connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago It’s funny cause I also though Sciurids were a lot more consistent than other mammal groups until I actually dove into them, finding that they have some of the least studied groups in some cases (e.g., South-east Asian squirrels at this point). Lots of work to be done here!
Urocitellus endemicus -> U. brunneus – just wanted to briefly comment that I’m working with Bryan Mclean at the moment to revise the small-eared group of Urocitellus, and these two species still are not showing up as distinct (we’re splitting idahoensis from mollis though, so still ending up with two endemics in Idaho, where I’m from!).
Dremomys ornatus < D. rufigenis – I recognize this change for the time being, but Arlo Hinckley let me know that they’re also working on revising Dremomys and have found that although these are distinct species, Abramov did not compare type localities and that one of the other names actually applies to what is currently labeled D. ornatus. Just waiting for him to publish it at this point.
Petaurista lena < P. alborufus Petaurista albiventer < P. petaurista Petaurista caniceps, P. marica, P. sibylla < P. elegans Petaurista grandis, P. hainana, P. yunnanensis < P. philippiensis (I'm accepting your Petaurista classification as it reflects the recent literature, but I feel there's a lot more work to be done and there will be more changes)
- Petaurista was the group I initially wanted to do my PhD work on and I’m still trying to find a way to do it for my postdoc (although it’s not looking likely). I spent a good bit of time coming up with the current species listing back when I was 18, but it’s still SUPER rough and the genus needs a considerable amount of revision before I feel comfortable sitting on any taxonomic arrangement. Really cool group with some pretty considerable uncertainty at the moment.
Otospermophilus douglasii < O. beecheyi (exciting to learn that we have two different ground squirrel species in the Bay Area) – It definitely is! Although I had a hard time wanting to make this change initially because it was kind of unclear in the papers that made it. Jane and I had a pretty long discussion about it.
Callosciurinae (MDD) vs. Nannosciurinae (Hesp) (-) – leaving it for now but DEFINITELY publish on this when you get the chance (either in the big planned taxonomic name publication or separately since it’s kind of a unique/big one).
Sciurus robinsoni alacris – noting this so I can make the change on our synonym listing.
Genera of Sciurini (-) – This is one of the ‘fun’ ones I’ve been waiting for… I’m leaving the generic revision as it currently is on mine given that we don’t really have a practical way to leave species unassigned at the generic level and because I don’t feel comfortable making the change based on the current suggestive language used in the publications. I have talked with Abreu-Júnior about this, as he brought it up with us during the ASM Biodiversity Committee Meeting (which I advise you to attend this year!) and he was saying they were working on publishing a more authoritative revision at the generic level akin to what Helgen did with Spermophilus in 2009. I’ve decided to wait for the genus level revision until then in hopes that they described the new genus and provide morphological support and diagnoses for their different genera, which at the time are not easily diagnosable (especially with the movement of Microsciurus species all over the place). I think they could’ve settled on a less genus rich classification that reflects morphology/ecology a bit better, but ultimately, if it stick in the Neotropics, it’ll stick in North America, although the movement of all North American species out of Sciurus is certainly going to peeve a lot of mammalogists off. Especially since they are some of the most charismatic and well known North American mammals (other then some of the ungulates and carnivores). So for now, leaving it, but will definitely be changing it the second a more comprehensive revision is published (and I suggest you leave your classification as is, as it will eventually be the same on the MDD); this was a decision Jane, Nate, and I had a pretty long conversation about (I in support of the change, Jane against it) and we settled on retaining it for now.
Microsciurus species (-) – Although I didn’t follow the taxonomic changes in the Mammals of South America and Abreu-Júnior et al., 2020 because of the confusion surrounding where different species go, I think I will go ahead and make the suggested species changes to the MDD to match Hesperomys, as I don’t see much problem in doing so (especially since a lot of them are followed now in the Neotropics). Making a note to change it now for Microsciurus.
Guerlinguetus species (-) – will be making the species level changes associated with this genus but leaving them under Sciurus.
Simosciurus species (-) – will be making the species level changes associated with this genus but leaving them under Sciurus.
Sciurus/Hadrosciurus sanborni (-) – will be making the species level changes associated with this genus but leaving them under Sciurus.
Spermophilus alashanicus (MDD) vs. alaschanicus (Hesp) (-!) – will make the change in the MDD to match Hesperomys and the original spelling.
JelleZijlstra
Continuing #22, #23, #26, #27, #28, #29, #31, #32 cc @connorjburgin.
I always got the impression that squirrels were more taxonomically stable compared to other small mammals, but I guess that's no longer the case. I'm accepting almost all of the changes in MDD, but we'll have to talk more about Sciurini.
Rodentia: Sciuromorpha
Straightforward accepted changes
Sciuridae
Callosciurinae (MDD) vs. Nannosciurinae (Hesp) (-)
Nannosciurinae Forsyth Major, 1893, has priority over Callosciurinae Pocock, 1923. I have been sitting on this for a while but never got around to trying to publish it.
