160

CHAPTER 16
BRAZILIAN DWARF BROCKET DEER
Mazama nana (Hensel 1872)
Authors: VANESSA VELTRINI ABRIL, ALEXANDRE VOGLIOTTI, DIEGO M. VARELA,
JOSE MAURICIO BARBANTI DUARTE, JOSE LUIS CARTES

Associate Editor: MARIANO GIMENEZ DIXON

SPECIES SYNONYMY the tail”. According to Rossi (2000) the animals have an
Cervus simplicicornis ? Smith, 1827:141. intense and shiny reddish - chestnut general coloration
[Cervus] nanus ?, Lund, 1841:133. (Figure 02). The submandibular, maxillary and ventral
Cariacus nanus ? Lesson, 1842:173. regions are light brown. The ears are small, somewhat
Cervus rufinus: Hensel, 1872:99. slender and sometimes almost totally hairless.
Nonelaphus nambi: Ihering, 1894:16.
Coassus nanus: Bertoni, 1914:71.
Coassus rufinus: Bertoni, 1914:72.
Mazama bororo: de Miranda-Ribeiro, 1919:299.
Mazama rufina: Vieira, 1955:459.
Mazama rufina nana: Cabrera, 1960.
Mazama nana: Czernay, 1987:49.

COMMON NAMES
Spanish: corzuela enana, corzuela menor, poca,
poquita, pororó, pororoka, mbororó (guaraní).
Portuguese: veado-mão-curta, veado-póca, veado-
cambuta, cambucica, veado-bororó, veado-bororó-do-
sul, pororoca.
English: dwarf red brocket, lesser brocket deer, pygmy
brocket deer, Brazilian dwarf brocket.
Figure 2 - Lateral view of a Male M. nana, with scale
MORPHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION (Photo: J. M. B. Duarte).
Relatively small, Mazama nana rarely exceeds 15kg
and 45 cm of height (Rossi 2000) (Figure 01). Duarte Czernay (1987) describes the hind legs as darker than
(1996) describes that “it has a homogenous, reddish color the forelegs, which are shorter, giving origin to the
with little gradation and hardly any white hairs, except in Brazilian name (mão-curta = short-hand) (Mikich and
Bérnils 2004).

Figure 1 - Male M. nana in captivity (Photo: J. M. B.
Duarte).
CYTOGENETIC DESCRIPTION
The karyotype of M. nana was described for the first
time by Duarte (1992) after an analysis of 3 animals from
the banks of Parana River at Foz do Iguaçu region, with
2n=36 and FN=58 increased from 4 to 5 B chromosomes.
A karyotypic variant with 2n=39 and FN=58 was also
found. In another study, 28 animals of this species were
analyzed. A variation was detected of diploid numbers
from 36 to 40 chromosomes and fundamental numbers
from 56 to 60, increased from 1 to 7 B chromosomes
(Duarte 1998). The animals kept in the Curitiba Zoo
have shown the greatest variation as the group of large
acrocentric chromosomes in number from 1 to 5 (Duarte
1998). Abril and Duarte (2008) analyzed cytogenetically
 ABRIL ET AL. 161

24 captive animals from Brazil finding centric fusions as nana, indicating the need of know more about these

