1,720,993 research outputs found
Fig. 8 in A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species
No full textFig. 8. Study skin of holotype of U. boeadii (AMNH 222242).Published as part of Groves, C. P. & Flannery, Tim F., 1994, A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species, pp. 145-169 in Records of the Australian Museum 46 (2) on page 158, DOI: 10.3853/j.0067-1975.46.1994.12, http://zenodo.org/record/465470
A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species
No full textGroves, 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): 145-169, DOI: 10.3853/j.0067-1975.46.1994.12, URL: https://journals.australian.museum/groves-and-flannery-1994-rec-aust-mus-462-145169
Uromys anak subsp. anak anak Thomas
No full textUromys anak anak Thomas, 1907 Revised diagnosis. Distinguished from other subspecies as follows: i) colour less dark than U. a. rothschildi; ii) body smaller; iii) tail longer; iv) hindfoot shorter. Notes. The nominotypical subspecies is widely distributed along the New Guinean Central Cordillera above about 1000 m, from Mount Dayman in the Owen Stanleys in the east to the upper Bubu River region in the west.Published as part of Groves, C. P. & Flannery, Tim F., 1994, A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species, pp. 145-169 in Records of the Australian Museum 46 (2) on page 155, DOI: 10.3853/j.0067-1975.46.1994.12, http://zenodo.org/record/465470
Uromys (Uromys) Peters 1867
No full textUromys (Uromys) Peters, 1867 Type species. Mus macropus Gray, 1866 (= Hapalotis caudimaculatus Krefft, 1867). Revised diagnosis. The species of Uromys (Uromys) can be distinguished from the species of Uromys (Cyromys) by possessing the following features: i) incisive foramina very shortened, narrow, slit-like; ii) molars simple and elongated, M3 greatly reduced in size; iii) bony palate greatly lengthened posteriorly; v) interdental ridges multiplied, with more than seven, and as many as 12 present; vi) anterior cingulum of MJ greatly reduced, obliterated on only moderately worn teeth; vii) cranial characters listed under U. (Cyromys) primitive in their states in U. (Uromys). The following additional features are also useful in identifying species of the subgenus U. (Uromys). The lingual marginal ridges of the molar alveoli are enlarged. There are no frontotemporal ridges, but laterally directed processes of varying size are present behind the sutures. The medial and anterior walls of the orbitotemporal fossa are vertical, as is the preorbital foramen. The posterior ends of the nasals are not broadened, the zygomatic arches swing down to the level of the molar alveoli, the nasals slightly protrude anterior of the premaxillae, the incisors are orthodont, the paroccipital processes are short (not descending lower than the inferior margin of the external auditory meatus), the ascending rami of the dentary do not flare laterally, the toothrows are comparatively well spaced.Published as part of Groves, C. P. & Flannery, Tim F., 1994, A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species, pp. 145-169 in Records of the Australian Museum 46 (2) on page 151, DOI: 10.3853/j.0067-1975.46.1994.12, http://zenodo.org/record/465470
Uromys anak subsp. albiventer Groves & Flannery 1994, n.subsp.
No full textUromys anak albiventer n.subsp. Figs 6, 7, Table 1 Type material. HOLOTYPE, CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Canberra no. CM.8532, adult male, skin and skull, from Uinba, Kubor Range, Papua New Guinea. Collected on 22 June 1963. Diagnosis. Distinguished from other subspecies as follows: i) coat more brown-toned; ii) venter much more broadly white, from throat to groin; iii) teeth smaller. Discussion. From Upper Bubu River region, as far west apparently as the Weyland Range. Of two specimens from Saiko, Bubu River, in the BM, one is entirely typical of this subspecies, while the other has the ventral white restricted as in nominotypical anak. In the Discriminant Analysis, both specimens fall with the present subspecies. To this subspecies belong a series of seven specimens (6 skins with skulls, 1 skull only) in the British Museum (Natural History), from the Kratke Mountains (Buntibasa, Kuraka, Apimuri) and east of the Hagen Range (Degabaga, Menebe). Certain other specimens may yet turn out to represent distinctive subspecies. These are from Lamende Range, near Mount Giluwe, and from Telefomin and Mount Elimbari. The Mount Giluwe specimen (BM 53.370) has the largest skull seen by us; the molars are however very small (molar row length 12.2 mm), and the tail is short (106% of head and body). The dorsal colouration is dark, and the venter has no white, being all grey; in these features it resembles U. a. rothschildi. The two Telefomin specimens are very small in size, but have large teeth. Five specimens from Mount Elimbari are also rather small in size, but have small teeth, and relatively long tails and ears. Only further material will allow us confidently to determine the nature of these variant populations.Published as part of Groves, C. P. & Flannery, Tim F., 1994, A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species, pp. 145-169 in Records of the Australian Museum 46 (2) on page 155, DOI: 10.3853/j.0067-1975.46.1994.12, http://zenodo.org/record/465470
Uromys (Cyromys) Thomas 1910
