Álvarez, T., S. T. Álvarez-Castañeda, Y M. González Escamilla. 1997

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Álvarez, T., S. T. Álvarez-Castañeda, Y M. González Escamilla. 1997 4 Alvarez, Alvarez-Castañeda y González-Escamilla Indice 5 6 Alvarez, Alvarez-Castañeda y González-Escamilla INDICE Introducción ......................................................................................................................7 Relación de especies descritas y localidades típicas ......................................................11 Orden Didelphiomorphia.........................................................................................11 Familia Didelphidae ........................................................................................11 Familia Marmosidae........................................................................................11 Orden Insectivora ....................................................................................................12 Familia Soricidae.............................................................................................12 Familia Talpidae..............................................................................................14 Orden Chiroptera .....................................................................................................14 Familia Emballonuridae..................................................................................14 Familia Noctilionidae......................................................................................15 Familia Mormoopidae.....................................................................................15 Familia Phyllostomidae...................................................................................15 Familia Natalidae ............................................................................................18 Familia Vespertilionidae .................................................................................18 Familia Molossidae .........................................................................................21 Orden Xenarthra ......................................................................................................22 Familia Myrmercophagidae ............................................................................22 Familia Dasypodidae.......................................................................................22 Orden Primates ........................................................................................................22 Familia Cebidae...............................................................................................22 Orden Lagomorpha..................................................................................................23 Familia Leporidae ...........................................................................................23 Orden Rodentia........................................................................................................25 Familia Sciuridae.............................................................................................25 Familia Geomyidae .........................................................................................30 Familia Heteromyidae.....................................................................................39 Familia Castoridae...........................................................................................48 Familia Muridae ..............................................................................................48 Indice 7 Familia Erethizontidae ....................................................................................69 Familia Dasyproctidae.....................................................................................69 Familia Agoutidae ...........................................................................................69 Orden Carnivora ......................................................................................................70 Familia Canidae...............................................................................................70 Familia Ursidae ...............................................................................................71 Familia Procyonidae........................................................................................71 Familia Mustelidae..........................................................................................73 Familia Felidae ................................................................................................75 Orden Artiodactyla ..................................................................................................77 Familia Tayassuidae........................................................................................77 Familia Cervidae .............................................................................................77 Familia Antilocapridae....................................................................................78 Familia Bovidae ..............................................................................................79 Relación de las localidades típicas por Estado ...............................................................81 Aguascalientes.................................................................................................81 Baja California ................................................................................................81 Baja California