the rearrangement responsible for the variation with 2n=36
to 39 + 1 to 6 B chromosomes and FN=58 (Table 1).
The variant 2n=36 (with 6 pairs of large chromosomes
of two arms; 4 pairs of small chromosomes of two arms;
7 pairs of acrocentric chromosomes, besides from 1 to 6
B chromosomes) was found with more frequency among
the animals studied (Figure 3).
Figure 3 - The most frequent karyotypic variant (2n=36;
FN=58) among captive animals studied by Abril and Duarte
(2008).
The centric (Robertsonian) fusions may cause a
reduction in fertility due to incorrect segregation of
heterozygous pairs initiating reproductive isolation among
individuals and subsequent genetic divergence (Capanna
et al. 1976). Thus, this chromosomal polymorphism in
the captive animals analyzed shows a real possibility of
decrease in the indices of intrapopulation fertility for M.
SECTION 2
chromosomal variations as an aid for in situ and ex situ
management (Abril and Duarte 2008).
DISTRIBUTION
Historical
The distribution of M. nana has been discussed by
many researchers (Figure 04). Cabrera (1960) stated that
it is found in the southeast of Brazil, northeast of
Argentina, and east of Paraguay. Grubb (1990) believes
that the species also occurs in Bolivia. According to Vieira
(1995), in Brazil, it occurs in Mato Grosso, São Paulo
and Rio Grande do Sul, but Duarte (1996) sets the
occurrence from north of the State of Parana to the center
of Rio Grande do Sul and into Paraguay and Argentina,
in fragmented areas with much anthropic alteration.
For Redford and Eisenberg (1992) and Eisenberg and
Redford (1999) the species occurs in the southeast
Paraguay, north of Misiones Province in Argentina, and
in the Brazilian states of Minas Gerais (extreme south),
São Paulo (except Serra do Mar), Mato Grosso do Sul
(south and southeast), Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio
Grande do Sul (north). However, this distribution is not
consistent with the origin of scarce material in the Brazilian
scientific collections that restrict its distribution to the
southwest of Sao Paulo (to the south of Paranapanema
River), Parana, Santa Catarina and north of Rio Grande
do Sul (Rossi 2000).
Mazama nana is associated to different vegetation
types throughout its distribution (Margarido and Braga
2004; Rossi 2000). However, the overlapping of the
localities supplied by these authors with that observed
for Duarte et al. (in litt.) suggests that its distribution

Table 1 - Cytogenetic data of Mazama nana studied by Abril and Duarte (2008). Variants (V); diploid number (2n);
fundamental number (FN); Number of autosomes; Autosome Morphology (M=metacentric; S=submetacentric,
H=heterozygous pair, with one metacentric and two acrocentric chromosomes; A= homozygous acrocentric pair);
Variation of B chromosomes and number of males and females analyzed.
 162 BRAZILIAN DWARF BROCKET DEER Mazama nana
corresponds to the Mixed Ombrophilous Forest (MOF
SECTION 2
- Araucaria Forest) and to the ecotones with the adjacent
forest formations: Semideciduous Seasonal Forest (SSF),
Ombrophilous Dense Forest (ODF) and Cerrado
(CER).
Current
There are no studies of the current distribution of
this species, but it is certain that it has decreased very
much due to timber exploitation (Araucaria sp.) and
expansion of agriculture. If we consider the distribution
of natural habitats of the species, a reduction of about
95% of original area of Mixed Ombrophilous Forest
(Araucaria Woods) is observed (Monteiro 2003). The
process of habitat reduction must have caused the
fragmentation of the species’ distribution range, leading
to the establishment of geographically isolated
populations. The loss of preferential habitats could have
caused the occupation of forest formations less preferred
by the species. This would explain the recent records in
the east of Parana and Santa Catarina (Montane Forest
and Submontane Ombrophilous Dense Forest) (Duarte
et al. in litt.; Margarido and Braga 2004) and the absence
of historical records in these regions (Rossi 2000; Figure
04). In Paraná State, Brazil, it is known in areas of
Semideciduous Forest, Mixed Ombrophilous Forest,
Ombrophilous Dense Forest and Cerrado, but there is
no additional information about its original, nor current,
distribution in the State (Mikich and Bérnils 2004).
Based on material deposited in the Museum of Natural
History Capão da Imbuia of Curitiba - PR, the areas
where it was recorded are: Guarapuava (specimens of
Figure 4 - Original distribution and records of collected specimens of M. nana in Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina.
1987 and 1991), Sagrado river (Morretes city) (specimen
of 2001), Reserva do Iguaçu (specimen of 1991) and
São Mateus do Sul (specimen of 1986). In protected
areas there are records only for the Iguaçu National
Park (Mikich and Bérnils 2004)
The National Museum of Natural History of Paraguay
has records of M. nana in San Rafael National Park region
(Gamarra de Fox and Martin 1996).
In Argentina, the species may be found in almost all
the remaining natural forests of Misiones Province (Varela
in litt.).
KNOWN POPULATIONS
in situ populations
There is no precise information on the population size
in any of the areas where it has been observed (Fontana
et al. 2003) nor on the degree of connectivity between
them, but its distribution and those of the forests remaining
in the region (<http://www.sosmatatlantica.org.br/
?secao=atlas>) suggest the existence of three main
population blocks:
1. Eastern: Located in the east of Paraná and Santa
Catarina and northeast of Rio Grande do Sul, following
Serra do Mar and Serra Geral. It is the biggest of the
blocks and it is composed mainly for ODF formation
and its transition with the MOF.
2. Central: It occupies the center-south region of Parana,
along the Serra da Esperança. Its vegetation is
composed basically for MOF, with enclaves of Campos
de Altitude. It is the smallest block, but probably is
connected to the eastern block through the Itajaí River
Basin, northeast Region of Santa Catarina.

