Animal Diversity Web

Ge­o­graphic Range

Munti­a­cus reevesi has a na­tive range that ex­tends through­out the sub­trop­i­cal forests of south­east­ern China and Tai­wan. It has also be­come es­tab­lished in Eng­land after being in­tro­duced at Woburn, Eng­land (lo­cated in the mid­dle of Bed­ford­shire county) around 1900. Feral pop­u­la­tions may also exist in France, where in­tro­duced in­di­vid­u­als es­caped gar­dens and zoos. (Chap­man, et al., 1994; Helin, et al., 1999; Nowak, ed. and Par­adiso, ed., 1983; South­ern, 1964)

• Biogeographic Regions
• palearctic
  • introduced
• oriental
  • native

Habi­tat

Munti­a­cus reevesi is a for­est crea­ture in its na­tive coun­try of China. It cre­ates paths through the sub­trop­i­cal rain­forests at mod­er­ate el­e­va­tions, which is why it has been termed by some as a bush hug­ger. It was ob­served that munt­jacs in gen­eral tend to pre­fer habi­tats near streams, but ev­i­dence of this pref­er­ence is not strongly demon­strated in the lit­er­a­ture for this par­tic­u­lar species of munt­jac. Chi­nese munt­jacs will fight to de­fend a fairly spe­cific ter­ri­tory, but males have been shown to tol­er­ate the pres­ence of a sub­or­di­nate male in their ter­ri­tory so long as that male is not in rut.

In Eng­land, M. reevesi ex­hibits slightly dif­fer­ent pref­er­ences for habi­tat. It ap­pears that the feral munt­jacs of Britain are equally happy in habi­tats with and with­out cover; that is, munt­jacs have been found in de­cid­u­ous and conif­er­ous forests as well as agri­cul­tural land, and even sub­ur­ban and urban areas. In some re­spects, it is dif­fi­cult to con­sider habi­tat pref­er­ences when a num­ber of the metapop­u­la­tions within the British pop­u­la­tion were specif­i­cally re­leased into cer­tain en­vi­ron­ments, so their pres­ence in some habi­tats may not ac­tu­ally be an in­di­ca­tion of a pref­er­ence.

Re­li­able in­for­ma­tion on el­e­va­tion pref­er­ences could not be found for the British pop­u­la­tion of M. reevesi, but in its na­tive en­vi­ron­ment, it ap­pears that M. reevesi prefers mod­er­ate el­e­va­tions (mod­er­ate was not de­fined). (Chap­man, et al., 1994; Geist, 1998; Helin, et al., 1999; Nowak, ed. and Par­adiso, ed., 1983)

• Habitat Regions
• temperate
• tropical

• Terrestrial Biomes
• forest
• rainforest
• scrub forest

• Other Habitat Features
• urban
• suburban
• agricultural

Phys­i­cal De­scrip­tion

Munti­a­cus reevesi has a chest­nut-col­ored coat with a 4-inch tail that is black above and white below. It has been re­ported that the fe­males tend to be slightly lighter in color than males, but these ob­ser­va­tions were mainly made on cap­tive and feral M. reevesi in Eng­land and have not been cor­rob­o­rated with ob­ser­va­tions of M. reevesi in its na­tive China. Chi­nese munt­jacs stand 43 to 45 cm in height at the shoul­der.

Sex­ual di­mor­phism in M. reevesi leads to larger, heav­ier males that have short antlers (125 to 150 mm) that grow from their pedi­cles and that have long, tusk-like ca­nines (1 to 2 inches long). The ca­nines are not en­tirely fixed to the pre­max­illa so they are less likely to be bro­ken off dur­ing a fight. Both the male and fe­male Chi­nese munt­jacs have bony ridges on their faces that are lined with black hair along the in­side. These ridges ex­tend into hair-cov­ered pedi­cles from which antlers (male) or black tufts of hair (fe­males) pro­ject. Both the male and fe­male Chi­nese munt­jacs also have pre­or­bital glands that pro­duce a creamy liq­uid used for chem­i­cal com­mu­ni­ca­tion.

