Uromys caudimaculatus papuanus (Ramsay, 1883)

Groves, C. P. & Flannery, Tim F., 1994, A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species, Records of the Australian Museum 46 (2), pp. 145-169 : 153

Uromys caudimaculatus papuanus (Ramsay, 1883)

(not preoccupied by papuanus von Meyer, 1876, a nomen nudum)

Synonyms. Uromys prolixus Thomas,1913 1913 ;U. TODO ductor Thomas, 1913 ; U lamington Troughton,1937 1937 .

Type material. HOLOTYPE. A search of the collections of the Australian and Macleay Museums, Sydney has failed to reveal the existence of this specimen, and we suspect that it has been lost. The type locality is given as Port Moresby or the lower slopes of the Astrolabe Range.

Revised diagnosis. Distinguished from other subspecies as follows; i) hindfoot long (21-24% ofhead and body length); ii) tail averaging longer (110-135% of head and body length); iii) size small (condylobasal length 56-64 mm; head and body length 250-288 mm, see Table 1 ); iv) feet buffy or brown; v) tail (which is partly white for over half of its length) strongly mottled with brown coalescing spots on its terminal portion, and scales not arranged in such clear rings; vi) underside creamy, smudged in grey; vii) frontals flat; viii) bulla more rounded.

Discussion. The Discriminant Analysis ( Fig. 4 ) reveals considerable diversity within this subspecies, but it is difficult to see how it could be split up with two exceptions: i) Yapsiei (two specimens): in the Discriminant Analysis, these specimens resemble nominotypical U. c. caudimaculatus . Univariate analysis reveals that the hindfoot is relatively long (24-25% of head and body length) and the ear markedly so in one of the specimens (44 and 58% of condylobasal length in the two specimens); ii) Mount Karimui (two specimens): these are distinguished from all other samples in the Discriminant Analysis. Univariate analysis reveals a small body size (mean condylobasal length 54.6 mm, head and body 232.5 mm).

We feel that either of these populations may eventually be shown to be distinct, but given the small sample size it would be rash to recognise them as such at present.

Distribution. This subspecies is distributed throughout the mainland of Papua New Guinea, except for the trans-Fly plains and the Gulf of Papua, where it is replaced by the nominate race.

Figures

Fig. 4. Discriminant analysis of U. caudimaculatus and U. emmae. The numbers refer to groupings as follows: 1 Hagen region, 2 = Mount Karimui, 3 south-east Papua, 4 = Mount Sisa, 6 = Australian mainland, 7 Dobodura, 8 Alkmaar region, 9 = Hinchinbrook Island, 10 = Utakwa River, 11 = Setakwa River. Individual specimens from Yapen (5), Yapsiei (12), Mimika (13), Kaimari (14), Aru Island (15), Telefomin (16), Torricellis (17), Mount Erimbari (18) and Weyland Range (19), fitted in after the calculation of the Functions, are plotted separately, as is the type of U. emmae (20). That U. emmae, despite being fitted into a pre-calculated analysis, fell outside the dispersion of any U. caudimaculatus sample, is highly significant.