Chionomys Miller, 1908
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7353098 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7282733 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D087AE-FFF3-FFBD-FF15-02E9FBA7FCE8 |
treatment provided by |
GgServerImporter |
scientific name |
Chionomys Miller, 1908 |
status |
|
Chionomys Miller, 1908 . Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 8, 1:97.
TYPE SPECIES: Arvicola nivalis Martins, 1842 .
COMMENTS: Tribe Arvicolini . Although described as a genus, Miller (1912a) later employed Chionomys as a subgenus, a status which became entrenched in the literature ( Corbet, 1978c, Krapp, 1982a) with rare dissenters (e.g., Gromov and Polyakov, 1977; Lehmann, 1969). Recent analyses reveal that Chionomys is not part of the monophyletic group containing Microtus ( Chaline and Graf, 1988; Graf, 1982; Nadachowski, 1990«; Pavlinov and Rossolimo, 1987; Zagorodnyuk, 1990). Van der Meulen (1978) considered Suranontys to be a junior synonym of Chionontys, but the type species of Suranontys (= Microtus malei ) is regarded as a Microtus related to the oeconomus group, not to Chionontys (see Nadachowski, 1990«). New World Microtus longicaudus was referred to Chionontys by Anderson (1960), but a variety of data sources allies the former with Microtus proper ( Chaline and Graf, 1988; Graf, 1982). Discussing the origin and phylogeny of Chionontys, Nadachowski (1990«, 1991) suggested that two branches developed in Europe, one leading to C. nivalis , the other to C. roberti and C. gud . All three species are sympatric in the Caucasus (Nadachowski, 1990«). Karyotypic variation among the three species is reported by Sablina (1988) and Zima and Krâl (1984a).
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.