Oecomys, Thomas, 1906
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4876.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:190EC586-E14B-4AEF-A5EF-3DA401656159 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4566721 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A587ED-3208-FFED-83E9-F92C28A0FDA6 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Oecomys |
status |
|
Oecomys sp. 1
Karyotype: 2n = 54 and FN = 84. Autosomal complement: 16 biarmed pairs large to small decreasing in size, and 10 acrocentric pairs medium to small decreasing in size. Sex chromosomes: X, a large acrocentric; Y, a medium submetacentric ( Fig. 14A View FIGURE 14 ). C-banding metaphases exhibited blocks of constitutive heterochromatin on the pericentromeric region of the majority of autosomal pairs. One medium submetacentric pair presented a pericentromeric heterochromatin block that extend to the short arm and one small acrocentric pair presented an interstitial C-band on its long arm. The X chromosome presented a conspicuous pericentromeric heterochromatic block and an interstitial lightly stained C-band on its long arm. The Y chromosome was almost entirely heterochromatic ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ). Gbanding was performed to allow the correct identification of all homologous pairs ( Fig. 14C View FIGURE 14 ). FISH with telomeric sequences revealed signals exclusively at the ends of all chromosome arms and no interstitial signals were observed ( Fig. 14D View FIGURE 14 ). We compare the karyotype of Oecomys sp. 1 (2n = 54, FN = 84) with O. rutilus (2n = 54, FN = 90) from Rio Negro, Amazonas state of Brazil. These two complements differ mainly by the presence of three medium to small acrocentric pairs in Oecomys sp. 1, instead of three biarm pairs in O. rutilus , and by the morphology of X chromosome. Also, the karyotype of Oecomys sp. 1 presents more conspicuous heterochromatic C-band than O. rutilus . The G-band patterns between the two karyotype were equally distinct. Based on these comparative analyses, we suggested that the species mentioned here as Oecomys sp. 1 was distinctly from O. rutilus . In addition, the same diploid and fundamental number of Oecomys sp. 1 was mentioned by Gomes-Júnior et al. (2016) (unpublished data from T. Lira). However, as these authors provided no additional information, a more thorough comparison was not possible. Nevertheless, as the karyotype mentioned by Gomes-Júnior et al. (2016) were from populations from Rio Cuieiras, Amazonas state of Brazil, it was likely that they may belong to the same species.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.