Title Morphometric status of shrews of the Sorex caecutiens/shinto group in Japan Author(s) Dokuchaev, Nikolai E.; Ohdachi, Satoshi; Abe, Hisashi Mammal Study, 24(2), 67-78 Citation https://doi.org/10.3106/mammalstudy.24.67 Issue Date 1999 Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/44405 Type article File Information MS24-2_67-78.pdf Instructions for use Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP Ma〃1〃zatStudy24:67-78(1999)Mammal Study 24: 67-78 (J999) ◎theMammalogicalSocietyofJapan© the Mammalogical Society of Japan MorphometricstatusofshrewsoftheSorexcaecutiens/shintoMorphometric status of shrews of the Sorex caecutienslshinto groupinJapangroup in Japan NikolaiE.Dokuchaevi,SatosbiOhdachi2andHisashiAbe3Nikolai E. Dokuchaev', Satoshi Ohdachi' and Hisashi Abel 1傭 伽'θqプ 別ologica1Proble〃2∫q〃he1>∂ 肋 IInstitute oj Biological Problems of the North.,Magadan685000,Ru∬ia Magadan 685000. Russia 21nstitute《 ～ブLow7ヒ ～〃47eratu/reSc彪nce 21nstitute oj Low Temperature Science,,.肋kkaiと10{ノ}2'vθ Hokkaido University, 摺 ∫ζソ,SapPoroO60-0819,ノOPan Sapporo 060-0819, Japan 3Katsuraoka26-17 'Kalsuraoka 26-17.,0taruO47-0264,」@α Otaru 047-0264. Japanη Abstrac重.ThemorphometricrelationshipsamongfiveoperationaltaxonomicunitsoftheAbstract. The morphometric relationships among five operational taxonomic units of the SorexSorexcaecutiens/shintogroup(Soricidae)(S.caecutiensofHokkaido,S.shintoshintoof eaeeutiens/shinto group (Soricidae) (S. eaeeutiens of Hokkaido, S. shinto shinto of HonshuHonshuincludingtheS.choueiholotype,S.s.shikokensisofShikoku,andS.s.sadonis including the S. ehouei holotype, S. s. shikokensis of Shikoku, and S. s. sadonis ofofSado)intheJapaneseIslands,wereexaminedusinguni-andmultivariateanalysesof15 Sado) in the Japanese Islands, were examined using uni- and multivariate analyses of 15 cranial,cranial,dental,andexternalcharacters.Themorphologicalanalysesshowedthattheshrew dental, and external characters. The morphological analyses showed that the shrew fromHokkaido(S.caecutiens)andthosefromHonshu,Shikoku,andSado(S.shinto)werefrom Hokkaido (S. eaeeutiens) and those from Honshu, Shikoku, and Sado (S. shinto) were exclusivelyexclusivelydifferentiated。Inparticular,thesurfacestructureofthefourthupperpremolar differentiated. In particular, the surface structure of the fourth upper premolar completelycompletelyseparatedthetwotaxa.Incontrast,S.s.sadonisfromSadocouldnotbecom- separated the two taxa. In contrast, S. s. sadonis from Sado could not be com­ pletelydistinguishedfromrelatedtaxafromHonshuandShikoku.Thusthesemorpho-pletely distinguished from related taxa from Honshu and Shikoku. Thus these morpho­ metricmetricanalysesre-confirmthatS.caecutiensofHokkaido,andS.shintofromHonshu, analyses re-confirm that S. eaeeutiens of Hokkaido, and S. shinto from Honshu, Shikoku,Shikoku,andSado,shouldbetreatedastwoseparatespecies,ashaspreviouslybeenpro- and Sado, should be treated as two separate species, as has previously been pro­ posedonthebasisofamolecularphylogeneticalstudy.posed on the basis of a molecular phylogenetical study. KeyKeywOrdS:SOreXCaeCUtienS,S.ShintO,SadOnis,ShikOkenSiS,taxOnOmy. words: Sorex caecutiens, S. shinto, sadonis, shikokensis, taxonomy. Thomas(1905,1906)describedSorexshi〃toasanewshrewspeciesfromHonshuIsland.Thomas (1905, 1906) described Sorex shinto as a new shrew species from Honshu Island. Later,hedescribedanewsubspecies,S.