Leopardus guttulus ( Hensel, 1872 )

Nascimento, Fabio Oliveira do & Feijó, Anderson, 2017, Taxonomic revision of the tigrina Leopardus tigrinus (Schreber, 1775) species group (Carnivora, Felidae), Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 57 (19), pp. 231-264 : 248-251

Leopardus guttulus ( Hensel, 1872)

Southern tigrina

Felis guttula Hensel, 1872:73 . Type locality “ Urwald von Rio Grande do Sul ” (Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil).

Felis guigna : Hensel, 1872:74 (part) (non Felis guigna Molina, 1782 ).

Felis guttata : Lydekker, 1896:145; typographical error of Felis guttula (non Felis guttata Hermann, 1804 ).

Felis (Oncoides) tigrina guttula : Trouessart, 1897:359 (name combination).

Felis (Oncoides) mitis : Lahille, 1899:178 (non Felis mitis F. Cuvier, 1820 ).

Felis pardinoides : Thomas, 1903:236 (non Felis pardinoides Gray, 1867a ).

Oncilla pardinoides pardinoides : Allen, 1919:358 (non Felis pardinoides Gray, 1867a ).

Oncilla guttula guttula : Allen, 1919:360 (name combination).

Felis (Leopardus) tigrina guttula : Cabrera, 1958:286 (name combination).

Type locality: “Urwald von Rio Grande do Sul ” ( Hensel, 1872:74) [= Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil ( Cabrera, 1958, 1961; Nascimento, 2010)]. Unfortunately Hensel did not give a more precise locality where the specimens were collected. However, according to information about the places visited by Hensel in the state of Rio Grande do Sul between 1863 and 1865 ( Hensel, 1867; Buckup, 1999), the specimens were probably collected somewhere in the northeastern part of this Brazilian state.

Type material: Two skulls deposited in the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany, under the numbers ZMB-MAM21229 and ZMB-MAM21231 ( Figs. 14 and 15 ). Hensel pointed these two specimens in his description, but their collection numbers were not indicated in the text and, more importantly, he did not indicate which specimen is the holotype. Thus, the two specimens are considered syntypes of L. guttulus . The specimen ZMB-MAM21229 is a male and the other, ZMB-MAM21231, was identified as a female by Hensel presumably due to the smaller overall size, to relatively smaller canines, and more delicate structures of the skull ( Hensel, 1872). In addition, he described the pelage of the species, but he does not indicate whether this description is based on one of two specimens, a combination of the two specimens or another unknown individual. Nevertheless, only the two skulls mentioned above are recorded as types of the species in the ZBM .

Diagnosis: Small sized; fur relatively harsh; ground color dark yellowish brown to ochraceous buff, lighter on the sides of the body; venter white or very light gray; small dark rosettes on the body sides with thick and continuous black rims, rarely coalescing into small-sized oblique bands.

Body measurements: See Morphogroup III in Table 2.

Geographic distribution: L. guttulus is found in Brazil (southeast, south and center-west regions), northeastern Argentina and Paraguay ( Fig. 16 ). It has a contact zone with L. geoffroyi in the Central Depression region in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, where hybrid specimens were found and they showed pelage pattern with intermediate characteristics between these two species ( Eizirik et al., 2006; Trigo et al., 2008, 2013). Possibly the Chaco in northern Argentina could be the contact zone between L. tigrinus and L. guttulus .

Variation: L. guttulus does not show sexual dimorphism for external characters, and the overall ground color varies from dark yellowish brown to ochraceous buff, with the sides of the body usually lighter towards the venter, which is white or light gray colored ( Fig. 17 ). Regarding to the rosettes on the sides of the body, they usually do not coalesce to form small or medium-sized oblique bands. Melanistic individuals are known for L. guttulus .

Taxonomic notes: As mentioned above, Hensel (1872) described Felis guttula to southern Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul state), which subsequently it was recognized as a subspecies of L. tigrinus . Furthermore, in the same work, Hensel described a skull also collected in the state of Rio Grande do Sul and identified it as Felis guigna Molina, 1782 . Thomas (1903) received specimens from “Roca Nova” [= Roça Nova, municipality of Piraquara], Paraná, Brazil, collected by A. Robert and then requested to Paul Matschie, former mammal curator of Berlin Zoological Museum (nowadays Museum für Naturkunde), to compare three skulls with the material of Hensel. One of skulls was identified as Felis macroura (= Leopardus wiedii ), another (a male) as indistinct of F. guttula Hensel, 1872 , and the other as F. guigna Hensel, 1872 (not F. guina Molina, 1782 ). However, Thomas did not agree with him and based on the type locality of Felis guigna Molina, 1782 , which is Valdivia, Chile, on the western side of the Andes, and from the comparison between the skull of the specimen from Paraná and the skull of the type of F. pardinoides , he concluded that F. guigna Hensel, 1872 is a junior synonym of F. pardinoides Gray, 1867a ( Thomas, 1903; Pocock, 1917). Strangely, Thomas (1903) designated a new locality for F. pardinoides , “Espiritu Santo” (= Espírito Santo), and as Allen (1919:358) quoted: “No reference is made [by Thomas] to Gray’s previous designation [in Gray, 1874] of Bogotá as the type locality of his Felis pardinoides ” (see L. tigrinus ’ Taxonomic Notes for more details). Also Pocock (1917) did not made reference to Gray’s article when he revised the specimens analysed by Thomas (1903) [either both Thomas and Pocock were unaware about this article (something unlikely) or they rejected Gray’s latter decision].

In short, Thomas (1903) recognized two species from Roça Nova, a larger one, F. guttula , and a smaller, F. pardinoides , but Pocock (1917) disagreed and re-examined the specimens, concluding that F. pardinoides and F. guttula recognized by Thomas (1903) are actually a female (melanistic individual) and a male (spotted specimen), respectively, of the same species. Furthermore, Pocock (1917) pointed out that a second male from the same locality had little difference in the characters of the skull and the pelage in comparison to other male. Thus, the name F. pardinoides Thomas, 1903 , besides it was preoccupied by F. pardinoides Gray, 1867a , is a junior synonym of F. guttula ( Hensel, 1872) .

Figures

FIGURE 14: The skull of one of the syntypes of L. guttulus (Hensel, 1872), the specimen ZMB-MAM21231 (female?). Bar = 20 mm. Photo: Carola Radke (Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany). For color figure, see online version.

FIGURE 15: The skull of one of the syntypes of L. guttulus (Hensel, 1872), the specimen ZMB-MAM21229 (male). Bar = 20 mm. Photo: Carola Radke (Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany). For color figure, see online version.

FIGURE 16: Geographic distribution of the specimens of L. guttulus studied. Numbers correspond to collection localities listed in the gazetteer (see Appendix II) and the question mark refers to the type locality, which does not have a precise location [Hensel (1872) only cited “Rio Grande do Sul” as the type locality]. For color figure, see online version.

FIGURE 17: Pattern of coloration and markings in L. guttulus: (A): MZUSP24234 (Dourado, São Paulo, Brazil); (B): MNRJ6693 (São Francisco, Jacarépaguá, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); (C): MNRJ3889 (Santa Teresa, Espírito Santo, Brazil). Bar = 100 mm. For color figure, see online version.