Sur..........................................................................................87 Campeche ........................................................................................................91 Chiapas ............................................................................................................91 Chihuahua........................................................................................................94 Coahuila...........................................................................................................96 Colima .............................................................................................................99 Distrito Federal..............................................................................................100 Durango .........................................................................................................100 Guanajuato.....................................................................................................102 Guerrero.........................................................................................................102 Hidalgo ..........................................................................................................103 Jalisco ............................................................................................................104 México...........................................................................................................108 Michoacán .....................................................................................................109 Morelos..........................................................................................................111 Nayarit ...........................................................................................................111 Nuevo León ...................................................................................................113 Oaxaca ...........................................................................................................113 Puebla ............................................................................................................119 8 Alvarez, Alvarez-Castañeda y González-Escamilla Queretaro.......................................................................................................120 Quintana Roo.................................................................................................121 San Luis Potosí..............................................................................................121 Sinaloa ...........................................................................................................122 Sonora............................................................................................................124 Tabasco..........................................................................................................127 Tamaulipas ....................................................................................................128 Tlaxcala .........................................................................................................129 Veracruz ........................................................................................................130 Yucatán..........................................................................................................135 Zacatecas .......................................................................................................136 " México "......................................................................................................137 " Oaxaca "......................................................................................................138 " Tabasco " ....................................................................................................138 " Veracruz " ...................................................................................................138 " Yucatán " ....................................................................................................139 " Yucatán y parte sur de México " ................................................................139 " Sierra Madre de Chihuahua " .....................................................................139
Recommended publications
  • Redalyc.Mamíferos No Voladores De Guanajuato, México: Revisión
    Acta Universitaria ISSN: 0188-6266 [email protected] Universidad de Guanajuato México Sánchez, Óscar; Magaña-Cota, Gloria; Téllez-Girón, Guadalupe; López-Forment, William; Urbano Vidales, Guillermina Mamíferos no voladores de Guanajuato, México: revisión histórica y lista taxonómica actualizada Acta Universitaria, vol. 24, núm. 1, enero-febrero, 2014, pp. 3-37 Universidad de Guanajuato Guanajuato, México Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=41630112001 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto Universidad de Guanajuato Mamíferos no voladores de Guanajuato, México: revisión histórica y lista taxonómica actualizada Non-volant mammals of Guanajuato, Mexico: historic review and updated taxonomic list Óscar Sánchez*, Gloria Magaña-Cota**, Guadalupe Téllez-Girón*, William López-Forment***, Guillermina Urbano Vidales**** RESUMEN Se hace una revisión de los mamíferos no voladores del estado de Guanajuato, desarrolla- da principalmente con una perspectiva histórica y de actualización taxonómica, con base en publicaciones especializadas. Se revisó literatura científica desde el siglo XIX hasta el 2012. Asimismo, se consideró información sobre diversos ejemplares de museos, tanto nacionales como del extranjero, lo que permitió una visión de conjunto de las especies. Con la información reunida se elaboró un breve diagnóstico del estado del conocimiento de los mamíferos no voladores de Guanajuato y se identificaron necesidades de estudio adicional. Se provee una lista actualizada de las especies de mamíferos no voladores del estado, que hasta el momento cuenta con 62 especies.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Publications Museum of Texas Tech University Number 63 18 September 2014
