Animal Diversity Web

Ge­o­graphic Range

Kinka­jous are dis­trib­uted in neotrop­i­cal for­est re­gions from south­ern Tamauli­pas, Mex­ico to south­ern Brazil. (Eisen­burg, 1989; Ko­rtlucke, 1973)

• Biogeographic Regions
• neotropical
  • native

Habi­tat

Kinka­jous live in a va­ri­ety of for­est habi­tats in­clud­ing trop­i­cal dry for­est, sec­ondary for­est, Ama­zon­ian rain­for­est, At­lantic coastal for­est, trop­i­cal ever­green for­est and forests of the sa­van­nah re­gion in Suri­name. They are rarely found in palm jun­gle, cloud forests or thorn forests (Ford and Hoff­mann 1988). Habi­tat re­quire­ments have not been fully in­ves­ti­gated. (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988)

• Habitat Regions
• tropical
• terrestrial

• Terrestrial Biomes
• forest
• rainforest

Phys­i­cal De­scrip­tion

Potos flavus is in the car­nivo­ran fam­ily Pro­cy­onidae (rac­coons, coatis, and their rel­a­tives). Kinka­jous have dis­tinc­tive fea­tures that at one time were used to place them in the order Pri­mates as Lemur flavus. Kinka­jous are ar­bo­real and pos­sess many adap­ta­tions com­mon to ar­bo­real species, such as a long, fully pre­hen­sile tail, nim­ble clawed fin­gers, and fully re­versible hind feet. Dur­ing ter­res­trial lo­co­mo­tion, cap­tive kinka­jous ex­hibit a va­ri­ety of un­pre­dictable foot­fall pat­terns yet re­main grace­ful and fe­line-like when mov­ing. Kinka­jous are con­sid­ered “adept yet de­lib­er­ate climbers” (Mc­Clearn 1992, p. 254). They uti­lize their ex­treme spinal flex­i­bil­ity to ma­neu­ver among the tree limbs and ob­tain food at ter­mi­nal branches. This flex­i­bil­ity, which al­lows for a ro­ta­tion of 180º be­tween the pelvis and head, is a unique trait that dis­tin­guishes kinka­jous from their close rel­a­tives, the coatis and rac­coons (Mc­Clearn 1992). (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988; Mc­Clearn, 1992)

Kinka­jous are medium-sized (2.0 to 4.6 kg) with a thick and woolly, honey-brown pelage, though dif­fer­ent color morphs have been ob­served in some re­gions (Ford and Hoff­mann 1989). They have elon­gated bod­ies with short legs, a rounded head with large eyes, a small muz­zle, and round ears. A re­cent study on the basal meta­bolic rate (BMR) of car­ni­vores, re­ported a BMR for kinka­jous of 447.71 kJ/day (Munoz-Gar­cia and Williams 2005). Kinka­jous are par­tic­u­larly well known for hang­ing up­side-down while feed­ing, using their pre­hen­sile tail and hind legs for sup­port while hold­ing small fruits in a one-handed grasp (Mc­Clearn 1992). Lit­tle sex­ual di­mor­phism ex­ists be­tween males and fe­males; how­ever, males are known to have slightly larger ca­nines and minor dif­fer­ences in skull mor­phol­ogy (Ford and Hoff­mann 1988). (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988; Mc­Clearn, 1992; Munoz-Gar­cia and Williams, 2005)

• Other Physical Features
• endothermic
• homoiothermic
• bilateral symmetry

• Sexual Dimorphism
• sexes alike
• male larger

• Range mass

  2.0 to 4.6 kg

  4.41 to 10.13 lb

• Range length

  820 to 1,330 mm

  32.28 to in

• Average basal metabolic rate

  4.294 W

  AnAge

Re­pro­duc­tion

Orig­i­nally, kinka­jous were thought to be a soli­tary species that rarely ex­hib­ited so­cial­ity, but be­hav­ioral stud­ies have re­vealed com­plex so­cial in­ter­ac­tions and an un­usual mat­ing sys­tem (Kays and Git­tle­man 2001). Kinka­jous ex­hibit both a polyg­a­mous and polyan­drous mat­ing sys­tem. Two males, a sin­gle fe­male, and off­spring often com­prise a typ­i­cal so­cial group. The sys­tem is con­sid­ered polyg­a­mous be­cause dom­i­nant males mate with the fe­male of their home group, as well as any other fe­males liv­ing on the pe­riph­ery of the home ter­ri­tory and un­re­lated to an­other group (Kays 2003). Most cop­u­la­tion is done by the dom­i­nant male, but oc­ca­sion­ally the sub­or­di­nate male is al­lowed to cop­u­late with the home group fe­male (Kays and Git­tle­man 2001; Kays 2003). Ge­netic analy­sis of pa­ter­nity sup­ports the hy­poth­e­sis that the dom­i­nant male mo­nop­o­lizes fer­til­iza­tions (Kays, Git­tle­man, and Wayne 2000). (Kays and Git­tle­man, 2001; Kays, 2003; Kays, et al., 2000)