3. Western: It encompasses Misiones Province in
Argentina, the southeast of Paraguay and the
southwest of Parana in Brazil represented basically by
Iguaçu National Park. The SSF is the main forest
formation, but it also presents the transitions with
MOF and possibly with ODF. It is apparently isolated
from the other population blocks.
The most recent records of the species in Brazil point
to the existence of populations in the region of the middle
Ivaí River and in the cities of Reserva do Iguaçu,
Guarapuava, Irati, São Mateus do Sul and Morretes in
Paraná (Margarido and Braga 2004). In protected areas,
the species is mentioned in Iguaçu National Park,
Lauraceas State Park, Pau Oco State Park, Boguaçu
State Park, in the Private Reserve of the Natural
Patrimony (RPPN) Federal das Araucárias (General
Carneiro city) and RPPN Monte Alegre Farm in
Telêmaco Borba city (Duarte et al. in litt.). In Santa
Catarina the species was recorded in the Nascentes Park
in the localities of Blumenau (Duarte et al. in litt.) and
Vitor Meireles (Tortato et al. 2004). In Rio Grande do
Sul its occurrence is mentioned in the National Forest
of São Francisco de Paula (M. Fialho, in litt.). There
are no recent records of the species in São Paulo State,
but it probably exists throughout the great ecotone
(ODF, MOF, SSF and CER) in the region of Itararé,
Itapeva and Capão Bonito.
In Misiones, Argentina, many conservation units
shelter important populations of this species, such as the
Iguaçu National Park and the State Parks of Urugua-í,
Foerster, Piñalito, Cruce Caballero, Esmeralda, Moconá
y Cuña Pirú (D. M. Varela in litt.).
There are no current population surveys of the species
in Paraguay. However, 15 records of M. nana in the data
base from Guyra Paraguay Organization, obtained
through the inventories of fauna and accidental
observations, suggest the presence of the species in the
remaining forests of the departments of Itapua, Caazapa,
Alto Parana, Canindeyu and San Pedro (Cartes et al.
2000; J. L. Cartes in litt.).
ex situ population
The captive population of Mazama nana has not been
catalogued and the initiation of a Studbook should be a
first step to evaluate the potential of captive breeding for
the conservation of the species.
For many years, in the “Setor de Animais Silvestres
do Departamento de Zootecnia, UNESP – Jaboticabal”,
captive management of this deer species has being
developed. Other important holding centers for the species
are Itaipu Binacional Wildlife Breeding Center, where
there are about 15 individuals, and Cascavel Zoo that
keeps at least 5 animals. These three institutions represent
at least 80% of the captive Brazilian population (Capalbo
and Duarte in litt.)
In Argentina, some individuals may be found in the
“Centro de Recuperación y Cría de Aves Amenzadas de
la Selva Paranaense Guirá Ogá, in Puerto Iguazú
(Misiones) (Varela in litt.)
In Paraguay, there are no known captive populations
(J. L. Cartes in litt.).
ABRIL ET AL. 163
HABITAT
SECTION 2
The habitat of M. nana was described as “humid
regions” by Czernay (1987), however, according to
Duarte (1996) it occupies mountainous and steep regions
covered with dense vegetation. Conversion of the habitat
to agriculture and industrial activities has greatly affected
the remaining forests, resulting in fragmentation, isolation
and depletion of previously abundant species in these
environments (Wemmer 1998).
The small size of M. nana seems to be related to the
environment it occupies (Emmons and Feer 1999).
According to Cabrera and Yepes (1960) the pygmy
brockets prefer mountainous areas.
In Argentina, the species is found in habitats with dense
vegetation, abundant bamboo cover and secondary
forests, known as “capueras” (Chébez and Varela 2001).
In Misiones, it is possible to find the species in large areas
of plantations with Pinus spp. (Varela in litt.). In this
same province studies with camera traps indicate the
preference of M. nana to mountainous areas such as the
Urugua-í Provincial Park (Paviolo and Di Bitetti, in litt.).
SPATIAL USE AND HOME RANGE
There is no information available for any of the areas
of occurrence of the species.
FEEDING ECOLOGY
There is no information for M. nana.
REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY
There are some records of births between September
and February, with the birth of a single fawn (Crespo
1982). There is evidence of an annual cycle of antler
growth and casting in the captive animals in Argentina
(Chebez and Varela 2001). In Brazil, this cycle apparently
does not exist (J.M.B.Duarte, in litt.).
Mating was described by Abril and Duarte (2003)
between M. nana and M. gouazoubira in captivity. Yet
these two species are so different that it is hard to believe
that they would mate and successfully breed in the wild.
However, some captive situations induce these crossings
generating infertile hybrids. Two of four born hybrids
were analyzed cytogenetically and they showed a karyotype
(2n=55) intermediate from the parent species (2n=70 for
M. gouazoubira and 2n=36 for M. nana). This description
shows that animals with distinct karyotypes can generate
descendents, even if infertile. This is the proof that even
with karyotypic differences, there is a genetic proximity
that guarantees the embryonic development, implantation
and birth of offspring.
BEHAVIOR
There are almost no data on the species’ behavior.
Giai (1976) describes that M. nana eludes hunters by
circling many times in the dense vegetation emitting a
loud sound (buff), which gives the name “pororó” to the
species.
CONSERVATION STATUS
Mazama nana is not listed by CITES (Convention
for the International Trade of Endangered Species);
 164 BRAZILIAN DWARF BROCKET DEER Mazama nana
appearing as LR (lower risk) in “IUCN Red List” (Red
SECTION 2
List of World Conservation Union) of 1996 (Wemmer
1998). In the “IUCN Red List” of 2008 it appeared as
DD (deficient data) after a recommendation of “Deer