As with all Munti­a­cus species, M. reevesi has only the upper parts of the 2nd and 5th digit metacarpals pre­sent, a phys­i­ol­ogy known as ple­siometacarpalia. How­ever, un­like other deer species that have 2 hooves of the same size and shape, M. reevesi has one hoof that is smaller than the other and that is lined with hairs that are vis­i­ble in its foot­prints. (Bur­rage, 2000; Grz­imek, 1990; Helin, et al., 1999; Mar­shall, 1967; Nowak, ed. and Par­adiso, ed., 1983; South­ern, 1964)

• Other Physical Features
• endothermic
• homoiothermic
• bilateral symmetry

• Sexual Dimorphism
• male larger
• sexes colored or patterned differently
• ornamentation

• Range mass

  11 to 28 kg

  24.23 to 61.67 lb

• Average mass

  18 kg

  39.65 lb

• Range length

  700 to 1130 mm

  27.56 to 44.49 in

• Average length

  800 mm

  31.50 in

Re­pro­duc­tion

Males gain ac­cess to fe­males by de­fend­ing ter­ri­tory that over­laps that of fe­males. The males will fight with the tusk-like ca­nines for ac­cess to fe­males in es­trous. The males do not use their antlers in of­fen­sive moves while fight­ing like the white-tailed deer Odocoileus vir­gini­anus, but they spar ex­ten­sively while still young, and use the horns in de­fen­sive moves while fight­ing. (Chap­man, et al., 1997; Geist, 1998; Grz­imek, 1990; Law­son, et al., 2001; Pei, et al., 1995; South­ern, 1964; Yah­ner, 1980)

• Mating System
• polygynous

Munti­a­cus reevesi has year round breed­ing in its nat­ural habi­tat in China. In Eng­land, Chi­nese munt­jacs ap­pear to have a more sea­sonal breed­ing cycle that oc­curs be­tween late Oc­to­ber and early March. Both sexes of M. reevesi de­velop rapidly so that they may reach their re­pro­duc­tive thresh­old weights (12 kg for bucks, 10 kg for does) within a few months of birth (36 weeks for bucks, 24 weeks for does). It is un­likely that very young males will be able to gain ac­cess to a doe in es­trus, but younger males tend to be more re­pro­duc­tively suc­cess­ful than older males due to the qual­ity of their ca­nines.

Un­like other antlered deer, munt­jacs use tusk-like ca­nines to de­fend ter­ri­tory and gain ac­cess to fe­males. When a doe in es­trus is lo­cated, the male will make a buzzing sound and the fe­male will re­spond by lying flat, weav­ing her head and emit­ting a cat-like whine that is a sign of sub­mis­sion. After cop­u­la­tion, male are no longer in­volved with the fe­males and once the rut is over, males lose their antlers. Males may grow antlers in a pe­riod as rapid as 103 days, which is use­ful for a species that can breed year-round. (Chap­man, et al., 1997; Geist, 1998; Grz­imek, 1990; Nowak, ed. and Par­adiso, ed., 1983; South­ern, 1964; Yah­ner, 1980)

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

• Breeding interval

  The mean inter-birth interval is approximately 233 days.

• Breeding season

  Breeding can occur year round in the subtropics, but in England, the breeding tends to be somewhat seasonal, occuring between late October and early March.