AI: Publish
Sciurus robinsoni alacris
This split (Sundasciurus robinsoni from S. lowii) is well-supported and I accept it. However, I noticed that Hinckley et al. (2020) list Sciurus robinsoni alacris Thomas, 1908, as a synonym of Sundasciurus robinsoni, but in my database it is under Rhinosciurus laticaudatus. MSW3, HMW, and MDD also list this name under Rhinosciurus laticaudatus. I think this is due to confusion between Sciurus robinsoni Bonhote, 1903, and Rhinosciurus robinsoni Thomas, 1908, two different and unrelated squirrels. In his original description, Thomas explicitly associates his new subspecies with Bonhote's name, and in Chasen (1940) it is listed as a synonym of Sciurus lowii robinsoni. I think somewhere along the line someone got confused and moved the name to Rhinosciurus. I haven't seen Corbet & Hill (1992) but maybe they have more pertinent information.
For now I'm moving alacris to Sundasciurus robinsoni and not recognizing any subspecies in Rhinosciurus laticudatus.
Genera of Sciurini (-)
MDD here follows the classical arrangement, with Sciurus including the Eurasian red squirrel and most American species, but Microsciurus and Syntheosciurus in separate genera. I instead follow the rearrangement by Abreu-Júnior's group (2020), which takes all American species out of Sciurus into numerous revalidated genera, and rearranges them together with Microsciurus and Syntheosciurus. This arrangement is similar to that of Vivo & Carmignotto (2015) in Mammals of South America but differs in details; some of their genera were not monophyletic.
Two arguments drove me to switch to the new classification:
The biggest problem with this arrangement is that it leaves two species, Microsciurus flaviventer and M. sabanillae, stranded without a valid genus name. I currently have them unallocated to genus (which is why I had flaviventer revert to its original name, Macroxus flaviventer). In addition, Microsciurus santanderensis and Microsciurus simonsi have not yet been studied genetically. I left them in Microsciurus but the more conservative option would have been to also make them direct children of Sciurini. I think they may turn out to belong with Leptosciurus. Alternatively, we could leave all these species in Microsciurus until someone gets around to naming a new genus.
Another tricky case is Sciurus richmondi. I currently have it under Guerlinguetus which is clearly wrong. Abreu et al. (2020) had a single sample of richmondi and recovered it within Syntheosciurus granatensis, but in their discussion they said future work was needed before a taxonomic change could be made. For now I will recognize richmondi as a valid species of Syntheosciurus.
Personally I feel the new generic arrangement is oversplit; all Neotropical Sciurini or even all American Sciurini could have been put into a single genus, avoiding the problems with unallocated species. As discussed below, there are several cases where animals that were until recently placed in the same species are now placed in different genera, which suggests that the genera aren't easily differentiated morphologically. However, that's not what the literature proposed so I don't see it an option for the database. It would be a useful case to look at though if we do a broader study of genus definitions in mammals, as you suggested on the Primates thread.
On balance I think the reclassification should be accepted but with the uncertain species left in Microsciurus, given that old Sciurus is clearly nonmonophyletic and the classification has been broadly accepted in the literature. It's unfortunate that Microsciurus will remain diphyletic for now, but the new classification is still a clear improvement.
Microsciurus species (-)
Following Mammals of South America I recognize an additional six species among the species MDD allocates to Microsciurus:
Mammals of South America also recognizes venustulus as a species, split from alfari, but Abreu et al. (2020) found that it is nested within alfari, and I follow them in synonymizing venustulus with alfari.
I adopted these splits in my database because Mammals of South America is an authoritative reclassification that I felt would set a new baseline for the classification of this group. The molecular data of Abreu's group confirms at the very least that otinus and similis have nothing to do with flaviventer. Whether all of these species are really valid is more debatable; boquetensis and isthmius in particular seem quite close genetically.
Guerlinguetus species (-)
Among species in the "Guerlinguetus" group, I follow Mammals of South America in recognizing brasiliensis as distinct from aestuans, but synonymizing gilvigularis under aestuans.
Abreu's papers recognize brasiliensis as distinct from aestuans, but suggest that aestuans as currently recognized is composite. However, there is no support for gilvigularis as a different species.
There is clearly more work to be done here, but I think the aestuans/brasiliensis classification better reflects what we currently know about these squirrels.
Simosciurus species (-)
Here I follow Mammals of South America in splitting nebouxii from stramineus. Molecular data shows that these two are sister to each other but quite distinct, so this split seems well-supported.
Sciurus/Hadrosciurus flammifer (-)
I include Sciurus flammifer in Hadrosciurus igniventris following Mammals of South America.
Populations of flammifer (southern Venezuela) haven't been included in Abreu's molecular studies. I would follow the synonymy for now, but more confirmation is needed.
Sciurus/Hadrosciurus sanborni (-)
MDD has this species as valid, I put it in Hadrosciurus ignitus.
Mammals of South America included sanborni as a synonym of Notosciurus pucheranii boliviensis, but Abreu's work showed that pucheranii was composite: the nominotypical subspecies is related to some former Microsciurus and is now placed in Leptosciurus, while the other subspecies are within Hadrosciurus and are now recognized as Hadrosciurus ignitus. Thus, I now list sanborni as a synonym of Hadrosciurus ignitus boliviensis.
There doesn't appear to be molecular data for sanborni specifically (from the mountains of Peru). This is therefore a similar case to flammifer; I would recognize the synonymy for now.
Spermophilus alashanicus (MDD) vs. alaschanicus (Hesp) (-!)
Both spellings occur in the recent literature, but the original spelling is alaschanicus: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/56758096