Specialist Group” (IUCN, 2008). In 2003, it was
included for the first time in the official list of threatened
species of Brazilian Institute of the Environment and
Renewed Natural Resources (IBAMA - Instituto
Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais
Renováveis) in Brazil (IBAMA 2003) in the “vulnerable”
category. In regional lists, the species appears in the
“critically endangered” category in Sao Paulo (Secretaria
do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo 2008),
“vulnerable” in Parana (Margarido and Braga 2004)
and “critically endangered” in Rio Grande do Sul
(Marques et al. 2002).
In spite of all the uncertainties in ecological and
biological aspects, it is the most threatened deer of Brazil
and possibly of the Neotropical region. The population
isolation caused by habitat loss in the past must be the
main threat to the maintenance of the remaining
population at the present time. This justifies the need to
implement research to determinate its current distribution
and the viability of its populations. The fragmentation
tends to increase pressures, such as: hunting, predation
by dogs, the exposure to the diseases of domestic species,
and the progressive degradation of small forest fragments
(edge effect), which deserve attention in planning
conservation measures for this species. Due to the
agricultural occupation in Brazil and Paraguay and the
consequent destruction of the Interior Atlantic Forest,
more than 90% of the original habitat has disappeared or
is very fragmented (Galindo- Leal and De Gusmão
Câmara 2003).
In Paraguay, the populations are also threatened due
to loss of habitat. The majority of the Atlantic Forest
habitats are extinct, what remains is in protected areas
such as Reserva Natural del Bosque Mbaracayú and the
Itaipu Hydroelectric Power Plant Reserve (Itabo, Limoy
and Caraa Biological Reserves, and Tati Yupi Biological
Refuge). Currently, San Rafael National Park, which has
records of the species, suffers many pressures and threats.
In a recent workshop on “Threatened Paraguayan Fauna”
(J.L.Cartes in litt.) the conservation status in the country
was evaluated as Vulnerable
In Argentina, M. nana is considered as vulnerable
(Diaz and Ojeda 2000) although the populations of
Misiones Province seem to be stable, since it contains the
largest remaining habitat with almost 10.000 Km2 of
continuous forest (Varela in litt.). In this region, one of
the major conservation problems is hunting, mainly in
the provincial parks and private forests. However, the
construction of roads has increased the number of road-
kills and could be affecting the populations (Varela in
litt.).
LITERATURE CITED
ABRIL, V. V., and J. M. B. DUARTE. 2003. Hibridização
entre Mazama nana e M. gouazoubira: Padrão morfológico
e confirmação citogenética. Resume II Congresso Brasileiro
de Mastozoologia Pp. 281.
ABRIL, V. V. and J. M. B. DUARTE. 2008. Chromosome
polymorphism in the Brazilian dwarf brocket deer Mazama
nana (Mammalia, Cervidae). Genetics and Molecular
Biology, 31:53-57.
BERTONI, A. W. 1914. Fauna Paraguaya. Catálogos
sistemáticos de los vertebrados del Paraguay. Peces,
batracios, reptiles, aves y mamìferos conocidos hasto 1913.
Asunción. Fauna Paraguaya, p. 1-83.
CABRERA, A. 1960. Catalogo de los mamiferos de America
del Sur. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias
Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”, Zoologia 4:309-732.
CABRERA, A. AND J. YEPES. 1960. Mamíferos
sulamericanos. Cía. Argentina de Editores. Buenos Aires.
CAPANNA, E.; A. GROOPP, H. WINKING, G. NOACK
AND M. V. CIVITELLI. 1976. Rober tsonian
Metacentrics in the Mouse. Chromosoma 58:341-353.
CARTES, J.L., R. VILLALBA, AND L. BARTRINA. 2000.
Registros de la familia Cervidae en el Programa de Apoyo
a Iniciativas Privadas del Paraguay. Pp.199-204 in Manejo
de Fauna Silvestre en Amazonía y Latinoamérica (Cabrera
et al., eds.).Asunción, Paraguay.
CHEBEZ, J. C. AND D. VARELA. 2001. Corzuela enana.
Pp. 51-56 in Los ciervos autóctonos de la Argentina y la
acción del hombre (C. M. Dellafiore and N. Macieira,
eds.). Grupo Abierto Comunicaciones, Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
CRESPO, J. A. 1982. Ecología de la comunidad de mamíferos
del P.N. Iguazú, Misiones. Revista del Museo Argentino
de Ciências Naturales. Ecología 3:45-162.
CZERNAY, S. 1987. Die Spiesshirsche und Pudus: die
Gattungen Mazama und Pudu. A. Ziemsen, Wittenberg
Lutherstadt, Die Neue Brehm-Bucherei Heft, 581, 84p.
De MIRANDA-RIBEIRO, A. 1919. Os veados do Brasil
segundo as coleções Rondon e de vários museus nacionais
e estrangeiros. Revista do Museu Paulista, 11:209-308.
DÍAZ, G.B. AND R. A. OJEDA (eds.) 2000. Libro Rojo.
Mamíferos amenazados de la Argentina. Sociedad
Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos. Buenos Aires.
DUARTE, J. M. B. 1992. Aspectos taxonômicos e
citogenéticos de algumas espécies de cervídeos brasileiros.
MSc. thesis, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias,
Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil.
DUARTE, J. M. B. 1996. Guia de identificação de cervídeos
brasileiros. FUNEP, Jaboticabal.
DUARTE, J. M. B. 1998. Análise Citotaxonômica do veado-
bororó no Brasil (Mazama nana). In: Análise citogenética
e taxonômica do gênero Mazama (Cervidae; Artiodactyla)
no Brasil. Ph.D. dissertation, Instituto de Biociências,
Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
EISENBERG, J. F. AND K. H. REDFORD. 1999. Mammals
of the neotropics: The central neotropics. The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, United States of America and
London, United Kingdon.
EMMONS, L. H. AND F. FEER. 1999. Los mamíferos de
los bosques húmedos de América tropical. Una guía de
campo. Edición en español. Editorial FAN. Santa Cruz de
la Sierra, Bolivia.
FONTANA, C. S., G. A. BENCKE AND R. E. REIS, 2003.
Livro vermelho da fauna ameaçada de extinção no Rio
 BRAZILIAN DWARF BROCKET Mazama nana ABRIL ET AL. 165