• Range number of offspring

  1 to 2

• Average number of offspring

  1

• Average number of offspring

  1

  AnAge

• Range gestation period

  6.97 to 7.33 months

• Average gestation period

  7 months

• Average weaning age

  2 months

• Average time to independence

  6 months

• Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)

  24 (low) weeks

• Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)

  36 to 59 weeks

Parental in­vest­ment is min­i­mal in M. reevesi. The young de­velop ex­tremely rapidly and are weaned early enough so that by the time that the caloric needs of the young re­ally begin to es­ca­late, they have begun to eat solid foods and are no longer de­pen­dent on their mother’s milk. Lac­ta­tion gen­er­ally oc­curs for only the first 17 weeks. Be­cause the young be­come in­de­pen­dent so early, there is no extra cost to a fe­male to pro­duce males (which would gen­er­ally cost more in nu­tri­tional needs from a mother). By the age of 6 months, adult­hood is reached and the young must leave the mother's ter­ri­tory. (Chap­man, et al., 1997; Grz­imek, 1990)

• Parental Investment
• precocial
• pre-weaning/fledging
  • provisioning
    • female
  • protecting
    • female
• pre-independence
  • protecting
    • female

Lifes­pan/Longevity

Lit­tle is known about the lifes­pan of M. reevesi in the wild. Anec­do­tal ev­i­dence would in­di­cate that Chi­nese munt­jacs, which are de­scribed as a duiker-like (for ex­am­ple, Cepalo­phus niger) or­gan­ism due to its rapid de­vel­op­ment and its gen­er­al­ist ten­den­cies, would prob­a­bly have a sim­i­lar life ex­pectancy: 10 to 12 years. In Eng­land, with a lack of preda­tors and abun­dant food sources, it may be ex­pected that Chi­nese munt­jacs may live even longer. (Chap­man, et al., 1994; Grz­imek, 1990; Nowak, ed. and Par­adiso, ed., 1983)

• Range lifespan
  Status: wild

  unknown (low) hours

• Range lifespan
  Status: captivity

  18 (high) years

• Average lifespan
  Status: wild

  10-12 years

• Average lifespan
  Status: captivity

  23.2 years

  AnAge

Be­hav­ior

Munti­a­cus reevesi is a soli­tary, ter­ri­to­r­ial deer that uses its tusk-like ca­nines to de­fend its ter­ri­tory and gain ac­cess to fe­males. It uses its short antlers for par­ry­ing and spar­ring and for de­fen­sive moves while fight­ing. Un­like other antlered deer, the munt­jac uses its horns to shove an op­po­nent off bal­ance and in­flict a tusk blow to the face or head that will hope­fully punc­ture the skin of the face, neck or ears.

Chi­nese munt­jacs cre­ate trails through their ter­ri­tory that they use for ease of move­ment, sim­i­lar to white-tailed deer of North Amer­ica (Odocoileus vir­gini­anus). The fo­liage along these trails often be­comes worn with use. Munt­jacs will also tram­ple down and clear areas for bed­ding down or uri­nat­ing.

Feed­ing bouts in Chi­nese munt­jacs typ­i­cally last 30-40 min­utes; they are most ac­tive at dawn and dusk. As with other ru­mi­nants, munt­jacs will browse for a short time, then chew their cud for some time. Munti­a­cus reevesi is a par­tic­u­larly un­fussy eater and will browse on a wide va­ri­ety of plant and an­i­mal ma­te­ri­als, as well as car­rion and fun­gus. In Britain, M. reevesi has been found to walk up the stems of small saplings in order to reach fo­liage that would oth­er­wise be out of reach. Munti­a­cus reevesi tends to for­age with its head held low, mak­ing soft growl­ing noises as it moves.

As is fur­ther ex­plained in the com­mu­ni­ca­tion sec­tion, Chi­nese munt­jacs use vo­cal­iza­tions and chem­i­cal sig­nals as forms of com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Munti­a­cus reevesi tends to bark when it is feel­ing anx­ious, gen­er­ally due to the pres­ence of a preda­tor or a dom­i­nant con­spe­cific. Chem­i­cal com­mu­ni­ca­tion con­sists pri­mar­ily of scent marks that are placed on veg­e­ta­tion in order to mark ter­ri­tory. The odors pro­duced by the scent glands them­selves may be used for the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of in­di­vid­u­als, but this has not been ex­ten­sively tested.

