Special Publications Museum of Texas Tech University Number 63 18 September 2014 List of Recent Land Mammals of Mexico, 2014 José Ramírez-Pulido, Noé González-Ruiz, Alfred L. Gardner, and Joaquín Arroyo-Cabrales.0 Front cover: Image of the cover of Nova Plantarvm, Animalivm et Mineralivm Mexicanorvm Historia, by Francisci Hernández et al. (1651), which included the first list of the mammals found in Mexico. Cover image courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library at Brown University. SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS Museum of Texas Tech University Number 63 List of Recent Land Mammals of Mexico, 2014 JOSÉ RAMÍREZ-PULIDO, NOÉ GONZÁLEZ-RUIZ, ALFRED L. GARDNER, AND JOAQUÍN ARROYO-CABRALES Layout and Design: Lisa Bradley Cover Design: Image courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library at Brown University Production Editor: Lisa Bradley Copyright 2014, Museum of Texas Tech University This publication is available free of charge in PDF format from the website of the Natural Sciences Research Laboratory, Museum of Texas Tech University (nsrl.ttu.edu). The authors and the Museum of Texas Tech University hereby grant permission to interested parties to download or print this publication for personal or educational (not for profit) use. Re-publication of any part of this paper in other works is not permitted without prior written permission of the Museum of Texas Tech University. This book was set in Times New Roman and printed on acid-free paper that meets the guidelines for per- manence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. Printed: 18 September 2014 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Special Publications of the Museum of Texas Tech University, Number 63 Series Editor: Robert J. Baker List of Recent Land Mammals of Mexico, 2014 José Ramírez-Pulido, Noé González-Ruiz, Alfred L. Gardner, and Joaquín Arroyo-Cabrales ISSN 0149-1768 ISBN 1-929330-27-8 ISBN13 978-1-929330-27-0 Museum of Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX 79409-3191 USA (806)742-2442 LIST OF RECENT LAND MAMMALS OF MEXICO, 2014 JOSÉ RAMÍREZ-PULIDO, NOÉ GONZÁLEZ-RUIZ, ALFRED L. GARDNER, AND JOAQUÍN ARROYO-CABRALES ABSTRACT We provide an updated list of the Recent land mammals of Mexico and include information on the taxonomy of certain species, and where appropriate, the endemic and threatened status of all species listed. Several taxonomic and nomenclatural changes have been made since publication of the last list of the Mexican terrestrial mammalian fauna. Within the period from 2005 to present, there have been at least 209 changes concerning the nomenclature of this fauna; these we evaluated in this paper. The land mammals of Mexico comprise 168 genera, 496 species, and 881 subspecies. Key words: nomenclature, mammals, Mexico, species checklist RESUMEN Se presenta una lista actualizada de los mamíferos terrestres nativos de México, incluyendo información acerca de la situación taxonómica de varias de las especies, así como las especies endémicas y amenazadas. Desde la última publicación de los mamíferos terrestres de México, se han realizado importantes cambios taxonómicos y nomenclaturales. En el período que abarca desde el año 2005, se han registrado al menos 209 cambios nomenclatoriales que se discuten en este trabajo. Los mamíferos terrestres de México se componen de 168 géneros, 496 especies y 881 subespecies. Palabras clave: nomenclatura, mamíferos, México, lista de especies INTRODUCTION AND METHODS It has been 32 years since the first list of Mexican use of new research techniques, including molecular land mammals appeared (Ramírez–Pulido et al. 1982). genetics, that have resulted in a better understanding of This list has been periodically updated to incorporate taxonomic relationships. Only eight new species have additions and taxonomic changes to the mammal fauna. been described in those 9 years and of those, only two In that period, five lists have been provided (Cervantes (Thomomys nayarensis and Habromys schmidlyi) were et al. 1994; Ramírez–Pulido et al. 1982, 1983, 1996, based on specimens previously unavailable to science. 