Grande do Sul. Edipucrs, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do extinção em São Paulo. Available from http://
Sul, Brazil.FONTANA, F. and M. RUBINI. 1990. www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/listas_fauna.zip (accessed May

Chromosomal evolution in Cervidae. BioSystems, 34:157-
174.
GALINDO-LEAL, C. AND I. DE GUSMAO CÂMARA
(eds.). 2003. The Atlantic Forest of South America:
biodiversity status, threats, and outlook. State of the
Hotspots. CABS/CI. Island Press, Washington.
GAMARRA DE FOX, I. AND A. J. MARTIN. 1996.
Mastozoología in Colecciones de Flora y Fauna del Museo
Nacional de Historia Natural del Paraguay (O. Romero
Martínez, ed.) MAG/SSERNMA/DPNVS/MNHNP,
Asunción, Paraguay.
SECTION 2
15, 2009).
SMITH, H. 1827. Griffith’s Animal Kingdom. Vol V.
TORTATO, M. A., V. Q. PIACENTINI, and F. R. TORTATO.
2004. Levantamento preliminar de mamíferos de médio
e grande porte numa área de Floresta de Faxinal no Alto,
Vale do Itajaí, SC. XXV Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia:
Resumos. Brasília: Sociedade Brasileira de Zoologia, 8 a
13 de fevereiro de 2004.
VIEIRA, C. C. 1955. Lista Remissiva dos mamíferos do Brasil.
Arquivos de Zoologia 8:458-464.

