512 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 74, No.2 of the original Russian book is indicated by mar­ through it just to verify that there is no great gap ginal numbers. The quality of the production of in his or her knowledge and to glean any infor­ the book is good. mation that may be of value; in the process, we I was generally disappointed with the book, should thank Douglas Siegel-Causey and Robert not in the translation or the production, but in S. Hoffmann for a job well done.-RoBERT H. the general state of Soviet mammalogy, which TAMARIN, Biology Department, Boston Univer­ this book conveys. The original book in Russian sity, Boston, Massachusetts 022 J5. was published in 1977, three years after the First International Therioiogicai Congress, held in Moscow. I attended that meeting and was sur­ 1. Mamm., 74(2):512-514,1993 prised and disappointed by the level and interest of Soviet mammalogists. I came away feeling Musser, G. G., and L. R. Heaney. 1992. PHIL­ that overall, there was a large gap between their IPPINE : DEFINITION OF AND interests and mine. Most Soviet mammaiogists L1MNOMYS PLUS A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF Downloaded from were at a very classical, descriptive level, due PHYLOGENETIC PAITERNS AMONG NATIVE Mu­ primarily to their long isolation from western RINES (MURlNAE, MURlDAE). Bulletin of the influences. This book leaves me with a similar American Museum of Natural History, No. 211, impression. Although I hope that the taxonomic 138 pp., 79 figs., 8 tables. [SSN 0003-0090. Price (paper), $12.75.

sections will be valuable, I find that the parts on http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/ the ecology and population biology of voles that The of southern Asia and the Papuan and should have interested and enlightened me did North Australian region present a great com­ not. That is, in the final section, Polyakov shows plexity of forms whose relationships to one a view quite different from mine. He seems in­ another can be determined only with difficulty. terested in broad overview patterns with vague, As in many other highly evolved and compli­ descriptive explanations. cated groups of anima Is, convergence and par­ For example, Polyakov writes of the popula­ allelism have so greatly obscured the phylo­ tion changes in the Azerbaidzhanian region. He genetic picture that working out the true explains all changes in density-with authority­ affinities of these is found to be a based on changes in weather, food, and repro­

highly intricate problem. at Stefan Brager on July 21, 2016 ductive activities of the voles. He is very short on referencing many of his comments and very Those words were written by G. H. H. Tate short on specific data. I, on the other hand, feel (1936) in a work with such a modest and unas­ that he has really told me very little about the suming title that it quite possibly escaped the mechanism of changes in density in these pop­ notice of many researchers. Tate set out to sum­ ulations, yet Polyakov seems to be writing -as if marize the state of knowledge of Southeast Asian he has a complete understanding of all of the Muridae, with some exceptions. The problem nuances of density changes in voles. So, for me, with Tate's work, from a contemporary perspec­ the descriptive portions of the book that should tive, is that the conceptual taxonomic framework have added to my understanding of vole biology of his work, through no fault of Tate, was flawed. simply enforce the feeling that I got in 1974 that Many of the species included by Tate among there is a wide gap between the level of mam­ have since been separated from that waste­ malogy being done in the former Soviet Union paper basket genus. Another problem, or rather, and in the West. an omission, is that Tate disregarded much of Thus, it is hard for me to know who might the Philippine material available at the time. really benefit from this book. As I mentioned, Fifty-six years after Tate's words were written, there is a good deal of information on taxonomy the problem remains much the same, but the and a fair amount on ecology and physiology of conceptual taxonomic framework for Southeast the microtincs. Although the book is dated sim­ Asian murids does not. The two people most ply because the information in it is already 15 responsible for that change have produced a work years old, it is also dated by the classical ap­ on native of the area overlooked by proach of the authors, who seem to represent Tate. History repeats itself in that again we are mainstream Soviet mammalogy. Perhaps every­ presented with a modest and unassuming title one interested in microtine biology should read that may be overlooked by many; by any stretch May 1993 BOOK REVIEWS 513 of the imagination, the work is much mOre than many groups, it is of greater importance it presents itself to be. The authors are well ac­ than is the description of new forms." It is a quainted with the (and other) fauna of the historical reality that glaring errors and a lack of Philippines: Heaney has worked almost exclu­ attention to detail often are the result of consid­ sively on the fauna of that area (in the field and ering species descriptions as merely a race to be three museums). Musser embarked on Philip­ won by numbers. The only shortfall I could dis­ pine rodents as a tangent: in order to illuminate cern in this section is the lack of ecological in­ the patterns and processes at work in the Su­ formation on Tarsomys and Limnomys. This is lawesian rodent fauna, the taxonomy of the Phil­ explained by the fact that the specimens of these ippine rodents had first to be elucidated. Thanks rare taxa on which the work is based were col­ to Musser's aside, and the work of Heaney (37 lected with scanty data between 1904 and 1964, of the 88 literature citations are authored or co­ and the authors have been unable to see "live authored by one or the other, or both), a clearer, examples of the species or [trap] them in their crisper picture of Philippine rodents now is com­ native habitat." Only 21 specimens of the two Downloaded from ing forth, setting the stage for more detailed (and Tarsomys species, and five specimens of Lim­ much needed) studies of systematics and zoo­ nomys, are known. geography of a fascinating and neglected fauna. The remainder of the work ("Tarsomys and In the work under consideration, Musser and Limnomys in phylogenetic context") is dedicated Heaney express two objectives. The first is to