Dur­ing ob­served cop­u­la­tory events, male kinka­jous spent sev­eral hours fol­low­ing the fe­male in oestrus, zigzag­ging over mul­ti­ple hectares. Scent glands seem to be used for sex­ual stim­u­la­tion (Ford and Hoff­mann 1988) and ter­ri­to­r­ial mark­ing. The sub­or­di­nate male often fol­lows closely, vo­cal­iz­ing and pick­ing fights with the dom­i­nant male. Other ob­ser­va­tions have shown that both males oc­ca­sion­ally cop­u­late with the group fe­male with­out dis­plays of ag­gres­sion. After cop­u­la­tion, the male and fe­male dis­perse to dif­fer­ent areas, prob­a­bly to feed (Kays and Git­tle­man 2001). (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988; Kays and Git­tle­man, 2001)

• Mating System
• polygynandrous (promiscuous)

Fe­males are in oestrus for up to 17 days, with a peak breed­ing sea­son that varies among ge­o­graphic groups. Kinka­jous are able to breed year-round, but seem to be roughly syn­chro­nized into a lo­cal­ized breed­ing sea­son that is prob­a­bly tied to local fruit pro­duc­tion (Kays, per­sonal com­mu­ni­ca­tion). (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988; Kays and Git­tle­man, 2001)

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

• Breeding interval

  Oestrus length is approximately 17 days, females receptive for 2 days.

• Breeding season

  Polyoestrus, geographically variable breeding season.

• Range number of offspring

  1 to 2

• Average number of offspring

  1

  AnAge

• Range gestation period

  98 to 120 days

• Average weaning age

  8 weeks

• Average time to independence

  4 months

• Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)

  820 days

• Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)
  Sex: female

  820 days

  AnAge

• Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)

  550 days

• Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)
  Sex: male

  550 days

  AnAge

Fe­male kinka­jous are the pri­mary providers of parental care. The males do not pro­vide any di­rect care but are not ag­gres­sive to­ward young and have been found to reg­u­larly share fruit­ing trees and day dens, and will oc­ca­sion­ally play with the pups. Parental in­vest­ment is mostly as­so­ci­ated with the un­usu­ally long ges­ta­tion and lac­ta­tion pe­ri­ods. Ges­ta­tion and lac­ta­tion last for a total of about eight months. Lit­ters typ­i­cally con­tain one pup, and, once weaned, fe­males will often ‘park’ their off­spring in a nearby tree while feed­ing (Kays and Git­tle­man 2001; Kays 2003). Fe­males are es­pe­cially vo­ra­cious feed­ers when re­pro­duc­tively ac­tive due to the high costs of lac­ta­tion and ges­ta­tion. The high en­ergy de­mands mean that it may be dif­fi­cult for fe­males to main­tain total caloric in­take, as well as sat­isfy spe­cific nu­tri­ent re­quire­ments (Kays 2003). (Kays and Git­tle­man, 2001; Kays, 2003)

• Parental Investment
• altricial
• pre-fertilization
  • provisioning
  • protecting
    • female
• pre-hatching/birth
  • provisioning
    • female
• pre-weaning/fledging
  • provisioning
    • female
• pre-independence
  • provisioning
    • female
• post-independence association with parents
• inherits maternal/paternal territory

Lifes­pan/Longevity

Very lit­tle in known about the av­er­age life span in the wild, but they ap­pear to be quite long-lived based on their low re­pro­duc­tive rates, low pre­da­tion risks, and ev­i­dence from cap­tive an­i­mals.