GIAI, A. G. 1976. Vida de un naturalista en Misiones. Editorial WEMMER, C. 1998. Status survey and conservation action
Albatros. Buenos Aires, Argentina. plan, Deer. Oxford, IUCN/SSC Deer Specialist Group.

GRUBB, P. 1990. List of deer species and subspecies. J. British

Deer Society, 8:153-155.
HENSEL, R. 1872. Beiträg zur Kenntniss der Säugethiere
Süd-Brasiliens. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Berlim, 1-130.
IBAMA, 2003. Lista Nacional das Espécies brasileiras
ameaçadas de extinção http://www.mma.gov.br/port/
sbf/fauna/index.cfm (acessed June 04, 2004).
IHERING, H. VON. 1894. Os Mamíferos de S. Paulo. São
Paulo, Typ. Do “Diário Oficial”.
IUCN. 2008. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN
Red List Unit, International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources, Cambridge, United
Kingdom. Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org
(accessed May 14, 2009).
LESSON, R. P. 1842. Nouveau Tableau de Régne Animal.
Mammifères.
LUND, 1841. Konigelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs
Afhandlinger. Vol 8
MARGARIDO, T. C. C. AND F. G. BRAGA. 2004.
Mamíferos. Pp. 27-142 in Livro vermelho da fauna
ameaçada no Estado do Paraná. (S. B. Mikich and R. S.
Bérnils, eds.). Instituto Ambiental do Paraná, Curitiba,
Brazil.
MARQUES, A. A. B., C. S. FONTANA, E. VÉLEZ, G. A.
BENCKE, M. SCHNEIDER AND R. E. REIS. 2002.
Lista de Referência da Fauna Ameaçada de Extinção no
Rio Grande do Sul: Decreto no 41.672, de 10 junho de
2002. FZB / MCT–PUCRS / Pangea (Publicações
Avulsas FZB, 11), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
MIKICH, S. B. AND R. S. BÉRNILS. 2004. Livro Vermelho
da fauna ameaçada no Estado do Paraná. Instituto
Ambiental do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
MONTEIRO, K. V. Mata Atlântica: A floresta em que vivemos.
Porto Alegre: Núcleo Amigos da Terra, 2003. 71p.
REDFORD, K. H. and J. F. EISENBERG, 1992. Mammals
of the neotropics: The southern cone. The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, United States of America and
London, United Kingdon.
ROSSI, R.V. 2000. Taxonomia de Mazama Rafinesque, 1817
do Brasil (Ar tiodactyla, Cer vidae). M.Sc. thesis,
Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
SECRETARIA DO MEIO AMBIENTE DO ESTADO DE
SÃO PAULO. 2008. Lista de animais ameaçados de

View publication stats