Ter­ri­to­ries of M. reevesi fe­males tend to over­lap, but male ter­ri­to­ries tend only to over­lap those of fe­males, not of other males. An ex­cep­tion can be ob­served when males will tol­er­ate the pres­ence of a younger, antler­less male that is not a com­peti­tor for fe­males in es­trus. This serves the sub­servient male well be­cause he does not have to fight other males for his own ter­ri­tory and he can get prac­tice spar­ring with a dom­i­nant male. The dom­i­nant male ben­e­fits be­cause he is gain­ing a co-de­fender of ter­ri­tory with­out giv­ing up any ac­cess to fe­males. (Chap­man, et al., 1993; Chap­man, et al., 1997; Geist, 1998; Un­avail­able, Un­avail­able; Yah­ner, 1980)

• Key Behaviors
• terricolous
• crepuscular
• motile
• sedentary
• solitary
• territorial

• Range territory size

  0.11 to 0.28 km^2

Home Range

The home range of the Chi­nese munt­jacs has been stud­ied in feral pop­u­la­tions in Eng­land. In those stud­ies, it was found that range size and usage areas of the range did not dif­fer sea­son­ally or di­ur­nally. These stud­ies also noted that fe­male ter­ri­to­ries tended to over­lap. The min­i­mum range size for adult male M. reevesi in Britain is about 20 hectares. The max­i­mum range size for bucks is ap­prox­i­mately 28 hectares. For M. reevesi in Britain, the min­i­mum range size is 11 hectares, and the max­i­mum range size is 14 hectares. In­for­ma­tion on range sizes for M. reevesi in its na­tive China are not avail­able. It is noted that gath­er­ing data on munt­jacs in their na­tive habi­tats (i.e. dense veg­e­ta­tion), is often dif­fi­cult be­cause they are heard more often than they are seen. (Chap­man, et al., 1993; Mar­shall, 1967)

Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and Per­cep­tion

Munti­a­cus reevesi, as a mem­ber of the Munti­a­cus genus, is often known as a bark­ing deer, yet the func­tion of bark­ing may be over­es­ti­mated by ca­sual ob­servers. While it was orig­i­nally thought that munt­jacs used their barks to com­mu­ni­cate with other munt­jacs to com­mu­ni­cate dan­ger or lo­ca­tion in­for­ma­tion, it ap­pears that the barks of munt­jacs have a more lim­ited func­tion than ex­pected. Barks are pri­mar­ily used in two cir­cum­stances; when preda­tors are sus­pected in the en­vi­ron­ment and dur­ing so­cial en­coun­ters when sub­or­di­nate and dom­i­nant an­i­mals come into con­tact. The hy­poth­e­sis that barks are used as a part of re­pro­duc­tive processes has not been sub­stan­ti­ated. Like­wise, ex­pec­ta­tions that barks were used to com­mu­ni­cate dan­ger to other munt­jacs could not be cor­rob­o­rated in stud­ies. The fre­quency of the barks of munt­jacs pre­vents them from trav­el­ing any sub­stan­tial dis­tance, par­tic­u­larly in dense veg­e­ta­tion, so it is un­likely that barks evolved as a warn­ing re­sponse. It has been hy­poth­e­sized that the bark­ing of munt­jacs is ac­tu­ally a vo­cal­iza­tion of inner anx­i­ety that ac­com­pa­nies being hunted by preda­tors or chal­lenged by a dom­i­nant in­di­vid­ual and that it has lit­tle to do with mat­ing, de­fend­ing ter­ri­tory, food pro­cure­ment or iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of in­di­vid­u­als. Ev­i­dence sup­port­ing this hy­poth­e­sis is found in the ob­ser­va­tions of in­creased bark­ing by the munt­jac at dawn and dusk and in en­vi­ron­ments that have de­creased vis­i­bil­ity, such as very dense grass­land en­vi­ron­ments.

