Neotominae Merriam 1894

Wilson, Don E. & Reeder, DeeAnn, 2005, Order Rodentia - Family Cricetidae, Mammal Species of the World: a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3 rd Edition), Volume 2, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 955-1189 : 1048

Neotominae Merriam 1894

Neotominae Merriam 1894 , Proc. Philadelphia Acad. Sci, 1894: 228.

Synonyms: Neotomini Vorontsov 1959 ; Onychomyini Vorontsov 1959 ; Reithrodontomyini Vorontsov 1959 .

Genera: 16 genera with 124 species:

Genus Baiomys True 1893 (2 species)

Genus Habromys Hooper and Musser 1964 (6 species)

Genus Hodomys Merriam 1894 (1 species)

Genus Isthmomys Hooper and Musser 1964 (2 species)

Genus Megadontomys Merriam 1898 (3 species)

Genus Nelsonia Merriam 1897 (2 species)

Genus Neotoma Say and Ord 1825 (22 species)

Genus Neotomodon Merriam 1898 (1 species)

Genus Ochrotomys Osgood 1909 (1 species)

Genus Onychomys Baird 1857 (3 species)

Genus Osgoodomys Hooper and Musser 1964 (1 species)

Genus Peromyscus Gloger 1841 (56 species)

Genus Podomys Osgood 1909 (1 species)

Genus Reithrodontomys Giglioli 1874 (20 species)

Genus Scotinomys Thomas 1913 (2 species)

Genus Xenomys Merriam 1892 (1 species)

Discussion: Merriam’s (1894) definition of the subfamily included North American woodrats and certain South American fossils with high-crowned molars ( Ptyssophorus and Tretomys , now considered synonyms of Reithrodon by Pardiñas, 2000 a). Usage as a formal subfamily was observed (e.g., Miller and Rehn, 1901; Miller, 1912 b) until Miller and Gidley (1918) considered the genera to be members of a diverse Cricetinae , as did Ellerman (1940) and Simpson (1945). A broadened family-group concept reemerged in an informal way as the "neotomine-peromyscines" ( Hooper, 1960; Hooper and Musser, 1964 a; Carleton, 1980) and was eventually nomenclaturally recognized as distinct from sigmodontines, whether as a tribe ( Hershkovitz, 1966 b, as Peromyscini) or subfamily (Reig, 1980, 1981, as Neotominae ). Phylogenetic diagnosis and cladistic demonstration of neotomine monophyly remain ambiguous based on taxonomically broad surveys of morphological traits ( Carleton, 1973, 1980; Steppan, 1995; Voss and Linzey, 1981) or cytochrome b data (D’Elía et al., 2003), but not other mitochondrial genes ( Engel et al., 1998) or mitochondrial and nuclear genes in combination (D’Elía, 2003). Coupled with this uncertainty is that of the sister-group relationship between neotomines and sigmodontines (see D’Elía, 2000, for review), as assumed in evolutionary narratives (e.g., Hershkovitz, 1966 b; Marshall, 1979; Patterson and Pascual, 1972) and early interpretations of phylogeny ( Hooper and Musser, 1964 a). Other cognate possibilities, such as arvicolines and Old World cricetines, are variously implicated in phylogenetic studies of morphology ( Carleton, 1980), of DNA-DNA hybridization (Catzeflis et al., 1993), and of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences (D’Elía, 2003; D’Elía et al., 2003; Engel et al., 1998; Michaux et al., 2001 b).

The ancestry of extant neotomines has been loosely connected to Copemys ( Jacobs and Lindsay, 1984; Slaughter and Ubelaker, 1984), a middle Miocene-early Pliocene North American cricetid that has been variously invoked as progenitor of Peromyscus ( Lindsay, 1972) , Onychomys ( Jacobs, 1977 b) , and Bensonomys ( Baskin, 1978) . The morphological limits and specific contents of Copemys are poorly understood, however, and its evolutionary relationships and biogeographic origin have been subject to several, sometimes contradictory, interpretations (see commentary and references in Carleton and Musser [1984:306-308], Baskin [1986:296], and Korth [1994:231-232]). Examples of extant genera are known from the late Miocene ( Neotoma and Peromyscus ), and others appear in early Pliocene strata ( Baiomys , Onychomys , Reithrodontomys ) ( Carleton and Eshelman, 1979; Korth, 1994; Packard, 1960; Zakrewski, 1993).

Periodic synopses of systematic understanding and distributions provided by Miller and Rehn (1901), Miller (1924), Hall and Kelson (1959), and Hall (1981). Recent faunal treatises update and summarize, in varying detail, aspects of natural history, distribution, biogeography, and specific and-or infraspecific taxonomy: North America ( Baker et al., 2003 b; Jones et al., 1997; Wilson and Ruff, 1999) and the E USA ( Whitaker and Hamilton, 1998); Honduras ( Marineros and Gallegos, 1998) and Central America ( Reid, 1997); México ( Ceballos et al., 2002 a; Ramírez-Pulido et al., 1996), NW México (Alvarez-Castañeda and Cortés-Calva, 1999), and the states of Baja California ( Hafner and Riddle, 1997), Chiapas (Espinoza M. et al., 1999 a, b), Jalisco (Guerrero Vázquez et al., 1995), México (Ramírez-Pulido et al., 1995), Morelos (Alvarez-Castañeda, 1996; Alvarez et al. 1998), Sonora ( Caire, 1997), and Quintana Roo (Pozo de la Tijera and Escobedo Cabrera, 1999) .