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Sinopsis De Los Mamíferos Silvestres Del Estado De Guanajuato, México, Y Comentarios Sobre Su Conservación Óscar Sánchez 369
    La Portada Fotografía tomada en la comida de celebración posterior a la firma del Acta Constitutiva de la Asociación Mexicana de Mastozoología Asociación Civil (AMMAC). La primera mesa directiva de la AMMAC estuvo constituida por Juan Pablo Gallo como presidente, Daniel Navarro como vicepresidente, Rodrigo Medellín como secretario ejecutivo y María Canela como tesorera. La foto fue tomada en casa de Juan Pablo Gallo, que junto con la de Rodrigo Medellín fueron las que hospedaron la mayor cantidad de reuniones preparatorias para la Asociación. De pie empezando por la izquierda: Daniel Navarro, Rosario Manzanos, María Canela, Silvia Manzanilla, Esther Romo, Livia León, Alondra Castro. Sentados desde la izquierda: Federico Romero, Héctor Arita, Rodrigo Medellín, Hiram Barrios, Víctor Sánchez Cordero, Juan Pablo Gallo y Álvaro Miranda (foto tomada por Agustín Gallo Reynoso). Nuestro logo “Ozomatli” El nombre de “Ozomatli” proviene del náhuatl se refiere al símbolo astrológico del mono en el calendario azteca, así como al dios de la danza y del fuego. Se relaciona con la alegría, la danza, el canto, las habilidades. Al signo decimoprimero en la cosmogonía mexica. “Ozomatli” es una representación pictórica de los mono arañas (Ateles geoffroyi). La especie de primate de más amplia distribución en México. “Es habitante de los bosques, sobre todo de los que están por donde sale el sol en Anáhuac. Tiene el dorso pequeño, es barrigudo y su cola, que a veces se enrosca, es larga. Sus manos y sus pies parecen de hombre; también sus uñas. Los Ozomatin gritan y silban y hacen visajes a la gente. Arrojan piedras y palos.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Species of Molinema (Nematoda: Onchocercidae) in Bolivian Rodents and Emended Description of Litomosoides Esslingeri Bain, Petit, and Diagne, 1989
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of 2012 A New Species of Molinema (Nematoda: Onchocercidae) in Bolivian Rodents and Emended Description of Litomosoides esslingeri Bain, Petit, and Diagne, 1989 Juliana Notarnicola CEPAVE, [email protected] F. Agustin Jimenez Ruiz Southern Illinois University Carbondale, [email protected] Scott Lyell Gardner University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs Part of the Other Animal Sciences Commons, Parasitology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Notarnicola, Juliana; Jimenez Ruiz, F. Agustin; and Gardner, Scott Lyell, "A New Species of Molinema (Nematoda: Onchocercidae) in Bolivian Rodents and Emended Description of Litomosoides esslingeri Bain, Petit, and Diagne, 1989" (2012). Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology. 752. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs/752 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. J. Parasitol., 98(6), 2012, pp. 1200–1208 Ó American Society of Parasitologists 2012 A NEW SPECIES OF MOLINEMA (NEMATODA: ONCHOCERCIDAE) IN BOLIVIAN RODENTS AND EMENDED DESCRIPTION OF LITOMOSOIDES ESSLINGERI BAIN, PETIT, AND DIAGNE, 1989 Juliana Notarnicola, F. Agust´ın Jimenez´ *, and Scott L. Gardner† Centro de Estudios Parasitologicos´ y de Vectores –CEPAVE –CCT La Plata- CONICET, Calle 2 # 584 (1900) La Plata, Argentina.
    [Show full text]
  • Type Localities of Mexican Land Mammals, with Comments on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
    Special Publications Museum of Texas Tech University Number xx73 9xx January XXXX 20202010 Type Localities of Mexican Land Mammals, with Comments on Taxonomy and Nomenclature Alfred L. Gardner and José Ramírez-Pulido Front cover: Edward W. Nelson (right) preparing specimens in camp on Mt. Tancítaro, Michoacán. Photograph by Edward A. Goldman, March 1903. Courtesy of Smithsonian Institution Archives, Nelson Goldman files RU7634. SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS Museum of Texas Tech University Number 73 Type Localities of Mexican Land Mammals, with Comments on Taxonomy and Nomenclature Alfred L. Gardner and José Ramírez-Pulido Layout and Design: Lisa Bradley Cover Design: Photo courtesy of Smithsonian Institution Archives, Nelson Goldman files, RU7634 Production Editor: Lisa Bradley Copyright 2020, 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 (www.depts.ttu.edu/nsrl). 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: 9 January 2020 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Special Publications of the Museum of Texas Tech University, Number 73 Series Editor: Robert D.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Richness and Distribution of Neotropical Rodents, with Conservation Implications
