Just three this time.
(1) A new shrew-mole Uropsilus dabieshanensis described from Anhui, China. It’s the first shrew-mole in eastern China, found in an isolated mountain range north of the Yangtze that I’ve had on my list of places to explore for many years.
(2) A new bat Eptesicus langeri described from Bolivia. Note that it’s finally becoming common to treat Histiotis as a species group within Eptesicus.
(3) Yet another marmoset named Mico schneideri described from Brazil. The only arguments for splitting this and many other Mico species are pelage differences and genetic monophyly. In my opinion, all of them are “conservation species”, and the genus should be treated as containing just two species: the highly polymorphic M. argentatus and also M. humilis (currently called “Calibella humilis” despite molecular evidence of it belonging to Mico). I am pretty sure the first objective revision of the genus will come to the same conclusion.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Regarding the marmosets, what about Mico humerlifer (including mauesi and chrysoleucos)? Do you think it should be lumped with most of the marmosets in a politypic Mico argentatus?
Personally, I stopped recognizing most of these taxa as separare species, recognizing only humeralifer (including mauesi and chrysoleucos), saterei, melanurus (including acariensis, marcai, nigriceps and now schneideri), argentatus (including intermedius, rondoni, munduruku, and emiliae), and humilis.