to answering the second, more ambitious, ob­ http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/ focus "on the definitions and descriptions of two jective. In my review, I sought the answer to the genera and three species endemic to the island basic question stated at the onset, that is, how of Mindanao ... " The second is to " ... try to many species are native to the Philippine Islands. place the results in zoogeographic and evolu­ The answer to that question is not explicitly stat­ tionary context by assessing possible phyloge­ ed anywhere in the text. One can go through each netic relationships of Tarsomys and Limnomys, of the subheadings, but all the species of each and explaining the significance of their insular genus are not listed within the body of the text; and elevational distributions as part ofthe small alternatively, it is possible to count the species flightless fauna on Mindanao." Addi­ listed in Table 8 (which is inconveniently men­ tional questions subsumed within the second ob­ tioned in the text on p. 56, but found on pp. 130- jective include: how many species are native to 132). The (temporary) answer to this dynamic at Stefan Brager on July 21, 2016 the Philippine Islands and how can these be mor­ question appears to be 44. For now. Perusal of phologically defined; what are the phylogenetic Table 8, with line items such as Crateromys sp., relationships among the Philippine species; and Batomys sp., Apomys sp. A and sp. B., and "new finally, where does the Philippine murine assem­ genus and species," clearly indicates to the reader blage fit within the zoogeographic context ofMa­ the amount of work still to be done (I know of lesia. at least two additional new species of rodents The authors succeed quite well in accomplish­ currently being described). ing their goal with respect to the first stated ob­ The authors succeed as well in outlining the jective. Tarsomys (T. apoensis and T. echinatus morphological characteristics of each genus as sp. nov.) and Limnomys (L. sibuanus) are pre­ they did in defining Tarsomys and Limnomys. sented, defined, and described with exacting de­ In contrast, I found the section on insular and tail and attention to minutiae. This section oc­ altitudinal restrictions no more than adequate: cupies 47 of the 126 pages (37%) of substantive given the wealth of such data published by Hea­ material (excluding literature cited and prelim­ ney and his co-workers (Rickart et ai., 1991, and inary material). When the reader is done with references therein), there could have been some­ this section, he is intimately familiar with the what more detail included. These sort of data minutest detail of these species. It is refreshing soon grow to monographic proportions, how­ that established researchers such as Musser and ever, and perhaps the outline presented is better Heaney should take to heart Mayr and Ashlock's left as is. The ecological portraits of the species (1991 :359) statement that "the redescription of are barely sufficient, but one should not impugn poorly described forms is an extremely impor­ the authors for this, given their work's reliance tant element of revisional and other taxonomic on other collectors' specimens. As a final criti­ work. In the present state of knowledge about cism, and bearing in mind that I am not as in- 514 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 74, No.2

timately familiar with the literature as I should authors stated quite clearly that they were only be, there appears to be a skewed aspect to the trying "to place [their] results in zoogeographic literature cited (gj = -1.8163; P« 0.00 I). Sixty­ and evolutionary context by assessing possible three of the eighty-eight citations are from after phylogenetic relationships of Tarsomys and 1971, including nine alone from 1991. Whilst Limnomys, and explaining the significance of commendable to be up to date in the literature, their insular and elevational distributions as part it should not be at the expense of the classic of the small flightless mammal fauna on Min­ literature on rodents of Southeast Asia. An ex­ danao." The minor criticisms I have done are ample that comes to mind is in the interesting due, no doubt, to forgetting this premise. Having discussion of /us everett; (sensu lata) as a con­ read this work, it becomes easy to see where the stituent member of the New Endemics of the natural progression of research in the area should Philippines (p. 121). It was already pointed out go. If any graduate students do not have a par­ by Tate (1936:555) that everetti was part of the ticular thesis or dissertation project in mind, even

"residual" fauna of the Philippines; however, a cursory perusal of the conclusions will provide Downloaded from Tate's work is not cited. I am sure there are other a lifetime of labor. This work is an outstanding works about which I am not aware, that deserved summary of the state of our knowledge of the inclusion but were omitted. Philippine murids. I recommend it wholeheart­ Nor is the question of phylogenetic relation­ edly, not only for its face value, but also as an ships among species strictly answered. The re­ example of how detailed systematic work should http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/ lationship among genera is examined in some be conducted.-LuIS A. RUEDAS, Section of detail, and some valuable conclusions are ad­ /liammals, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, vanced. In most instances, rather than making Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, Cincin­ hard and fast pronouncements, the authors ad­ nati, Ohio, 45202-/401. vance alternative hypotheses of relationships to be tested by future work. I, for one, have always LITERATURE CITED sought certainty; to be faced, in this date and age, MAYR, E., AND P. D. ASHLOCK. 199\. Principles of with a phylogenetic picture like this is at once systematic biology. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, xx + 475 pp. disquieting and exhilarating. RICKART, E. A" L. R. HEANEY, AND R. C. B. UTZURRUM. With the wealth of detail, and the almost over­ 1991. Distributional ecology of small whelming amount of information tendered by along an eievational transect in southern Luzon, at Stefan Brager on July 21, 2016 the authors in this work, it is easy to expect more Philippines. Journal of Mammalogy, 72:458-469. TATE, G. H. H. 1936. Some Muridae of the Indo­ than is presented. After having read the work, I Australian region. Bulletin of the American Museum found I had to remind myself of the context: the of Natural History, 72:501-728.