions
• oriental
  • native

Habi­tat

Tu­paia minor is found in trop­i­cal forests below el­e­va­tions of 1,000 m. Al­though it is pri­mar­ily an ar­bo­real species¸ it has been ob­served and trapped in both canopy and ter­res­trial habi­tats. (Holst, 1990; Nowak, 1999; Wells, et al., 2004)

• Habitat Regions
• tropical
• terrestrial

• Terrestrial Biomes
• forest
• rainforest

• Range elevation

  1,000 (high) m

  ft

Phys­i­cal De­scrip­tion

Pygmy tree shrews are su­per­fi­cially squir­rel-like in ap­pear­ance, but they can be dis­tin­guished from squir­rels by their long, pointed snouts and lack of long, black vib­ris­sae. The genus Tu­paia can be dis­tin­guished from other gen­era of tree shrews by sev­eral ex­ter­nal char­ac­ters. The tail is evenly cov­ered by long hair, the upper sec­tion of the ear is larger than the lower lobe, and the hair­less sec­tion on top of the nose is cut squarely across.

Tu­paia minor is char­ac­ter­ized by golden brown pelage on the back and limbs, and the un­der­parts vary in color from white to a light cream color. Claws on hands and feet are sharp and mod­er­ately curved, al­low­ing for climb­ing. Pygmy tree shrews move in a semi­planti­grade pos­ture. This pos­ture al­lows a tree shrew to keep its cen­ter of grav­ity close to the tree upon which it is climb­ing. While grasp­ing on to branches, the pollex and hal­lux of T. minor be­come di­ver­gent from the other dig­its. This is an adap­ta­tion to ar­bo­real life.

Tu­paia minor has an av­er­age mass of 60 g and an av­er­age head and body length of 124 mm. (Em­mons, 1991; Holst, 1990; Nowak, 1999; Sar­gis, 2001)

• Other Physical Features
• endothermic
• homoiothermic
• bilateral symmetry

• Sexual Dimorphism
• sexes alike

• Range mass

  50 to 70 g

  1.76 to 2.47 oz

• Average length

  124 mm

  4.88 in

Re­pro­duc­tion

In­for­ma­tion on the mat­ing sys­tem of this species is not avail­able. How­ever, other species in the genus show ei­ther polyg­yny or polyg­y­nandry. In Tu­paia glis, a sin­gle male rules over a group con­tain­ing both males and fe­males, al­though only the dom­i­nant male mates with fe­males. Tu­paia mon­tana is re­ported to be slightly more so­cial, with two mu­tu­ally tol­er­ant males in a group mat­ing with the fe­males. It is not known where in the spec­trum of vari­a­tion T. minor falls, but males of most species in the genus Tu­paia form lin­ear dom­i­nance heirar­chies, which sug­gests that polyg­yny of some form may be the rule. (Nowak, 1999)

Tu­paia minor has a lit­ter size that ranges from 1 to 3 young. Fe­males reach sex­ual ma­tu­rity at ap­prox­i­mately 46 g, and males reach sex­ual ma­tu­rity at ap­prox­i­mately 16.3 g. Very lit­tle else is known about the re­pro­duc­tive be­hav­ior of T. minor. Tu­pai­ids, in gen­eral, have a ges­ta­tion pe­riod of 45 to 55 days, and give birth to young weigh­ing from 6 to 10 g. Wean­ing oc­curs at ap­prox­i­mately 30 days, and sex­ual ma­tu­rity is reached at ap­prox­i­mately 2 months. After reach­ing sex­ual ma­tu­rity young are forced out of the parental ter­ri­tory.

After giv­ing birth, fe­males be­come re­cep­tive to cop­u­la­tion at once. Breed­ing in cap­tiv­ity and in the wild can occur year round. (Hayssen, et al., 1993; Holst, 1990; Nowak, 1999)

• Key Reproductive Features
• iteroparous
• year-round breeding
• gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate)
• sexual
• fertilization
• viviparous
• post-partum estrous

• Breeding interval

  Breeding can occur every 45 to 55 days.

• Breeding season

  Breeding may occur year around.

• Range number of offspring

  1 to 3

• Average number of offspring

  2

  AnAge

• Range gestation period

  45 to 55 days

• Average weaning age

  30 days

• Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)

  2 months

• Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)

  2 months

The rear­ing strate­gies of Tu­paidea, in­clud­ing T. minor, are some­what pe­cu­liar. Prior to giv­ing birth, a fe­male makes a large nest, con­sist­ing of leaves, wood chips, and other as­sorted build­ing ma­te­ri­als, within a fallen tree. This nest pro­vides the young with pro­tec­tion from the el­e­ments and preda­tors. The fe­male then gives birth to her young within the nest. The young are born naked with their ears and eyes closed. Within a few min­utes of birth, the young take on ap­prox­i­mately half their ini­tial body weight in milk. After feed­ing, the bel­lies of the young be­come dis­tended from the body. The mother then leaves the nest and only re­turns every 48 hours to feed the young. Each visit lasts only 5 to 10 min­utes. The high fat con­tent of Tu­paiid milk (~26%) en­ables the young to main­tain a rel­a­tively high body tem­per­a­ture (~37 C). The high pro­tein con­tent of the milk (~10%) also helps the young to main­tain a rapid growth rate. After ap­prox­i­mately 4 weeks the young are able to leave the nest. This oc­curs with only ap­prox­i­mately 90 min­utes of parental care from the fe­male. Males are not known to par­tic­i­pate in care of the young. (Holst, 1990; Nowak, 1999)