    DOI 10.1515/mammalia-2012-0050 Mammalia 2013; 77(1): 1–19 Giovanni Amori *, Federica Chiozza , Bruce D. Patterson , Carlo Rondinini , Jan Schipper and Luca Luiselli Species richness and distribution of Neotropical rodents, with conservation implications Abstract: The correlates of species richness and conser- Carlo Rondinini: Department of Biology and Biotechnology ‘ Charles vation status of South American rodents were studied Darwin ’ , Viale dell ’ Universit à 32, 00185 Rome , Italy by analyzing the ranges of 791 species (belonging to 159 Jan Schipper: Big Island Invasive Species Committee , 23 East Kawili Street, Hilo, HI 96720 , USA genera and 16 families). The distribution data (size of Luca Luiselli: Centre of Environmental Studies Demetra s.r.l. , 2 each species ’ range in km ) and the relative quantity of Eni Spa Environmental Department, via Olona 7, 00198 Rome , Italy each macrohabitat type (in km 2 ) were obtained from the Global Mammal Assessment data bank of the Interna- tional Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the Global Land Cover 2000, respectively. We excluded mainly Introduction island species from analyses but included those species that occur on both islands and the mainland. Habitats Macroecological spatial diversity patterns are among were grouped according to seven categories (shrubland, the most intriguing issues in modern ecology and bio- forest, grassland, savannah, wetlands, desert, and artifi- geography theories (e.g., Lennon et al. 2001 , Koleff cial). Mean range sizes varied significantly among fami- et al. 2003a ). Hence, ecologists have spent considerable lies, with members of the family Cuniculidae having larger effort in distinguishing between different components ranges than the species belonging to the rest of the fami- of species diversity, including alpha or local diversity lies.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Importancia De La Colección Biológica De Roedores
    1 IMPORTANCIA DE LA COLECCIÓN BIOLÓGICA DE ROEDORES PLAGA DEL CENTRO NACIONAL DE REFERENCIA FITOSANITARIA (CNRF) IMPORTANCE OF THE BIOLOGICAL COLLECTION OF RODENTS PEST OF THE CENTRO NACIONAL DE REFERENCIA FITOSANITARIA (CNRF) Mildred G. Chi Castillo Centro Nacional de Referencia Fitosanitaria, Departamento de Roedores, Aves y Malezas, Km 37.5 Carretera Federal México-Pachuca Tecámac, Edo. México, C.P. 55740, Tels.: (55) 59051000 Ext. 51410 [email protected] RESUMEN Se analizó la base de datos del Laboratorio de Roedores del Centro Nacional de Referencia Fitosanitaria (CNRF), que concentra la información de ejemplares colectados en cultivos de agave (Agave sp.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), caña de azúcar (Saccharum officinarum), cebada (Hordeum vulgare), chile (Capsicum sp.), durazno (Prunus persica), frijol (Phaseolus sp.), maíz (Zea mays), trigo (Triticum vulgare) y tomate (Lycopersicon esculentum), y depositados en la colección biológica. Con base en 136 registros, se determinó que el acervo está conformado por dos familias, cinco subfamilias, 13 géneros y 25 especies, de las cuales nueve son endémicas y 20 presentan condición de plaga. Se encontró que en caña de azúcar (S. officinarum) habitan ocho especies de roedores plaga (H. irroratus, M. musculus, O. couesi, O. couesi mexicana, P. maniculatus, R. fulvescens, S. arizonae y S. hispidus) y en maíz (Z. mays) 12 (M. musculus, N. mexicana, O. albiventer, P. difficilis, P. gratus, P. maniculatus, P. melanophrys, R. norvergicus y R. fulvescens, R. megalotis, R. zacatecae y S. mascotensis). Se presenta un panorama más amplio sobre la importancia de recopilar información de las especies de roedores plaga que habitan en los agroecosistemas del país, el resultado ayudará a fortalecer el Programa de Manejo de Roedores de Importancia Económica con Bases Ecológicas.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecology of a Continental Evolutionary Radiation: Is the Radiation of Sigmodontine Rodents Adaptive?
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE doi:10.1111/evo.13155 The ecology of a continental evolutionary radiation: Is the radiation of sigmodontine rodents adaptive? Renan Maestri,1,2,3 Leandro Rabello Monteiro,4 Rodrigo Fornel,5 Nathan S. Upham,2,6 Bruce D. Patterson,2 and Thales Renato Ochotorena de Freitas1,7 1Programa de Pos-Graduac´ ¸ao˜ em Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 91501, Brazil 2Integrative Research Center, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605 3E-mail: [email protected] 4Laboratorio´ de Cienciasˆ Ambientais, CBB, Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense, Campos dos Goytacazes, RJ 28013, Brazil 5Programa de Pos-Graduac´ ¸ao˜ em Ecologia, Universidade Regional Integrada do Alto Uruguai e das Missoes,˜ Campus Erechim, RS 99709, Brazil 6Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 7Departamento de Genetica,´ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 91501, Brazil Received April 26, 2016 Accepted December 10, 2016 Evolutionary radiations on continents are less well-understood and appreciated than those occurring on islands. The extent of ecological influence on species divergence can be evaluated to determine whether a radiation was ultimately the outcome of divergent natural selection or else arose mainly by nonecological divergence. Here, we used phylogenetic comparative methods to test distinct hypotheses corresponding to adaptive and nonadaptive evolutionary scenarios for the morphological evolution of sigmodontine rodents. Results showed that ecological variables (diet and life-mode) explain little of the shape and size variation of sigmodontine skulls and mandibles. A Brownian model with varying rates for insectivory versus all other diets was the most likely evolutionary model.
