Taxonomy news

Just a few today:
1. New tuco-tuco Ctenomys plebiscitum described from northern Patagonia. It apparently occurs in an urban park (42° 52′ 20.61″ S 70° 20′ 08.80″ W). Looking at the molecular data in the paper (I have PDF, by the way), I don’t feel very convinced.
2. Myotis pampa described (open access) from Urugay. This one looks legit.
3. Validity of Reithrodontomys cherrii confirmed.
4. A new paper about vole taxonomy, with a new list of Arvicoline genera provided (why, oh why?) as a supplementary file in .txt format. My opinion is that voles are badly oversplit on genus level resulting in constant problems as many species have to be shuffled back and forth between genera. The sequence of genera recommended by the authors is:
Genus Hyperacrius
Genus Lemmiscus
Genus Chionomys
Genus Proedromys
Genus Neodon
Genus Alexandromys
Genus Lasiopodomys
Subgenus Lasiopodomys
Subgenus Stenocranius
Genus Mynomes
Genus Blanfordimys
Subgenus Blanfordimys
Subgenus Agricola
Subgenus Iberomys
Genus Terricola
Genus Microtus
Subgenus Microtus
Subgenus Sumeriomys
Have fun figuring out which species falls into which genus.

  1. Jim 1 year ago

    I contacted many month ago the author of the vole paper to tell her that Agricola was not valid and, apparently, she did not fix it. Agricola is already a valid genus of bird (Muscicapidae). The correct vole genus must be Euarvicola

    • Author
      Vladimir Dinets 1 year ago

      I’d recommend publishing a short note in Zootaxa.

    • Author
      Vladimir Dinets 1 year ago

      But wasn’t Agricola merged into Melaenornis?

      • Jim 1 year ago

        No, because polyphyly. Agricola was revalidate with two species

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



©2022 Jon Hall. | | | | Privacy Policy

Log in with your credentials


Forgot your details?

Create Account