訪'配osaevus,fromSakhalinIslandandincludedLater, he described a new subspecies, S. shinto saevus, from Sakhalin Island and included theislandofHokkaidoinitsdistributionalrange(Thomas1907).Thomas(1907)didnotthe island of Hokkaido in its distributional range (Thomas 1907). Thomas (1907) did not find且ndanymorphologicalspeci負cdifferences,however,amongtheshrewsfromHonshu, any morphological specific differences, however, among the shrews from Honshu, Hokkaido,Hokkaido,andSakhalinIslands. and Sakhalin Islands. IntheyearssinceThomas,s(1907)study,thetaxonomictreatmentofS.shintoandotherIn the years since Thomas's (1907) study, the taxonomic treatment of S. shinto and other taxaoftheSorexcaecutiens/shintogroup(inthesenseofOhdachietal.1997a)hasvaried.taxa of the Sorex eaeeutiens/shinto group (in the sense of Ohdachi et al. I997a) has varied. BobrinskiiBobrinskiietal。(1944)treatedsomemedium-sizedshrewsfromEurasia,including8.sh'漉o et al. (1944) treated some medium-sized shrews from Eurasia, including S. shinto describedbyThomas(1907),asasinglespecies,S.macroρdescribed by Thomas (1907), as a single species, S. maeropygmaeusッgmaeusMiller,1901.Ellerman Miller, 1901. Ellerman andMorrison-Scott(1951)acceptedBobrinskiietal,s(1944)systematicconcept,buttheyand Morrison-Scott (1951) accepted Bobrinskii et aI's (1944) systematic concept, but they synonymizedεsynonymized S. 。macrOpッgmaeuswith5.caecutiensLaxmann,1788.Stroganov(1957),who maeropygmaeus with S. eaeeutiens Laxmann, 1788. Stroganov (1957), who investigatedtheshrewsfromSakhalin,Hokkaido,andthesouthernKurileIslandsingreatinvestigated the shrews from Sakhalin, Hokkaido, and the southern Kurile Islands in great details,concludedthattheshrewsinHokkaidoandSakhalin,describedasS.shintosaevusdetails, concluded that the shrews in Hokkaido and Sakhalin, described as S. shinto saevus byThomas(1907),shouldbeincludedinS.caecutiens,asEllermanandMorrison-Scottby Thomas (1907), should be included in S. eaeeutiens, as Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951)did.However,withoutinspectingSorexsamplesfromHonshu,Stroganov(1957)(1951) did. However, without inspecting Sorex samples from Honshu, Stroganov (1957) 27b肋0〃1correspon伽ceshouldわeaddressed lTo whom correspondence should be addressed..E-〃2α £ ·mail: 〃'0裾@Pρ [email protected] ρ.towte〃7.乃0枷 ぬ'.αC.加 68 ルfa〃imalStudy24(1999)Mammal Study 24 (1999) consideredthattheshrewsofHonshuwereasubspeciesofε.cαec躍'ens,∫.c.∫considered that the shrews of Honshu were a subspecies of S. caeculiens, S. c. shinto.乃'nto. SinceStroganov,s(1957)investigation,therehavebeentwomainopinionsconcerningSince Stroganov's (1957) investigation, there have been two main opinions concerning thetaxonomicstatusofsh'η'ointhecaecut'ens/shintogroup.Ontheonehand,somethe taxonomic status of shinto in the caecutiensl shinto group. On the one hand, some authorshaveobjectedtothespecificrankofshinto,andhavefollowedStroganov(1957)inauthors have objected to the specific rank of shinto, and have followed Stroganov (1957) in