    [Show full text]
  • Rodentia, Cricetidae, Sigmodontinae) from Brazil Gustavo B
    UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO SUL RELAÇÕES FILOGENÉTICAS ENTRE AS ESPÉCIES DE ROEDORES SUL- AMERICANOS DA TRIBO ORYZOMYINI ANALISADAS PELOS GENES CITOCROMO b E IRBP GUSTAVO BORBA DE MIRANDA Tese submetida ao Programa de Pós- Graduação em Genética e Biologia Molecular da UFRGS como requisito parcial para a obtenção do grau de Doutor em Ciências Orientadora: Drª Margarete Suñé Mattevi Porto Alegre Junho/2007 Este trabalho foi desenvolvido no Deptº de Genética da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul e financiado pelos seguintes órgãos: CNPq, G7/FINEP, FAPERGS e OEA. i AGRADECIMENTOS À Professora Drª Margarete Suñé Mattevi pela orientação, dedicação, confiança e, acima de tudo, amizade. Aos Drs. Luiz Flamarion B. de Oliveira, Alfredo Langguth, Andréa Nunes e José L. P. Cordeiro por parte da amostra utilizada neste trabalho. À Professora Drª Sidia M. Callegari-Jacques pelo auxílio nos artigos e, principalmente, nas questões estatísticas deste trabalho. À minha esposa Jaqueline, por sua paciência, companheirismo, amor e auxílio em todas as etapas deste trabalho. A todos os meus familiares, representados pelos meus pais Wilson e Salomé, por todo o apoio e carinho. Aos Drs. Marcelo Weksler e Valéria Muschner por importantes informações técnicas. Aos meus colegas da sala 107, do laboratório de Biodiversidade Animal e da Pós-Graduação: Aline Moraes, Ana Letícia, Ângela Mascali, Bianca Carvalho, Cristina Freygang, Francine Marques, Gustavo Borges, Gustavo Trainini, Hugo Bock, Martin Montes, Mônica Fontan, Rafael Dihl, Taiana Haag, Teresa Freire e Vanessa Mengue pela amizade e trocas de idéias. Ao Luciano Silva e Clênio Machado pelo companheirismo e discussões futebolísticas durante a “Hora do Café”.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Review of the Oryzomys Couesi
    Chapter 3 Review of the Oryzomys couesi Complex (Rodentia: Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae) in Western Mexico MICHAEL D. CARLETON1 AND JOAQUIN ARROYO-CABRALES2 ABSTRACT The status and distribution of eight species-group taxa of the Oryzomys couesi group (Rodentia: Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae) described from western Mexico are evaluated based on morphological and morphometric comparisons. Four of these are recognized as valid species within the region: Oryzomys albiventer Merriam, 1901 (including molestus Elliot, 1903), from inland plateau of the Mesa de Ana´huac; O. couesi mexicanus J.A. Allen, 1897 (including bulleri J.A. Allen, 1897; lambi Burt, 1934; rufus Merriam, 1901), from Pacific coastal plain, contiguous lower mountain slopes, and interior valleys along the Rı´os Tepalcatepec–Balsas; O. nelsoni Merriam, 1898, from Isla Marı´a Madre; and O. peninsulae Thomas, 1897, from the southern tip of the Baja California Peninsula. Three other taxa named from uplands in interior Mexico— aztecus Merriam, 1901; crinitus Merriam; 1901; and regillus Goldman, 1915—are provisionally retained within O. couesi, but further study of their specific stature and relationships is required. The recommended taxonomic changes within western Mexico serve to discuss directions for future revisionary research that will refine the definition and distribution of O. couesi sensu stricto in Middle America. INTRODUCTION the nominotypical species and six geograph- ically isolated specific allies within Middle North and Middle American populations America (i.e., O. antillarum, O. cozulmelae, of the Oryzomys palustris group (sensu O. fulgens, O. gatunensis, O. nelsoni, and O. Merriam, 1901; Goldman, 1918) have been peninsulae). Goldman’s specific classification allocated to as many as 18 species (Merriam, was essentially maintained through the mid- 1901) or to as few as three (Hall, 1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Relationships Among the Phyllotini (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae) Using Morphological Characters
