I haven’t posted these updates for a few months and this one might be incomplete. Sorry, the war in Ukraine has been a major distraction.
1. New shrew Chodsigoa dabieshanensis described from Anhui Province. Yet another new species from the mountains just N of the Yangtze – I should check them out sometime.
2. A review of Patagonian Abrothrix, confirming that hershkovitzi, canescens, llanoi and xanthorhina are best treated as subspecies of olivacea.
3. New species Mindomys kutuku decribed from SE Ecuador (the genus was previously known only from N Ecuador on the W slope).
4. A proposal to split Chilomys instans into six species. Unfortunately, the paper is centered on Ecuador and doesn’t discuss the new species’ ranges in Colombia.
5. New species Phyllotis camiari described from Argentina. I have PDF.
6. A review of pikas of subgenus Conothoa, with details on subspecies, morphology and distribution. Notably, O. gloveri is included in O. erythrotis as a subspecies.
7. A new paper on muntjac phylogeny. It proposes recognizing at least 12 species (2 species recognized by IUCN were not sampled), although it is based only on mtDNA and the authors mostly use PSC. The paper looks more like an abstract, and the provenance of the specimens for the two Annamite taxa that are notoriously difficult to distinguish is not discussed.
8. Finally, a proposal to split the “coastal type” bottlenose dolphins of eastern North Atlantic (together with Caribbean populations) as Tursiops erebennus. I haven’t seen the full text yet; generally I don’t like studies on the phylogenetics of widespread taxa limited to just one geographical area, but maybe the paper addresses other parts of the range as well.
I don’t doubt their results, but I hope it doesn’t end up with the kind of situation we’ve had with orcas for decades, when there are proposed splits from different areas but nobody bothers to figure out how they all fit together. Like, is Tursiops “gephyreus ” related to the coastal form? What about dolphins in Europe? The ones in other oceans?
My understanding is the big issue with Killer Whales is that people are not sure what existing “names” go with which of the forms, and people are resistant to just assigning existing names or creating new ones. Since multiple forms can exist in a single area, geography isn’t much of a help, and many of the original descriptions are just too vague and often lacking good material to confidently identify the type.
I think if the different forms had clear names associated with them, then we would have seem splits already, as there are there is some decent phylogeny work using genetic data out there, so we mostly have a good idea of how the major clades relate to each other.
Hi. Can you send me the bottlenose dolphin pdf please? My email is email@example.com
Thanx in advance!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am waiting to receive the Bottlenose Dolphin proposal, but this does build upon a few decades of genetic and morphological work that has looked at the coastal and offshore morphs of Bottlenose Dolphin. So while I can’t comment yet on methods or arguments, it should probably be taken seriously.