connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago My comments for Supramyomorpha:
Lemmus amurensis, L. sibiricus -> L. lemmus – This decision will be overturned by a recent paper respiting them out: Abramson, N., Petrova, T., & Dokuchaev, N. (2022). Analysis of “historical” DNA of museum samples resolve taxonomic, nomenclature and biogeography issues: case study of true lemmings. Biological Communications, 67(4), 340-348.
11 Tachyoryctes spp. -> Tachyoryctes splendens (though I find it really difficult to believe there are only two Tachyoryctes species) – I think this is a pretty tentative arrangement and doubt it will hold for long, since I think Tachyoryctes likely represents a number of species.
Alexandromys alpinus < A. mongolicus (though I agree with your concern that the name is unavailable: the main text of the article doesn't have sufficient information to make the name available, and the supplement isn't a valid publication under the Code) – Yeah, need to contact the authors about it, but I’m recognizing it for now. I actually just found out that a species of Murina is unavailable too (Murina rangjiangensis), but I’ll have to comment on that elsewhere.
Antillomys rayi – this name is also unavailable, having been described in the supplemental material. However, I recently reviewed a paper redescribing it in Therya, which will make it available soon.
Heteromys (MDD) vs. Liomys, Schaeferia (Hesp) (+) – I’ll be sure to add some sort of comments related to the different arrangement, but the single genus view seems to have stuck.
Sminthidae (MDD) vs. Sicistidae (Hesp) (-) – I will leave it for now, but you are likely correct. I think there as been some discussion on the matter, but in vague terms.
Sicista tianshanica (-!) – I actually just made the change based on comments from the Lynx Edicions team who recently discovered it too; but I did not make the year change, so I will do so.
6 additional species of Napaeozapus and Zapus (-) – I’ve gone back and forth with this one because Jason Malaney is my lab and we’ve talked about it a good bit. But I think I will go back on it for now, because it hasn’t really got a lot of external support and probably needs to be more strictly stated as a revision.
Anteliomys custos c(h)angs(h)anensis (-) – I haven’t got access to the original description at this point, but I’d assume you’re probably correct. I’ll leave this for when we go through synonyms.
Myodes/Clethrionomys (+) – looking forward to your contributions to this! It’s one that everyone is annoyed about changing back and forth.
Chionomys syriacus (MDD) vs. C. nivalis (Hesp) (-!) – Hadn’t realized this! Will change it back!
Neotoma nelsoni (+) – definitely going to need more work here as well. I don’t think I have any comments about this on the MDD though, so I’ll add that.
Peromyscus arcticus (-) – I am going to remove the species and add comments about it under P. maniculatus.
Peromyscus totontepecus – I think you’re right about this, but I’m going to leave the name for now and add comments about tehuantepecus likely being the oldest name for this species.
Oxymycterus caparoae (MDD) vs. Oxymycterus caparaoe (Hesp) (-!) – will make this change!
Hylaeamys laticeps and H. seuanezi (-) – I remember this one confusing me a lot, but I understand now why. I hadn’t realized it was about where to place laticeps. I’ll follow your taxonomy.
Phyllotis rupestris (-) – Hmm, I hadn’t realized this. I’m going to do some more investigation over the next few days, but may choose to go with your conclusion in the end. Phyllotis is a rough genus at the moment.
Rhipidomys bezerrensis and R. caracolensis (-) – I don’t know why I added these species so prematurely… I can’t decide whether to leave them with comments to them being in pre-publication or remove them yet. Because I’m sure they’ll be described soon and removing them for one version seems a bit ridiculous, but I generally wouldn’t add them until they were officially described.
Thamnomys (MDD) vs. Grammomys (Hesp) (-) – hadn’t seen this change, will make the change.
Hydromys and Uromys neobritannicus (MDD) vs. neobrittanicus (Hesp) (-) – will make the change on the MDD to match Hesperomys.
Hylomyscus kaimosae (-) – Hmm, I don’t know how I ended up recognizing it. I’ll go ahead and remove it but I need to check what the HMW series did with this species.
Myomyscus verreauxii (MDD) vs. verreauxi (Hesp) (-) – so the issue here is whether one or two ‘I’s is used? I’m really not sure what wins here, but I’ll change to the Hesperomys spelling for now, as it has more justification from what I’m seeing.
Dendromus melanotis (MDD) vs. Poemys melanotis (Hesp) (-) – I will move melanotis from Dendromus to Poemys.
JelleZijlstra
Finishing the series #22, #23, #26, #27, #28, #29, #31, #32, #33 cc @connorjburgin.
Rodentia: Supramyomorpha
Straightforward accepted changes
Changes MDD is planning to make already:
Heteromyidae
Heteromys (MDD) vs. Liomys, Schaeferia (Hesp) (+)
I recognize Liomys and Schaeferia as separate genera, MDD lumps them into Heteromys because Hafner et al. (2007) found the old genus Liomys to be paraphyletic. The three-genus arrangement was suggested independently by Anderson & Gutiérrez (2009) and Ramírez-Pulido et al. (2014), but it hasn't been accepted and I will put them all in a single genus. (Side note because it confused me when I was doing searches for this name: there is also a collembolan genus Schaefferia with two f's that is sometimes misspelled Schaeferia. It doesn't preoccupy the heteromyid name.)