Chi­nese munt­jacs send sig­nals to oth­ers about their iden­tity, their ter­ri­tory and their sex­ual state using a com­bi­na­tion of non-bark vo­cal­iza­tions and chem­i­cals. The non-bark vo­cal­iza­tions that may be emit­ted by Munti­a­cus reevesi are used in re­pro­duc­tive sit­u­a­tions where the male makes a buzzing sound and a fe­male that is will­ing will make a cat-like whine. A main form of com­mu­ni­ca­tion in M. reevesi comes through chem­i­cals emit­ted by the pre­or­bital gland. These chem­i­cals are used as scent mark­ers to de­fine ter­ri­to­ries and to ad­ver­tise pres­ence of an in­di­vid­ual. Stud­ies have shown that the chem­i­cal com­po­si­tion of these se­cre­tions would per­mit munt­jacs to iden­tify an in­di­vid­ual’s age, sex and pop­u­la­tion of ori­gin, but the mere pres­ence of these ca­pa­bil­i­ties within the chem­i­cal does not mean that the munt­jac are using chem­i­cal com­mu­ni­ca­tion in that way. (Board­man and Bourne, 2001; Geist, 1998; Grz­imek, 1990; Nowak, ed. and Par­adiso, ed., 1983; South­ern, 1964; Yah­ner, 1980)

• Communication Channels
• acoustic
• chemical

• Other Communication Modes
• pheromones
• scent marks

• Perception Channels
• tactile
• acoustic
• chemical

Food Habits

Munti­a­cus reevesi is sur­pris­ingly om­niv­o­rous. It eats bam­boo, seeds, bark, fruit and fo­liage, as most other deer species, but it has also been found to eat eggs and car­rion and is re­ported to be able to hunt small mam­mals and ground-nest­ing birds. It is re­ported to eat hunters' snared pheas­ants in China. In China, M. reevesi tends to be ag­gres­sively de­fen­sive of its ter­ri­tory be­cause while food is avail­able year-round, it is not plen­ti­ful. (Bur­rage, 2000; Grz­imek, 1990; Mar­shall, 1967)

• Primary Diet
• omnivore

• Animal Foods
• birds
• mammals
• eggs
• carrion

• Plant Foods
• leaves
• wood, bark, or stems
• seeds, grains, and nuts
• fruit
• flowers

• Other Foods
• fungus

Pre­da­tion

Munti­a­cus reevesi is pre­dated upon by a num­ber of larger mam­mals and rep­tiles in south­east China. These nat­ural en­e­mies in­clude leop­ards, tigers, dholes, jack­als, croc­o­diles and pythons. In the in­tro­duced pop­u­la­tions in Eng­land, the only po­ten­tial preda­tor is the fox. Be­hav­ioral dif­fer­ences may be noted be­tween the Eng­lish pop­u­la­tions and those of China as the lack of preda­tors leads M. reevesi to be much less vig­i­lent in Eng­land and is there­fore con­sid­ered to be com­fort­able with the pres­ence of man and hu­man-al­tered sur­round­ings.

When alarmed, Chi­nese munt­jacs will bark for up to one hour. This dis­tress call, how­ever, does not ap­pear to be meant to warn oth­ers but may sim­ply be a vo­cal­ized ex­pres­sion of in­ter­nal anx­i­ety. This is mainly ev­i­denced by the fact that munt­jac barks tend to be emit­ted within a fre­quency range that would not carry through the dense veg­e­ta­tion that they in­habit. (Bur­rage, 2000; Grz­imek, 1990; Mar­shall, 1967; Yah­ner, 1980)

• Known Predators

  • leopards (Panthera pardus)
  • tigers (Panthera tigris)
  • jackals (Canis)
  • foxes (Canidae)
  • dholes (Cuon alpinus)
  • crocodiles (Crocodylus)
  • pythons (Boidae)