• Parental Investment
• altricial
• pre-fertilization
  • provisioning
  • protecting
    • female
• pre-hatching/birth
  • provisioning
    • female
  • protecting
    • female
• pre-weaning/fledging
  • provisioning
    • female

Lifes­pan/Longevity

To date, all life span knowl­edge for T. minor is lim­ited to data from cap­tive sub­jects. In cap­tiv­ity they tend to live a max­i­mum of 9 to 10 years. (Holst, 1990)

• Typical lifespan
  Status: captivity

  9 to 10 years

Be­hav­ior

Like most tu­pai­ids, T. minor is di­ur­nal, but it is one of the only pre­dom­i­nantly ar­bo­real species. It spends the ma­jor­ity of its time within the canopy, but it is known to for­age in all for­est strata, from the un­der­story to the canopy. Tu­paia minor is highly ac­tive, and al­ter­nates its time be­tween feed­ing, run­ning, play­ing, and rest­ing.

Cap­tive stud­ies show that both sexes main­tain dom­i­nance hi­er­ar­chies based on ag­gres­sive in­ter­ac­tions with con­specifics. Males and fe­males main­tain pair bonds and live within the same ter­ri­tory to­gether. The mech­a­nisms be­hind the for­ma­tion of this bond are not known. When ran­dom pairs of in­di­vid­u­als were put to­gether in cap­tiv­ity, 20% of the in­ter­ac­tions re­sulted in vi­o­lence. In 60% of the cases the pair­ing was am­i­ca­ble. Al­though the pair did not mate, they also did not fight. Mat­ing only oc­curred in the re­main­ing 20% of cases. (Em­mons, 1991; Holst, 1990; Nowak, 1999; Sar­gis, 2001)

• Key Behaviors
• arboreal
• diurnal
• motile
• sedentary
• territorial
• dominance hierarchies

• Range territory size

  500 to 8000 m^2

Home Range

Home range data for T. minor is sparse within the lit­er­a­ture, but mem­bers of the genus Tu­paia hold ter­ri­to­ries that range in size from 500 to 8,000 m^2. Mated pairs and their off­spring, which have not yet reached sex­ual ma­tu­rity, hold these ter­ri­to­ries. Ei­ther urine or se­cre­tions from neck glands are used to des­ig­nate ter­ri­to­r­ial bound­aries. tu­paia minor prob­a­bly is sim­i­lar in these re­gards. (Holst, 1990)

Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and Per­cep­tion

Com­mu­ni­ca­tion in these mam­mals has not been ex­ten­sively doc­u­mented. Mem­bers of the genus Tu­paia are known to scent mark their ter­ri­to­ries with se­cre­tions from glands as well as with urine. Be­cause they are di­ur­nal, vi­sual cues are likely to be im­por­tant in com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Most mam­mals also use vocal and tac­tile com­mu­ni­ca­tion, es­pe­cially when mat­ing. (Holst, 1990; Nowak, 1999)

• Communication Channels
• visual
• tactile
• acoustic
• chemical

• Other Communication Modes
• scent marks

• Perception Channels
• visual
• tactile
• acoustic
• chemical

Food Habits

The di­ges­tive tract of T. minor is com­prised of a small, sim­pli­fied stom­ach, a long, nar­row small in­tes­tine, a nar­row pouch-like cecum, and a smooth large in­tes­tine. The gut of T. minor lacks the plant fer­men­ta­tion mi­croor­gan­isms needed to di­gest plant cell walls. The through time for di­gested ma­te­ri­als ranges from 20 min­utes to 45 min­utes.

Tu­paia minor is om­niv­o­rous. Its diet is com­prised of a wide va­ri­ety of in­ver­te­brates (in­clud­ing in­sects and worms) and fruit.

The method of pro­cess­ing fruit for in­ges­tion is de­pen­dent on the size and rigid­ity of the item. Cap­tive ob­ser­va­tions showed that small fruit is placed into the mouth and chewed. The skin and seeds are ejected from the mouth, and juice and soft pulp are in­gested. Ejec­tion of ined­i­ble items is ac­com­plished with the help of a forepaw or the tongue. Ob­ser­va­tions of T. minor in the wild dif­fer slightly. Wild in­di­vid­u­als very rarely eject seeds. Fruit that is firm and larger than the gape is often prob­lem­atic. The weak jaw and procum­bent in­cisors of these an­i­mals in­hibit their abil­ity to bite off whole chunks from tough fruits. Thus, large or tough fruit is ei­ther chewed in the side of the mouth, or licked vig­or­ously. Wild tu­pai­ids tend to con­cen­trate their fru­givory on soft fruits that they can han­dle ef­fi­ciently. (Em­mons, 1991; Holst, 1990; Nowak, 1999; Shana­han and Comp­ton, 2000)

• Primary Diet
• omnivore

• Animal Foods
• insects
• terrestrial non-insect arthropods
• terrestrial worms

• Plant Foods
• fruit

Pre­da­tion

Pre­da­tion on mem­bers of the genus Tu­paia un­doubt­edly oc­curs, al­though de­tails on preda­tory in­ter­ac­tions are lack­ing in the lit­er­a­ture. These small­ish mam­mals are likely prey for snakes, larger mam­mals, and rap­tors.