• Range lifespan
  Status: captivity

  40 (high) years

• Typical lifespan
  Status: captivity

  20 to 40 years

• Average lifespan
  Status: wild

  29.0 years

  Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research

Be­hav­ior

Kinka­jous are strictly noc­tur­nal and ar­bo­real. They were also thought to be soli­tary, but re­cent stud­ies show a com­plex so­cial sys­tem com­pa­ra­ble to other noc­tur­nal and ar­bo­real species. So­cial groups usu­ally con­tain two males and a fe­male but may in­clude ju­ve­niles and subadults as well. Kinka­jous spend the day sleep­ing in dens, often in the crotch or hole of a tree, and usu­ally with mem­bers of their home group (Kays 2003). At dusk mem­bers spend time al­logroom­ing and so­cial­iz­ing be­fore sep­a­rat­ing to for­age (Kays and Git­tle­man 2001). Kinka­jous will usu­ally feed soli­tar­ily ex­cept when feed­ing in large fruit trees where there is less in­traspe­cific com­pe­ti­tion be­cause of the abun­dant food sup­ply. Fe­males are par­tic­u­larly sen­si­tive to in­traspe­cific com­pe­ti­tion due to the high en­ergy re­quire­ments as­so­ci­ated with their long lac­ta­tion and ges­ta­tion pe­ri­ods (Kays and Git­tle­man 2001). (Kays and Git­tle­man, 2001; Kays, 2003)

• Key Behaviors
• arboreal
• scansorial
• nocturnal
• crepuscular
• motile
• sedentary
• territorial
• social

Home Range

Ter­ri­to­ri­al­ity and home range were re­cently stud­ied in a Pana­man­ian kinka­jou pop­u­la­tion. The study found that kinka­jous main­tain strict ter­ri­to­r­ial bound­aries through scent mark­ing. In­di­vid­ual ter­ri­to­ries seem to rely on the nu­tri­tional re­quire­ments of re­pro­duc­tion for fe­male kinka­jous. Due to body size con­straints, male kinka­jous are only able to de­fend a ter­ri­tory large enough to pro­vide for a sin­gle fe­male and her off­spring. It has been pro­posed that one of the ben­e­fits of a polyan­drous mat­ing sys­tem is that the sub­or­di­nate male can help with ter­ri­tory de­fense, namely scent mark­ing and threat vo­cal­iza­tions. (Kays and Git­tle­man, 2001; Kays, 2003)

Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and Per­cep­tion

The func­tions of kinka­jou vo­cal­iza­tions have been poorly stud­ied, yet there are a wide va­ri­ety of vo­cal­iza­tions at­trib­uted to them (Ford and Hoff­mann 1988). Kinka­jous in so­cial sit­u­a­tions vo­cal­ize for less than 30 sec­onds upon first meet­ing a fel­low group mem­ber (Kays and Git­tle­man 2001). Hiss­ing and scream­ing are thought to occur dur­ing ag­gres­sive sit­u­a­tions, as was de­scribed in a cap­tive pop­u­la­tion (Kays and Git­tle­man 2001). The most com­mon call is ex­plained as a two-part snort-wee­dle con­sist­ing of a “quick snort sound, fol­lowed by a vari­able num­ber of wee­dle vo­cal­iza­tions” (Kays and Git­tle­man 2001, pp. 497). That call has been ob­served in both soli­tary and so­cial sit­u­a­tions. Other recorded vo­cal­iza­tions have in­cluded barks, chirps, squeaks, nasal grunts, whis­tles, and click­ing (in the case of a cap­tive fe­male dur­ing oestrus) (Ford and Hoff­mann 1988). (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988; Kays and Git­tle­man, 2001)

Scent mark­ing is im­por­tant for sex­ual, ter­ri­to­r­ial and so­cial com­mu­ni­ca­tion. These often in­volve mark­ing tree branches using mandibu­lar, throat, and ab­dom­i­nal glands. Kinka­jous seem to rely on au­di­tory and ol­fac­tory cues to com­mu­ni­cate with one an­other.