Ecosys­tem Roles

The alarm barks of Chi­nese munt­jacs are ex­cel­lent warn­ings for other small mam­mals that a preda­tor, such as a tiger or leop­ard, is in the area. In China, the be­hav­ior and dis­tri­b­u­tion of M. reevesi is in­ter­de­pen­dent with the be­hav­ior and dis­tri­b­u­tion of other Cerv­inae species, es­pe­cially M. crinifrons, M. munt­jak and Elapho­dus cephalo­phus. As the most gen­er­al­ized in its food habits of the munt­jacs, M. reevesi has the widest range, pre­fer­ring sub­trop­i­cal for­est areas and tend­ing to occur near water. The other Cerv­inae species have be­come dis­trib­uted in ei­ther higher el­e­va­tions, drier, open en­vi­ron­ments, or wet­ter, denser en­vi­ron­ments. These habi­tat types have led the other Cerv­inae to be­come more spe­cial­ized in their diet and be­hav­ior than M. reevesi.

The im­pacts of munt­jacs and other deer on plant di­ver­sity and wood­land in­ver­te­brates in Eng­land have been stud­ied and it ap­pears that with nat­ural deer pop­u­la­tions, veg­e­ta­tion brows­ing may cre­ate more habi­tats for in­ver­te­brates and the pres­ence of dung may allow for an in­creased di­ver­sity of in­ver­te­brates. This is con­trasted with high-den­sity deer pop­u­la­tions, where deer will over­browse an area and leave min­i­mal plant di­ver­sity and re­duce re­main­ing plant qual­ity for in­ver­te­brates. Sim­i­lar im­pacts have been ob­served on small mam­mal pop­u­la­tions, where munt­jacs may act as di­rect com­peti­tors for re­sources or act as habi­tat mod­i­fiers. Just as with the in­ver­te­brate study, ob­ser­va­tions made about Chi­nese munt­jacs’ im­pact on small mam­mals are den­sity-de­pen­dent. Es­sen­tially, at high den­si­ties, the com­pe­ti­tion for re­sources and habi­tat mod­i­fi­ca­tion through loss of cover will cause a de­cline in the pop­u­la­tions of small mam­mals (such as Apode­mus syl­vati­cus, Mi­cromys min­u­tus, Sorex anareus, Sorex min­u­tus, My­o­des glare­o­lus, Apode­mus flav­i­col­lis, Mus­cardi­nus avel­la­narius) that rip­ples through the food chain, es­pe­cially af­fect­ing the preda­tors of small mam­mals: Mustela ni­valis, Mustela er­minea and Vulpes vulpes. (Bur­rage, 2000; Cooke and Far­rell, 2001; Flow­erdew and Ell­wood, 2001; Stew­art, 2001)

• Ecosystem Impact
• creates habitat
• keystone species

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Pos­i­tive

Munti­a­cus reevesi has pos­i­tive im­pacts for hu­mans in both China and west­ern Eu­ro­pean feral pop­u­la­tions. In both en­vi­ron­ments, M. reevesi is hunted for meat (and in Britain, for sport). They have also been ap­pre­ci­ated in their na­tive en­vi­ron­ments for warn­ing hu­mans in the woods of the pres­ence of a preda­tor an­i­mal, such as a tiger or leop­ard, with their barks. (Bur­rage, 2000; Grz­imek, 1990; Nowak, ed. and Par­adiso, ed., 1983)

• Positive Impacts
• food

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Neg­a­tive

Munti­a­cus reevesi does not have any re­ported neg­a­tive im­pacts in its na­tive habi­tat be­cause its pop­u­la­tions are con­trolled by preda­tor species and be­cause it tends to live in for­est en­vi­ron­ments. In Eng­land, how­ever, M. reevesi, unchecked by preda­tors, has be­come the most widely dis­trib­uted deer and has been found to in­habit urban and sub­ur­ban areas, as well as forests. They may be a nui­sance to farm­ers and foresters due to their brows­ing on veg­e­ta­tion, par­tic­u­larly cop­pice. (Bur­rage, 2000; Cooke and Far­rell, 2001; Nowak, ed. and Par­adiso, ed., 1983; South­ern, 1964)

• Negative Impacts
• crop pest

Con­ser­va­tion Sta­tus

Munti­a­cus reevesi is com­mon in south­east China, there­fore it is not listed as a threat­ened or en­dan­gered species. It ap­pears not to have been stud­ied by many con­ser­va­tion or­ga­ni­za­tions, which most likely in­di­cates that it is not a species of con­cern for those in­volved in pro­tect­ing bio­di­ver­sity.

