Dipodidae Fischer, 1817

Mary Ellen Holden, 1993, Order Rodentia - Family Dipodidae, Mammal Species of the World (2 nd Edition), Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 487-499 : 487

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7353072

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7281648

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039187BE-FFDD-FFC9-A6CD-572939A5F5B3

treatment provided by

GgServerImporter (2022-11-04 03:54:06, last updated 2024-11-26 00:14:54)

scientific name

Dipodidae Fischer, 1817
status

 

Family Dipodidae Fischer, 1817 View in CoL . Mem. Soc. Imp. Nat., Moscow, 5:372.

SYNONYMS: Allactagidae, Dipodes, Dipodum , Dipsidae , Jaculidae, Sicistidae , Sminthidae , Zapodidae .

COMMENTS: The monophyly of dipodids seems well established ( Ellerman, 1940; Klingener, 1984; Shenbrot, 1992; Stein, 1990; Vinogradov, 1930). Authors have frequently recognized either a single family, Dipodidae , or two families, Zapodidae (including sicistines and zapodines), and Dipodidae ; recently Shenbrot (1992) recognized four families including Allactagidae , Dipodidae , Sminthidae (Sicistidae) , and Zapodidae . In a phylogenetic study based on limb myology, Stein (1990) proposed to recognize Sicistidae and Dipodidae (including zapodines and all other dipodids). Sicistines are often regarded as representing the most primitive dipodids morphologically; however, Sokolov et al. (1987b) and Vorontsov (1969) hypothesized that zapodines possess the most primitive karyotype of dipodids, from which those of sicistines and other dipodids are derived.

Shenbrot (1992) incorporated internal and external phallic morphology, coronal structure of the molars, and bullar morphology in a phylogenetic analysis. His final classification is eclectic, based on the results of cladistic analysis and degree of morphological divergence (phenetic distance). His arrangement differed significantly from that of Stein (1990) in that Sicista was not shown to be the most primitive dipodoid (all four families are sister taxa), and Euchoreutinae was hypothesized to be most closely related to Sicistinae , and was united with Sicistinae in Sminthidae (Sicistidae) ; Stein (1990) proposed Euchoreutinae to be a sister group of zapodines and allactagines, and placed all groups except Sicista in Dipodidae .

The true sister group of dipodids has not been established, and comparison with other outgroups such as sciurids, myoxids, heteromyids, and muroids that retain more primitive characters than Phodopus (used in the phylogenetic study by Stein, 1990) and other Cricetinae (as defined by Carleton and Musser, 1984; implied as an outgroup by Shenbrot, 1992), is needed for confirmation of assigned character polarities. Reviews of the relationship of dipodids to other rodents were given by Klingener (1964, 1984).

An integrative phylogenetic analysis including appropriate outgroups, and incorporating the characters listed above, and/or molecular data sets, should be undertaken to help elucidate dipodid relationships. Vinogradov (1930, 1937) proposed a classification, modified slightly by Ellerman (1940), that provided the foundation for systematic research of dipodids. Phylogenetic studies have supported much of this original classification, though the proposed relationships among the higher taxa have changed significantly. Pending further study, a single family is recognized here, but hypotheses supported by Stein (1990) and Shenbrot (1992) are incorporated at the subfamilial level.

Reviews of dipodid research and classification were contributed by Gambaryan et al. (1980), Heptner (1984), Klingener (1984), Shenbrot (1986, 1992), and Stein (1990). Cranial and dental characters were investigated by Vinogradov (1930). Comparative myology studied by Klingener (1964); facial myology by Gambaryan et al. (1980); myology of postcrania by Fokin (1971) and Stein (1990). Review of distribution and habitat of dipodids (excluding sicistines and zapodines) given by Kulik (1980). Chromosome numbers of members of each subfamily provided by Vorontsov (1969). Male genitalia studied by Vinogradov (1925) and Pavlinov and Shenbrot (1983). Comparative behavior and its taxonomic significance studied by Rogovin (1984). The distributions of species occuring in the former USSR, and taxonomic problems were verified and much enhanced by personal communication with G. I. Shenbrot; those of China were likewise greatly improved by the efforts of Lin Yonglie.

Carleton, M. D., and G. G. Musser. 1984. Muroid rodents. Pp. 289 - 379, in Orders and families of Recent mammals of the world (S. Anderson and J. K. Jones, Jr., eds.). John Wiley and Sons, New York, 686 pp.

Ellerman, J. R. 1940. The families and genera of living rodents. Vol. 1. Rodents other than Muridae. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, 689 pp.

Fokin, I. M. 1971. [Comparative anatomy of the muscles of the pelvic appendage of the genera Sicista and Salpingotus (on the position of the subfamily Cardiocraniinae in the system of the Dipodidae)]. Trudy Zoologicheskovo Instituta, Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Leningrad, 48: 181 - 197 (in Russian).

Gambaryan, P. P., E. G. Potapova, and I. M. Fokin. 1980. [Morphofunctional analysis of the myology of the jerboa head]. Trudy Zoologicheskovo Instituta, Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 91: 3 - 51 (in Russian).

Heptner, V. G. 1984. [Contributions to phylogeny and classification of jerboas (Dipodidae) of the fauna of the USSR]. Sbornik Trudov Zoologicheskovo Museya MGU, 22: 37 - 60 (in Russian).

Klingener, D. 1964. The comparative myology of four dipodoid rodents (genera Zapus, Napaeozapus, Sicista, and Jaculus). Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 124: 1 - 100.

Kulik, I. L. 1980. [Distribution and range types of jerboa (Dipodidae, Rodentia).] Pp. 152 - 167, in [Contemporary problems of zoogeography (A. G. Voronov and N. N. Drozdov, eds.)]. Nauka, Moscow, 323 pp. (in Russian).

Pavlinov, I. Ya., and G. I. Shenbrot. 1983. [Male genital structure and supraspecific taxonomy of Dipodidae.] Trudy Zoologicheskovo Instituta, Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Leningrad, 119: 67 - 88 (in Russian).

Rogovin, K. A. 1984. [A comparative analysis of behaviour and supergeneric groups of jerboas (Rodentia, Dipodidae).] Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 64 (11): 1702 - 1711 (in Russian).

Shenbrot, G. I. 1986. [Supergeric relationships of the jerboas (Rodentia, Dipodoidea).] Chetvertii Sezd Vsesoyuznovo Teriologicheske Obshchestva, Tezisy Dokladov, Moscow, 1: 106 - 107 (in Russian).

Shenbrot, G. I. 1992. [Cladistic approach to the analysis of phylogenetic relationships among dipodoid rodents (Rodentia, Dipodoidea)]. Sbornik Trudov Zoologicheskovo Muzeya MGU, 29: 176 - 201 (in Russian).

Stein, B. R. 1990. Limb myology and phylogenetic relationships in the superfamily Dipodoidea (birch mice, jumping mice, and jerboas). Zeitschrift fur Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 28: 299 - 314.

Vinogradov, B. S. 1925. On the structure of the external genitalia in Dipodidae and Zapodidae (Rodentia) as a classificatory character. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1925 (1): 572 - 585.

Vinogradov, B. S. 1930. [On the classification of Dipodidae (Rodentia). I. Cranial and dental characters.] Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1930: 331 - 350 (in Russian).

Vinogradov, B. S. 1937. Fauna SSSR; Mlekopitaiushchie, tom. 3, vyp. 4. Tushkanchiki. [Fauna of the USSR; Mammals, vol. 3, pt. 4. Jerboas.], 196 pp. (in Russian).

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Chordata

Class

Mammalia

Order

Rodentia

Family

Dipodidae