• Communication Channels
• tactile
• acoustic
• chemical

• Other Communication Modes
• pheromones
• scent marks

• Perception Channels
• visual
• tactile
• acoustic
• chemical

Food Habits

Potos flavus is a pri­mar­ily op­por­tunis­tic fru­gi­vore that feeds on a va­ri­ety of plant species in sev­eral fam­i­lies ac­cord­ing to sea­sonal abun­dance (Julien-La­ferrière, 2001). Fruit se­lec­tion seems to be based on abun­dance and ac­ces­si­bil­ity to ed­i­ble parts rather than color, size, nu­tri­tional value, seed con­tent, or gen­eral mor­phol­ogy of the fruits (Julien-La­ferrière, 2001). Fruits are mostly in­gested when ripe, but some ob­ser­va­tions show that kinka­jous will also con­sume un­ripe fruits of par­tic­u­lar species. Sev­eral stud­ies have sug­gested that figs are an im­por­tant part of the kinka­jou diet and can make up as much as half of the diet. Figs are im­por­tant to many fru­gi­vores through­out the trop­ics be­cause of abun­dance and year-round avail­abil­ity (Janzen, 1979). Fig pref­er­ence may also be at­trib­uted to a high nu­tri­ent con­tent, es­pe­cially cal­cium, rel­a­tive to other trop­i­cal fruit­ing species (Kays, 1999). (Janzen, 1979; Julien-La­ferrière, 2002; Kays, 1999)

Kinka­jous spend much of the night for­ag­ing soli­tar­ily in fruit trees. How­ever, oc­ca­sional feed­ing pairs have been ob­served and con­tain mainly male pairs or fe­males with off­spring (Kays 1999). Kinka­jous may use known trail sys­tems to re­turn to fa­mil­iar fruit trees (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988). (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988; Kays, 1999)

Kinka­jous pos­sess a cu­ri­ously long, ex­ten­si­ble tongue that has lead many to be­lieve they also feed on small in­sects or nec­tar. Some stud­ies have shown that, in cer­tain pop­u­la­tions and dur­ing par­tic­u­lar sea­sons, in­sects can ac­count for a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of their diet. Ants are es­pe­cially well rep­re­sented and have led some to be­lieve that kinka­jous should also be con­sid­ered myrme­cophagous (Red­ford 1989). Most data seem to sup­port the idea that kinka­jous are pri­mar­ily fru­giv­o­rous but will sup­ple­ment their diet with in­sects, flow­ers, and nec­tar de­pend­ing on sea­sonal avail­abil­ity. (Red­ford, et al., 1989)

• Primary Diet
• herbivore
  • frugivore

• Animal Foods
• insects

• Plant Foods
• fruit
• nectar
• flowers

Pre­da­tion

Pre­da­tion threats for kinka­jous are rel­a­tively low be­cause of their ar­bo­re­al­ity and noc­tur­nal feed­ing strat­egy. Most pre­da­tion prob­a­bly oc­curs dur­ing the day when kinka­jous are sleep­ing in their dens. Aer­ial rap­tors like Isidor’s ea­gles (Oroae­tus isidori) and harpy ea­gles (Harpia harpyja) have been ob­served con­sum­ing kinka­jous. Jaguars (Pan­thera onca) are also known to oc­ca­sion­ally eat kinka­jous. How­ever, the pri­mary kinka­jou preda­tor is hu­mans. Kinka­jous make good pets and their thick, soft fur makes them a val­ued com­mod­ity in com­merce (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988). Also, kinka­jou meat is sup­pos­edly de­li­cious and hun­dreds are ex­ported dead or alive from South Amer­ica each year (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988). (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988)

• Anti-predator Adaptations
• cryptic

• Known Predators

  • Isidor's eagles (Oroaetus isidori)
  • harpy eagles (Harpia harpyja)
  • jaguars (Panthera onca)
  • humans (Homo sapiens)

Ecosys­tem Roles

Kinka­jous are ac­tive seed dis­persers and pos­si­bly pol­li­na­tors as well. Their fru­giv­o­rous diet means that they con­sume large quan­ti­ties of seeds, and most seeds seem to pass through their di­ges­tive sys­tem in­tact (Julien-La­ferrière, 2001). In one study, seeds that were defe­cated by kinka­jous ger­mi­nated faster than those that were cleaned or in­tact (Julien-La­ferrière, 2001). Kinka­jous may also act as plant pol­li­na­tors. Field ob­ser­va­tions have found that kinka­jous will oc­ca­sion­ally feed on nec­tar using their long tongues, and in the process col­lect a face-load of pollen that they dis­perse to other plants (Kays 1999). (Julien-La­ferrière, 2002; Kays, 1999)

• Ecosystem Impact
• disperses seeds
• pollinates

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Pos­i­tive

Kinka­jous are eco­nom­i­cally im­por­tant in the pet and fur trades. Hun­dreds of live an­i­mals and skins are ex­ported each year from Peru (Ford and Hoff­mann 1988). They also pro­vide meat for local peo­ple. Eco­log­i­cally, kinka­jous con­tribute to the health of for­est ecosys­tems through seed dis­per­sal and pol­li­na­tion. (Ford and Hoff­mann, 1988)

• Positive Impacts
• pet trade
• food
• body parts are source of valuable material

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Neg­a­tive

Kinka­jous do not seem to se­ri­ously im­pact hu­mans and are rarely seen be­cause of their noc­tur­nal habits, but they have been known to be a nui­sance on co­conut plan­ta­tions where they eat im­ma­ture fruits (Kays, per­sonal com­mu­ni­ca­tion).