• IUCN Red List

  Least Concern
  More information

• IUCN Red List

  Least Concern
  More information

• US Federal List

  No special status

• CITES

  No special status

Other Com­ments

Munti­a­cus reevesi and other mem­bers of the Cerv­inae sub­fam­ily are in­ter­est­ing to ge­neti­cists due to their strange ge­netic his­tory. It ap­pears that while M. reevesi is 2n=46, M. feae is 2n=14 F/13 M, M. crinifrons and M. gong­sha­ne­nis are 2n=8 F/9 M, and M. munt­jak is 2n=6 F/7 M, the small­est known chro­mo­some num­ber for any mam­mal. It is also noted that evo­lu­tion from the more prim­i­tive to more de­rived Munti­a­cus species was rapid, with the fastest evo­lu­tion oc­cur­ring in M. feae, where two dif­fer­ent kary­otypes emerged in only 0.5 Myr. Tax­on­o­mists re­cently added a po­ten­tial new genus Mega­munt­ja­cus to the sub­fam­ily Cerv­inae, al­though it is still being dis­puted whether or not this new species should be its own genus or should fall under the genus Munti­a­cus. (Geist, 1998; Randi, et al., 1998; Wang and Lan, 2000)

Con­trib­u­tors

Matthew Wund (ed­i­tor), Uni­ver­sity of Michi­gan-Ann Arbor.

Sara Deul­ing (au­thor), Uni­ver­sity of Michi­gan-Ann Arbor, Phil Myers (ed­i­tor, in­struc­tor), Mu­seum of Zo­ol­ogy, Uni­ver­sity of Michi­gan-Ann Arbor.

Ref­er­ences

Board­man, S., D. Bourne. 2001. "Munti­a­cus reevesi Chi­nese munt­jac" (On-line). Man­ag­ing Foot and Mouth Dis­ease. Ac­cessed Feb­ru­ary 12, 2004 at http://​212.​187.​155.​84/​pass_​06june/​Subdirectories_​for_​Search/​SpeciesKingdoms/​0Families_​ACrM_​Artiodactyla/​Cervidae/​Muntiacus/​Muntiacus_​reevesi/​Muntiacus_​reevesi.​html#​Sexual.

Bur­rage, M. 2000. "Deer in the UK" (On-line). Munt­jac Deer. Ac­cessed Feb­ru­ary 07, 2004 at http://​www.​wilddeer.​co.​uk/​muntjac-deer.​htm.

Chap­man, N., S. Har­ris, A. Stan­ford. 1994. Reeves' Munt­jac Munti­a­cus reevesi in Britain: their his­tory, spread, habi­tat se­lec­tion, and the role of human in­ter­ven­tion in ac­cel­er­at­ing their dis­per­sal. Mam­mal Re­view, Vol. 24, No. 3: 113-160.

Chap­man, N., K. Clay­don, M. Clay­don, P. Forde, S. Har­ris. 1993. Sym­patric pop­u­la­tions of munt­jac (Munti­a­cus reevesi) and roe deer (Capre­o­lus capre­o­lus): a com­par­a­tive analy­sis of their rang­ing be­hav­iour, so­cial or­ga­ni­za­tion and ac­tiv­ity. Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, Vol. 229: 623-640.