Ref:
Sminthidae
Sminthidae (MDD) vs. Sicistidae (Hesp) (-)
I have a note under this family: "Has priority over Sminthidae under Art. 40.2 of the Code, because Allen (1901) replaced Sminthinae with Sicistinae when he recognized Sminthus as a junior synonym of Sicista." I still think that's correct, but need to check whether anyone else has discussed this situation. I should publish this along with the Nannosciurinae/Callosciurinae situation. I think MDD should keep Sminthidae for now.
Sicista tianshanica (-!)
We both currently spell this name tianshanica, but the paper describing S. talgarica and S. terskeica noted that the correct original spelling is tianschanica. I confirmed this is correct: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8352391
I am changing the spelling to tianschanica and I would recommend MDD make the change too. (After I wrote this I realized you already told me you're making this change.)
Separately, the front matter for the volume says it was printed in March 1904 ("напечатано по распоряжению Императорской Академии наук. Мартъ, 1904 г. Непременный Секретарь, Академикъ Н. Дубровиць"), so the date should be changed to 1904.
Zapodidae
6 additional species of Napaeozapus and Zapus (-)
MDD accepts the splits by Malaney et al. (2017), recognizing 10 instead of 4 species of American zapodids; I do not.
I saw this paper when it was published but didn't accept their suggested taxonomy because they introduced a nomen nudum and because it seemed good to wait to see if the new classification would be accepted. I don't think there have been further studies of zapodid genetics since then, but I can find few references that accept the split. I'll probably switch to the new taxonomy if that remains your preference though.
Cricetidae: Arvicolinae
Anteliomys custos c(h)angs(h)anensis (-)
I noticed that for this Chinese vole I have cangshanensis, MDD has changshanensis, and the Krystufek book has changsanensis. I haven't seen the original description, but MSW 3 uses cangshanensis and according to Krystufek the type locality is "Dali Cangshan", so I think that is most likely correct.
Myodes/Clethrionomys (+)
Probably the most intractable purely nomenclatural disagreement in mammals. I am going to accept the current emerging consensus and switch to Clethrionomys, but I have discovered several type designations in the 19th-century literature that are relevant to this controversy and I am going to try to publish about it.
AI: Publish
Chionomys syriacus (MDD) vs. C. nivalis (Hesp) (-!)
The name syriacus was recently discovered to be a senior synonym of nivalis. However, there is a pending petition to the Commission to conserve the junior name (Case 3859; receipt acknowledged in the BZN). Under Article 82 of the Code, prevailing usage should be maintained until the application is resolved. Chionomys nivalis is clearly in prevailing usage, so I would strongly recommend that MDD switch back to using nivalis.
Cricetidae: Neotominae
Neotoma nelsoni (+)
MDD recognizes Neotoma nelsoni as a species; I have it as a synony of Neotoma leucodon based on Fernández (2014), who found it to be nested genetically within N. leucodon. However, Bradley et al. (2022) found some conflicting evidence and recommended that nelsoni be kept as a species provisionally, so I'll put it back for now. I haven't tracked down where all of Bradley's material comes from (they give specimen numbers but not localities), but it sounds like their material did not cover the whole range of Neotoma leucodon and the species may not be monophyletic.
Refs:
Peromyscus arcticus (-)
MDD recognizes the distinctive Peromyscus species from Yukon as Peromyscus arcticus but acknowledges in comments that the name may not be applicable. I agree that this population likely represents a separate species, but I believe it has no available name, so it should not be included in the database until someone names it. Bradley et al. (2019) also refer to this form as "Peromyscus sp." only.
Greenbaum et al. (2019:564) attribute the name arcticus to Wagner (1845), apparently in error; Wagner (1845) in fact named Peromyscus maniculatus. The name arcticus instead first appears in Coues (1877), as articus on p. 61 and arcticus on p. 67; Coues cited a name found on the label for specimen USNM 3924 from Labrador. He didn't treat the name as valid and identified the specimen as Hesperomys leucopus. Next Mearns (1890) named Hesperomys leucopus arcticus for a specimen from Mackenzie in the Northwest Territories. Later Mearns (1911) recognized his arcticus as a junior homonym of Coues's arcticus, and therefore replaced it with borealis. This is important because Coues's name by default would be unavailable because it was published as a synonym, but ICZN Art. 11.6.1 states that if such a name is treated as a senior homonym before 1961, it becomes available as of its first publication as a synonym. Therefore, arcticus Coues, 1877, is an available name.