2005), each of which has proven to be a useful synthesis Other increases were based on specimens previously of the taxonomic changes since the previous list and misidentified as other species, but when restudied us- facilitating rapid access to the current knowledge on ing new techniques and different paradigms, it became the diversity of the nonmarine Mexican mammal fauna. clear that they did not represent the species as originally assigned. Some of these specimens represented named The past 9 years have seen many changes in the species previously considered synonyms of valid spe- number of species. For example, Ramírez–Pulido et cies; others were undescribed. There are mainly two al. (2005) included 475 species, whereas in this list we scientific approaches that have led to the recent increase recognize 496, an increase of 21 species in just 9 years in number of species. First, molecular techniques are of taxonomic study of the Mexican mammal fauna. evolving and becoming cheaper, faster, and more com- The increase in the number of species is due not only monly used in taxonomic research. Second, recent to the recent discovery of new species, but also to the field work has provided critically needed additional 1 2 SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY specimens, thus increasing the sample sizes necessary level, genera are arranged alphabetically, and within for morphologic and morphometric analyses, which each genus, species also are arranged alphabetically. have resulted in higher confidence levels in the analyses of variation and species limits. Nothing has been pub- The valid name for each taxon is followed by the lished since the last list (Ramírez–Pulido et al. 2005) author´s name and year of publication. The reader will that brings together in one place all of the taxonomic notice that some of the authors and dates differ from and nomenclatorial changes that have occurred at the those provided in previous lists and in other published generic, species, and subspecies levels. Several papers sources (e.g., Hall 1981). These changes are the result have chronicled recent taxonomic changes (Ceballos of our nomenclatural diligence in determining the cor- and Arroyo–Cabrales 2013; Gardner 2008a; Godínez rect author(s) of a name and the actual date of publica- et al. 2011; Wilson and Reeder 2005) and, in fact those tion, which may differ from that printed. reports have generated the need for the discussions of taxonomic decisions we provide in this list. All taxonomic and nomenclatorial changes covered in this report are those published from 2005 We recognize the need and utility for a compre- (after the closing date for Ramírez–Pulido et al. 2005) hensive list that makes any literature search easier; to March 2014. For information concerning taxonomic therefore, we compiled this list with two main objec- changes prior to 2005, we suggest reviewing the compi- tives. First, to produce a current list of species and lations by Cervantes et al. (1994), and Ramírez–Pulido subspecies of Mexican land mammals, and second, a et al. (1982, 1983, 1996, and 2005). Since 2005, there review, analysis, and discussion of the nomenclatural have been at least 209 nomenclatorial acts, which we and taxonomic changes from 2005 up to early 2014. evaluate in the next section. We have found that taxonomic proposals often We do not include recently introduced species are accepted or rejected without careful scrutiny by for the following reasons: 1) we lack objective records the scientific community as soon as these proposals verifying the success of the introduction (e.g., Mustela are published. Taxonomy is a dynamic endeavor and nigripes); 2) we lack evidence of their current presence all taxonomic judgments are hypotheses worthy of in Mexico (Sciurus carolinensis and Cervus elaphus); evaluation. Our list is not simply a collection of recent and 3) the species were reintroduced into areas within literature. We have based our evaluations of the taxo- their known previous distributions (e.g., Canis lupus, nomic proposals discussed in this paper on a variety Ovis canadensis, Bison bison, and Antilocapra ameri- of criteria: scientific authority, proposal complexity, cana) and these we treat as native. analysis type, and on information available to us on taxonomy, biogeography, ecology, and evolution. We To provide some helpful data on conservation emphasize that most of the information presented is status, we identify species that are endemic (En) to not our own and acknowledge that our evaluations of Mexico, as well as the conservation status according these taxonomic hypotheses are based on our combined to the Mexican Ministry of Environment and Natural experience and involve a certain level of subjectivity. Resources (NOM–059–SEMARNAT–2010; see Norma Oficial Mexicana 2010), as follows: species prob- Taxonomic ranks above the level of genus follow ably extinct in the wild (E), endangered species (P), McKenna and Bell (1997); ranks at the generic level threatened species (A), and special protection species and below primarily follow the third edition of Mam- (Pr). For geographic distribution, we distinguish be- mal Species of the World (Wilson and Reeder 2005), tween island (In) and continental (Co); for taxonomic including some changes proposed in Mammals of South diversity, species are listed as either monotypic (Mo) America (Gardner 2008a). Within each suprageneric or polytypic