Chap­man, N., M. Fur­long, S. Har­ris. 1997. Re­pro­duc­tive Strate­gies and the in­flu­ence of date of birth on growth and sex­ual de­vel­op­ment of an asea­son­ally-breed­ing un­gu­late: Reeves' munt­jac (Munti­a­cus reevesi). Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, Vol. 241: 551-570.

Cooke, A., L. Far­rell. 2001. Im­pact of munt­jac deer (Munti­a­cus reevesi) at Monks Wood Na­tional Na­ture Re­serve, Cam­bridgeshire, east­ern Eng­land. Forestry, Vol. 74, No. 3: 241-250.

Flow­erdew, J., S. Ell­wood. 2001. Im­pacts of wood­land deer on small mam­mal ecol­ogy. Forestry, Vol. 74, No. 3: 277-287.

Geist, V. 1998. Deer of the World: Their Evo­lu­tion, Be­hav­iour and Ecol­ogy. find this out: Stack­pole Books.

Grz­imek, B. 1990. Grz­imek's En­cy­clo­pe­dia of Mam­mals (Vol. 5). New York: Mc­Graw-Hill Pub­lish­ing Co..

Helin, S., N. Ohtaishi, L. Houji. 1999. The Mam­malian of China. Bei­jing, China.: China Forestry Pub­lish­ing House.

Jack­son, J., D. Chap­man, O. Dan­sie. 1977. A note on the food of Munt­jac deer (Munti­a­cus reevesi). Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, Vol. 183: 546-548.

Law­son, R., R. Put­nam, A. Field­ing. 2001. Chem­i­cal com­mu­ni­ca­tion in Eurasian deer (Cervi­dae): do in­di­vid­ual odours also code for at­trib­utes?. Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, 253: 91-99.

Mar­shall, P. 1967. Wild Mam­mals of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press.

Nowak, ed., R., J. Par­adiso, ed.. 1983. Walker's Mam­mals of the World: Fourth ed. Vol. 1.. Bal­ti­more: Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Press.

Pei, K., R. Taber, B. O'Gara, Y. Wang. 1995. Breed­ing cycle of the For­mosan Reeves' munt­jac (Munti­a­cus reevesi mi­cru­rus) in north­ern Tai­wan, Re­pub­lic of China. Mam­malia, Vol. 59, No. 2: 223-228.

Randi, E., N. Mucci, M. Pier­paoli, E. Douzery. 1998. New phy­lo­ge­netic per­spec­tives on the Cervi­dae (Ar­tio­dactyla) are pro­vided by the mi­to­chon­dr­ial cy­tochrome b gene. Pro­ceed­ings of the Royal So­ci­ety of Lon­don, Se­ries B, Vol. 265: 793-801.

South­ern, H. 1964. The Hand­book of British Mam­mals. Ox­ford, Eng­land.: Black­well Sci­en­tific Pub­li­ca­tions.

Stew­art, A. 2001. The im­pact of deer on low­land wood­land in­ver­te­brates: a re­view of the ev­i­dence and pri­or­i­ties for fu­ture re­search. Forestry, Vol. 74, No. 3: 259-270.

Un­avail­able, Un­avail­able. "Deer-UK" (On-line). The Ecol­ogy of the Reeves' Munt­jac. Ac­cessed Feb­ru­ary 12, 2004 at http://​www.​deer-uk.​com/​muntjac_​deer.​htm.

Wang, W., H. Lan. 2000. Rapid and Par­al­lel Chro­mo­so­mal Num­ber Re­duc­tions in Munt­jac Deer In­ferred from Mi­to­chon­dr­ial DNA Phy­logeny. Mol­e­c­u­lar Bi­ol­ogy and Evo­lu­tion, Vol. 17, No. 9: 1326-1333.

Yah­ner, R. 1980. Bark­ing in a Prim­i­tive Un­gu­late, Munti­a­cus reevesi: Func­tion and Adap­tive­ness. Amer­i­can Nat­u­ral­ist, Vol. 116, No. 2: 157-177.