Apodemus draco Barrett-Hamilton 1900

Apodemus draco Barrett-Hamilton 1900, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1900: 418.

Type Locality: S China, NW Fujian, Kuatun.

Vernacular Names: South China Field Mouse.

Synonyms: Apodemus argenteus (Swinhoe 1870); Apodemus badius (Swinhoe 1870); Apodemus ilex Thomas 1922; Apodemus orestes Thomas 1911 .

Distribution: China (Fujian, Jiangxi, Zhejiang, Anhui, Henan, Hubei, and Hunan in the east through Shanxi, Shaanxi, Ninxia, Gansu and Guangxi to Guizhou, Sichuan, Yunnan, and SE Xizang in the west), N and EC Burma (Kachin and Chin states, respectively), and NE India (Arunachal Pradesh; USNM 564492, 564493); see Musser et al., (1996), Agrawal (2000), Corbet and Hill (1992), Feng et al. (1986) and Zhang et al. (1997).

Conservation: IUCN – Lower Risk (lc).

Discussion: Apodemus Group. Included in subgenus Alsomys by Zimmerman (1962) and Pavlinov et al. (1995 a) but placed in the " Apodemus Group" by Musser et al. (1996), which contains the Eastern Asian species Zimmerman placed in Alsomys as well as A. agrarius and A. chevrieri, which are in subgenus Apodemus . Originally described as a subspecies of A. sylvaticus, and listed that way by some workers (G. M. Allen, 1940; Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, 1951), but correctly listed as a separate species by others (Corbet, 1978 c; Corbet and Hill, 1991; Ellerman, 1941; Xia, 1985), who also thought there was a close relationship between A. draco and A. argenteus, which is unsupported by cranial and dental morphology (Musser et al., 1996). Corbet and Hill (1992) recognized orestes as a separate species sympatric or possibly parapatric with A. draco, and their treatment is followed in recent regional faunal reports (Agrawal, 2000, for India, and Wang, 2003, for China) and Jiang and Wang (2000), who analyzed morphometric variation. Musser et al. (1996) found no evidence for this arrangement in their study of large samples from W China, and orestes is also included in A. draco by Liu et al. (2002, 2004). The Taiwanese A. semotus is the closest phylogenetic relative of A. draco . Karyotype reported by Chen et al. (1996). Analysis of protein electrophoresis aligned A. draco with A. latronum rather than A. chevrieri, in Bing et al.’s (1996) study of these three species, an alliance also reflected by morphology. Phylogenetic analyses of mtDNA cytochrome b and nuclear IRBP sequences placed A. draco, A. latronum, and A. semotus in the same clade that is part of a larger evolutionary radiation (containing the Asian A. agrarius, A. chevrieri, A. peninsulae, and A. speciosus) separate from the early and independent radiations that produced the Japanese A. argenteus and Nepalese A. gurkha (Liu et al., 2004; Suzuki et al., 2003). Reviewed by Musser et al. (1996). Evidence from complete mtDNA cytochrome b sequences prompted Liu et al. (2004:12) to recognize ilex (W Yunnan) as a separate species, but noted that "... further detailed morphological and molecular analyses are needed to confirm its species level status.".