Subfamily Cricetinae G. Fischer, 1817 . Mém. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscow, 5:372.

COMMENTS: Reviewed by Corbet (1978c, 1984), who (1978c:88) noted that "generic divisions within the group are rather unstable and a fresh, comprehensive classification is required," a conclusion we echo after studying specimens and literature. One of these divisions is Cricetulus, and Corbet (1978c:90) acknowledged that some species he listed there are frequently placed in Allocricetulus and Tscherskia, but "pending a review of generic classification in the subfamily as a whole," he preferred to include those genera in Cricetulus . We prefer the opposite: to recognize the separate genera until the subfamily is systematically revised. In cranial morphology, Allocricetulus closely resembles Cricetus, not Cricetulus, and the latter is more like Phodopus than either Tscherskia or Allocricetulus . Pavlinov and Rossolimo (1987) also treated Cricetulus, Allocricetulus, and Tscherskia as genera. Some of the Chinese hamsters were reviewed by Wang and Zheng (1973). Keys to the European species were provided by Niethammer (1982a). Chromosomal information for European species was recorded by Zima and Krâl (1984a).

Carleton and Musser (1984) diagnosised the subfamily and reviewed general characters, major fossil groups, and other topics.