• Negative Impacts
• crop pest

Con­ser­va­tion Sta­tus

Habi­tat de­struc­tion caused by hu­mans has de­creased the range and pop­u­la­tion size of kinka­jous. De­for­esta­tion prob­a­bly ac­counts for the ma­jor­ity of the habi­tat de­struc­tion. Kinka­jous are also har­vested for their soft pelts and fla­vor­ful meat, which can make them sus­cep­ti­ble to over-har­vest. They are dif­fi­cult to study so pop­u­la­tion es­ti­mates are prob­a­bly in­ac­cu­rate.

• IUCN Red List

  Least Concern
  More information

• IUCN Red List

  Least Concern
  More information

• US Federal List

  No special status

• CITES

  Appendix III

• State of Michigan List

  No special status

Con­trib­u­tors

Tanya Dewey (ed­i­tor), An­i­mal Di­ver­sity Web.

Dara Re­hder (au­thor), Uni­ver­sity of Alaska Fair­banks, Link E. Olson (ed­i­tor, in­struc­tor), Uni­ver­sity of Alaska Fair­banks.

Ref­er­ences

Eisen­burg, J. 1989. Mam­mals of the Neotrop­ics: The North­ern Neotrop­ics, Vol. 1. Chicago: The Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, Ltd.

Ford, L., R. Hoff­mann. 1988. Potos flavus. Mam­malian species, 321: 1-9.

Janzen, D. 1979. How to be a fig. An­nual Re­view of Ecol­ogy and Sys­tem­at­ics, 10: 13-51.

Julien-La­ferrière, D. 2002. Fru­givory and seed dis­per­sal by kinka­jous. Mono­graphiae Bi­o­log­i­cae, 80: 217-225.

Kays, R. 1999. Food pref­er­ences of kinka­jous (Potos flavus): A fru­giv­o­rous car­ni­vore. Jour­nal of Mam­mal­ogy, 80(2): 589-599.

Kays, R. 2003. So­cial polyandry and promis­cu­ous mat­ing in a pri­mate-like car­ni­vore: the kinka­jou (Potos flavus). Pp. 125-137 in U Re­ichard, C Boesch, eds. Monogamy: mat­ing strate­gies and part­ner­ships in birds, hu­mans and other mam­mals. Cam­bridge, New York: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press.

Kays, R., J. Git­tle­man. 2001. The so­cial or­ga­ni­za­tion of the kinka­jou Potos flavus (Pro­cy­onidae). Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, 253: 491-504.

Kays, R., J. Git­tle­man, R. Wayne. 2000. Mi­crosatel­lite analy­sis of kinka­jou so­cial or­ga­ni­za­tion. Mol­e­c­u­lar Ecol­ogy, 9(6): 743-751.

Ko­rtlucke, S. 1973. Mor­pho­log­i­cal vari­a­tion in the kinka­jou, Potos flavus (Mam­malia: Pro­cy­onidae), in Mid­dle Amer­ica. Lawrence, Kansas: The Uni­ver­sity of Kansas Mu­seum of Nat­ural His­tory.

Mc­Clearn, D. 1992. Lo­co­mo­tion, pos­ture, and feed­ing be­hav­ior of kinka­jous, coatis, and rac­coons. Jour­nal of Mam­mal­ogy, 73(2): 245-261.

Munoz-Gar­cia, A., J. Williams. 2005. Basal Meta­bolic Rate in Car­ni­vores Is As­so­ci­ated with Diet after Con­trol­ling for Phy­logeny. Phys­i­o­log­i­cal and Bio­chem­i­cal Zo­ol­ogy, 78(6): 1039-1056.

Red­ford, K., A. MacLean Stear­man, J. Trager. 1989. The kinka­jou (Potos flavus) as a myrme­cophage. Mam­malia, 53(1): 132-134.