But arcticus Coues is from Labrador, within the range of Peromyscus maniculatus sensu stricto, so it is clearly not available for the Yukon form. Instead, borealis Mearns could be an available name for this species, but according to Bradley et al. (2019:28), its type locality is within the range of Peromyscus sonoriensis, not the Yukon Peromyscus. (They cite the type locality as "Fort Simpson, Yukon Territory", which is incorrect; Fort Simpson is in the Northwest Territories.)
Refs:
Peromyscus totontepecus
I accept the split of this species from Peromyscus mexicanus, but it appears the species should actually be called P. tehuantepecus. Both names were published in the same paper (Merriam, 1898): Peromyscus mexicanus totontepecus Merriam, 1898:120 and Peromyscus tehuantepecus Merriam, 1898:122. The Code specifies (Art. 24.1) that if two names are published simultanteously but with different ranks, the one with higher rank has precedence. Since tehuantepecus was established as a species and totontepecus as a subspecies, tehuantepecus has priority. I am going to recognize the species as Peromyscus tehuantepecus.
AI: Publish
Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae
Oxymycterus caparoae (MDD) vs. Oxymycterus caparaoe (Hesp) (-!)
The original spelling is caparaoe. I believe the incorrect spelling was introduced by MSW 3.
AI: Publish
Hylaeamys laticeps and H. seuanezi (-)
MDD recognizes Hylaeamys laticeps as valid with seuanezi as a synonym; I recognize seuanezi as valid.
There are two uncontested species involved here, Hylaeamys megacephalus in the Cerrado and other open habitats, and Hylaeamys seuanezi in the Atlantic Forest. The type locality of H. laticeps is in a transitional zone between the Cerrado and the Atlantic Forest, so the issue is whether it is a junior synonym of megacephalus or a senior synonym of seuanezi. Brennand et al. (2013) (which I peer reviewed) examined the type material of laticeps and found that morphometrically it falls within H. megacephalus. I don't see anything in the comments or references in MDD that casts serious doubt on that conclusion.
Phyllotis rupestris (-)
This is a similar situation to Peromyscus arcticus, where there is good evidence for a split but the name of the newly recognized species is uncertain. In this case, the cited sources do not explicitly recognize a species Phyllotis rupestris; they call it the "clade of P. x. posticalis-P. x. rupestris" (Jayat et al., 2021:701; Ojeda et al., 2021:277). As discussed by Jayat et al. (2021:704), the type of rupestris is lost but the name may actually represent P. limatus or P. vaccarum. Given this uncertainty, I will maintain the previous classification and keep this name in P. xanthopygus.
Rhipidomys bezerrensis and R. caracolensis (-)
I am going to hold off on these two new species until their description is actually published; what I could find online today was only an accepted manuscript.
Muridae: Murinae
Thamnomys (MDD) vs. Grammomys (Hesp) (-)
I place "Thamnomys" kuru and "Thamnomys" poensis in Grammomys following Mikula et al. (2021), who showed that Grammomys is otherwise paraphyletic.
Ref: Mikula, O., Nicolas, V., Šumbera, R., Konečný, A., Denys, C., Verheyen, E., Bryjová, A., Lemmon, A.R., Moriarty Lemmon, E. and Bryja, J. 2021. Nuclear phylogenomics, but not mitogenomics, resolves the most successful Late Miocene radiation of African mammals (Rodentia: Muridae: Arvicanthini). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 157:107069. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107069
Hydromys and Uromys neobritannicus (MDD) vs. neobrittanicus (Hesp) (-)
The original spelling for both species (Hydromys and Uromys) is neobrittanicus. Both spellings are common.
Hylomyscus kaimosae (-)
MDD has this species as distinct from stella, citing Nicolas et al. (2006). However, Nicolas et al. (2020:10) confirmed that kaimosae is a synonym of stella.
Ref: Nicolas, V., Fabre, P.-H., Bryja, J., Denys, C., Verheyen, E., Missoup, A.-D., Olayemi, A., Katuala, P., Dudu, A., Colyn, M., Kerbis Peterhans, J.C. and Demos, T.C. 2020. The phylogeny of the African wood mice (Muridae, Hylomyscus) based on complete mitochondrial genomes and five nuclear genes reveals their evolutionary history and undescribed diversity. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 144:106703. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2019.106703
Myomyscus verreauxii (MDD) vs. verreauxi (Hesp) (-)
I follow Grubb (2004:104) here, who established that verreauxi is a justified emendation of verroxii, the original spelling. Given that this hinges on prevailing usage, I'm not sure there is a right answer here.
Nesomyidae
Dendromus melanotis (MDD) vs. Poemys melanotis (Hesp) (-)
Dendromus melanotis is the type species of Poemys, so if Poemys is to be recognized as a valid genus, melanotis must be included. From reading Voelker et al. (2021), it seems that various names that have previously been assigned to melanotis are in the Poemys clade, but there's no genetic evidence for melanotis itself. It doesn't seem unreasonable then to place melanotis in Poemys along with its presumed close relatives. Alternatively, Poemys could be subsumed back into Dendromus pending a more thorough taxonomic revision.