    Journal of Mammalian Evolution, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1993 Phylogenetic Relationships Among the Phyllotini (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae) Using Morphological Characters Scott Steppan t'z Thirty-three species representing all 14 genera of the South American rodent tribe Phyllotini and 5 problematic genera are surveyed for 96 multistate and binary dental, cranial, skeletal, external, and male reproductive tract characters. Wagner parsimonyanalysis confirms Calomys as the most basal phyllotine genus, and as currently constituted it is likely paraphytetic. The results are consistent with the exclusion of Pseudoryzomys from the phyllotines and the sepa- ration of Reithrodon and Neotomys from Holochilus at the tribal level. Several highly differ- entiated generic groups that include a radiation of altiplano endemics centered on Auliscomys and the largely southern Andean/Patagonian Reithrodon group appear to form a clade. A Graomys generic group that includes Andalgalomys and Eligmodontia is also apparent, but its relationships to other phyllotines are obscured by poorly resolved internal nodes in the more species-rich and probably paraphyletic genus PhylIotis. The significanceand consequences of more intensive taxonomic sampling are discussed. The taxonomic consequencesof the phylo- geny are presented. KEY WORDS: Phyllotini; phylogenetics; South America; rodents; morphology. INTRODUCTION Morphologically diverse and ecologically prominent, the mice and rats of the tribe Phyl- lotini comprise the most tractable taxon for phylogenetic analysis of the major radiations of muroid rodents in South America. Phyllotine species boundaries and interspecific relationships are better delimited than in the two other major radiations of the Neotrop- ical subfamily Sigmodontinae, the oryzomyines and the akodontines. However, despite many studies on phyllotine taxonomy, karyology, and ecology, their phylogeny remains poorly resolved.
    [Show full text]
  • Rodentia: Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae) in Western Mexico
    Chapter 3 Review of the Oryzomys couesi Complex (Rodentia: Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae) in Western Mexico MICHAEL D. CARLETON1 AND JOAQUIN ARROYO-CABRALES2 ABSTRACT The status and distribution of eight species-group taxa of the Oryzomys couesi group (Rodentia: Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae) described from western Mexico are evaluated based on morphological and morphometric comparisons. Four of these are recognized as valid species within the region: Oryzomys albiventer Merriam, 1901 (including molestus Elliot, 1903), from inland plateau of the Mesa de Ana´huac; O. couesi mexicanus J.A. Allen, 1897 (including bulleri J.A. Allen, 1897; lambi Burt, 1934; rufus Merriam, 1901), from Pacific coastal plain, contiguous lower mountain slopes, and interior valleys along the Rı´os Tepalcatepec–Balsas; O. nelsoni Merriam, 1898, from Isla Marı´a Madre; and O. peninsulae Thomas, 1897, from the southern tip of the Baja California Peninsula. Three other taxa named from uplands in interior Mexico— aztecus Merriam, 1901; crinitus Merriam; 1901; and regillus Goldman, 1915—are provisionally retained within O. couesi, but further study of their specific stature and relationships is required. The recommended taxonomic changes within western Mexico serve to discuss directions for future revisionary research that will refine the definition and distribution of O. couesi sensu stricto in Middle America. INTRODUCTION the nominotypical species and six geograph- ically isolated specific allies within Middle North and Middle American populations America (i.e., O. antillarum, O. cozulmelae, of the Oryzomys palustris group (sensu O. fulgens, O. gatunensis, O. nelsoni, and O. Merriam, 1901; Goldman, 1918) have been peninsulae). Goldman’s specific classification allocated to as many as 18 species (Merriam, was essentially maintained through the mid- 1901) or to as few as three (Hall, 1981).
    [Show full text]