Ecosys­tem Roles

It has been sug­gested that T. minor may play a role as a seed dis­perser for sev­eral Ficus fig species. (Shana­han and Comp­ton, 2000)

• Ecosystem Impact
• disperses seeds

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Pos­i­tive

These for­est an­i­mals are not known to have any pos­i­tive eco­nomic im­por­tance on hu­mans.

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Neg­a­tive

These tree shrews are not known to have a neg­a­tive ef­fect on human economies.

Con­ser­va­tion Sta­tus

All species of Tu­pai­idae, in­clud­ing T. minor, are listed on Ap­pen­dix II of CITES. It is thought that this des­ig­na­tion was a re­sult of the en­tire order Pri­mates being added to the ap­pen­dix in 1975. At that time the order still in­cluded Tu­pai­idae.

The largest prob­lem fac­ing these an­i­mals is human en­croach­ment into trop­i­cal forests. This en­croach­ment may take many forms, in­clud­ing log­ging, cul­ti­va­tion, and human habi­ta­tion. In each case, the re­sult is ul­ti­mately the same: habi­tat de­struc­tion and frag­men­ta­tion.

In 1995, the IUCN pub­lished the Eurasian In­sec­ti­vores and Tree Shrews: Sta­tus Sur­vey and Con­ser­va­tion Ac­tion Plan. This plan out­lines the sta­tus and con­ser­va­tion needs of tree shrews in South­east Asia. A dig­i­tal ver­sion of this plan can be ob­tained at: http://​members.​vienna.​at/​shrew/​itsesAP95-cover.​html. (Nowak, 1999; Stone, 1995)

• IUCN Red List

  Least Concern
  More information

• IUCN Red List

  Least Concern
  More information

• US Federal List

  No special status

• CITES

  Appendix II

Con­trib­u­tors

Michael Lele­vier (au­thor), Uni­ver­sity of Alaska Fair­banks, Link E. Olson (ed­i­tor, in­struc­tor), Uni­ver­sity of Alaska Fair­banks.

Nancy Shef­ferly (ed­i­tor), An­i­mal Di­ver­sity Web.

Ref­er­ences

Em­mons, L. 1991. Fru­givory in Treeshrews (Tu­paia). The Amer­i­can Nat­u­ral­ist, 138/3: 642-649.

Han, K., F. Shel­don, R. Stue­bing. 2000. In­ter­spe­cific re­la­tion­ships and bio­geog­ra­phy of some Bornean tree shrews (Tu­pai­idae: Tu­paia), based on DNA hy­bridiza­tion and mor­pho­me­t­ric com­par­isons. Bi­o­log­i­cal Jour­nal of the Lin­nean So­ci­ety, 70/1: 1-14.

Hayssen, V., A. Tien­hoven, A. Tien­Hoven. 1993. As­dell's Pat­terns of Mam­malian Re­pro­duc­tion. Ithaca and Lon­don: Com­stock Pub­lish­ing As­so­ci­ates.

Holst, D. 1990. Grz­imek's En­cy­clo­pe­dia Of Mam­mals Vol­ume 2. New York: Mc­Graw-Hill Pub­lish­ing Com­pany.

Nowak, R. 1999. Walker's Mam­mals of the World, Vol 1, Sixth Edi­tion. Bal­ti­more and Lon­don: The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Press.

Sar­gis, E. 2001. The grasp­ing be­hav­iour, lo­co­mo­tion and sub­strate use of the tree shrews Tu­paia minor and T. tana (Mam­malia, Scan­den­tia). Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, 253: 485-490.

Shana­han, M., S. Comp­ton. 2000. Fig-Eat­ing by Bornean Tree Shrews (Tu­paia spp.): Ev­i­dence for a Role as Seed Dis­persers. Biotrop­ica, 32/4a: 759-764.

Stone, D. 1995. "Eurasian In­sec­ti­vores and Tree Shrews: Sta­tus Sur­vey and Con­ser­va­tion Ac­tion Plan" (On-line). Ac­cessed No­vem­ber 15, 2004 at http://​members.​vienna.​at/​shrew/​itsesAP95-cover.​html.

Wells, K., M. Pfeif­fer, M. Lakim, K. Lin­sen­mair. 2004. Use of ar­bo­real and ter­res­trial space by a small mam­mal com­mu­nity in a trop­i­cal rain for­est in Bor­neo, Malaysia. Jour­nal of Bio­geog­ra­phy, 31/4: 641-652.