includingitin8.cαincluding it in S. caecutiensθc〃t'ens(e.g.Bobrinskiietal.1965;Abe1967,1994;Gureev1971,1979; (e.g. Bobrinskii et aJ. 1965; Abe 1967 , 1994; Gureev 1971 , 1979; Yudin1971,1989;Corbet1978;GromovandBaranova1981;Krivosheev1984;Dolgov1985;Yudin 1971, 1989; Corbet 1978; Gromov and Baranova 1981 ; Krivosheev 1984; Dolgov 1985; Okhotina1993;Dobson1994).Furthermore,withregardtothesubspeci負cstatusoftheOkhotina 1993; Dobson (994). Furthermore, with regard to the subspecific status of the caecut'εcaecutiens η5/shintoshrewsoftheJapaneseIslandsandvicinity,Abe(1967,1994)treatedthel shinlo shrews of the Japanese Islands and vicinity, Abe (1967, 1994) treated the populationofHonshuasε.caec〃tien∬hinto,thatofShikokuas3.c.shikoke〃sis,andthatpopulation of Honshu as S. caecutiens shinto, that of Shikoku as S. c. shikokensis, and that ofHokkaidoandSakhalinassl.c.saevus.Ontheotherhand,someauthorshavebeenofof Hokkaido and Sakhalin as S. c. saevus. On the other hand, some authors have been of thetaxonomicopinionthatS.shintoshouldbeconsideredasanindependentspeciesthatthe taxonomic opinion that S. shinto should be considered as an independent species that occursinHonshu,Shikoku,andHokkaido(andSakhalin,accordingtosomeauthors)whileoccurs in Honshu, Shikoku, and Hokkaido (and Sakhalin, according to some authors) while 5.caecut'ensacrosstheEurasianContinent(andinSakhalinaccordingtosomeauthors),S. caecutiens across the Eurasian Continent (and in Sakhalin according to some authors). essentiallyfollowingThomas,s(1907)position(e.g.Imaizumi1949,1960;Sokolov1973;essentially following Thomas's (1907) position (e.g. Imaizumi 1949, 1960; Sokolov 1973; YoshiyukiandImaizumi1986;PavlinovandRossolimo1987;Hutterer1993;Pavlinovetal.Yoshiyuki and Imaizumi 1986; Pavlinov and Rossolimo 1987; Hutterer 1993; Pavlinov et aJ. 1995;WolsanandHutterer1998).Inaddition,Imaizumi(1954)described8.choueifrom1995; Wolsan and Hutterer 1998). In addition, lmaizumi (1954) described S. chouei from Honshuasanewspecies,althoughthiswaslatersynonymizedwith8.cαHonshu as a new species, although this was later synonymized with S. caeculiensθc纏 θη5(Abe1967, (Abe 1967, 1994,1996)or∫.shinto(Imaizumi1970;Hutterer1993).1994, 1996) or S. shinto (Imaizumi 1970; Hutterer 1993). TherehasbeentheadditionalcontroversyinJapanconcerningthetaxonomicstatusofThere has been the additional controversy in 1 apan concerning the taxonomic status of theSadoshrewaspartofthecαec〃tiens/shintogroup.Thistaxonwasfirstdescribedbythe Sado shrew as part of the caecutiensl shinto group. This taxon was first described by YoshiyukiandImaizumi(1986)fromSadoIsland.Whilesomeauthorstreatitasanin-Yoshiyuki and Imaizumi (1986) from Sado Island. While some authors treat it as an in­ dependentspecies,S.sad傭SYoshiyukietImaizumi,1986(e.g.Abe1994,1996;Wolsananddependent species, S. sadonis Yoshiyuki et lmaizumi, 1986 (e.g. Abe 1994, 1996; Wolsan and Hutterer1998),otherssuggestthatitshouldbeconsideredasubspeciesof3.shinto,S.5.Hutterer 1998), others suggest thai il should be considered a subspecies of S. shinto, S. s. sadonis5・adonis(Ohdachietal.1997a;Koyasu1998). (Ohdachi el aI. 1997a; Koyasu 1998). OhdachietaL(1997a)recentlyusedtheDNAsequencesofthemitochondrialcyto-Ohdachi