No full textUromys (Cyromys) Thomas, 1910 Type species. Mus imperator Thomas, 1888. Revised diagnosis. The species of Uromys (Cyromys) can be distinguished from species of U. (Uromys) by possessing the following features: i) molar rows relatively short, molars relatively broad; ii) M3 larger relative to other teeth; iii) anterior lophid of Ml distinct even in worn molars; iv) molars more complex, individual cusps more distinctly defined, with Ml retaining a well-developed fossa lingual to posterior cingulum; v) anterior and ventral orbital walls slope away from centre of orbitotemporal fossa, so that walls can be seen in dorsal view; vi) frontotemporal sutures markedly ridge-like; vii) coronal suture strongly convex or biconvex backwards; viii) preorbital foramen slopes backwards, so that inferior margin readily visible in dorsal view; ix) ascending ramus flares laterally; x) tail scales consist of small central prominence surrounded by large fleshy area. All of the dental features listed here are probably plesiomorphic for the species of Uromys and closely related genera (see discussion). However, the tail morphology is unique among near relatives and is presumably synapomorpbic for the subgenus. Additional useful diagnostic features for the subgenus are as follows. The rostrum is broad, and the incisive foramina are strongly bowed outward; although the temporal sutures are markedly ridge-like, there are no post-sutural processes. The nasals are posteriorly broadened, and the posterior part of the lateral walls of the rostrum are steep, nearly vertical and partially concealing the lachrymal in dorsal view. The zygomatic arches do not swing down to the level of the molar alveoli. The nasal tips are abbreviated and slightly downturned. The incisors are opisthodont. The paroccipital processes are long, their tips level with the inferior margins of the occipital condyles and the auditory bulla. The insertion scar of the M temporalis on the mandible is marked by a strong anterior ridge. Although U. (Cyromys) differs strongly from U. (Uromys), and a good case could be made for separating them generically, we prefer at least for the present to retain them in one genus in order to emphasise their sister-group status with respect to their closest relatives (Melomys, Solomys).Published as part of Groves, C. P. & Flannery, Tim F., 1994, A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species, pp. 145-169 in Records of the Australian Museum 46 (2) on page 149, DOI: 10.3853/j.0067-1975.46.1994.12, http://zenodo.org/record/465470
Uromys (Cyromys) imperator
No full textUromys (Cyromys) imperator (Thomas, 1888) Type material. HOLOTYPE, BM 88.1.5.33, adult female skin and skull collected at Aola, northern Guadakanal, Solomon Islands, by C.M. Woodford. Revised diagnosis. Uromys (Cyromys) imperator is the largest of the species of Cyromys. The pads of the feet are reduced in size relative to other Cyromys, and the molars relatively much broader. It is similar externally to u. rex, with its dark grey, somewhat woolly fur (as aptly described by Thomas, 1888), grading to white below, and its very short ears. In comparison with U. rex, however, the head and body is longer, and the tail shorter with smaller scales (9-11 per cm versus 7-9 per cm). The skull is characterised by a median posterior palatal spine; very square posterior nasals which end comparatively far forward, anterior to a line connecting the posterior ends of the lachrymals; a relatively vertical ascending ramus with a low, rounded coronoid process; and a small dentary ridge and tubercle. Discussion. Uromys imperator is still known with certainty only from the original three specimens collected by Charles Woodford at Aola on Guadalcanal in 1887. Woodford probably purchased the specimens from local hunters, and it is unlikely that they were collected far from the coast as Woodford (1890) mentions repeatedly the near impossibility of travelling far inland for fear of neighbouring tribes. A flat skin without a skull in the Australian Museum (AM M19739) may, however, also represent this species. Its tail scales are less rasp-like than the Museum's specimens of U. rex, and the size is considerably larger, although smaller than the previously known specimens of U. imperator. It was collected by a Captain G. Hart. Other specimens collected by Captain Hart in the Museum Collections are from Lavoro Plantation in far northern Guadalcanal, and were collected in August 1933. On balance, we think this likely to be U. rex because of the larger foot pads, but the difficulty of identification reinforces our conclusion that the two species are extremely close. Recently the remains of U. imperator have been found in archaeological deposits in northern Guadalcanal (Flannery & Roe, in preparation). Extensive questioning of the older people of Guadalcanal suggest that it may well be extinct, there having been few or no reliable sightings over the last 40 years, and also suggest that within living memory it was encountered only in montane mossy forest. This is surprising, considering that the archaeological deposits within which its remains have been found are now located in savannah areas near sea level, far distant from any mossy forest, and that Woodford's specimens probably came from near the coast. Because of its short tail and reduced pads on the feet, Thomas (1888) considered this species to be terrestrial. This hypothesis is strengthened both by information related to one of us (TFF) by older men who had seen it in their youth, and from an examination of the adult male in the Natural History Museum specimen (BM 1888.1.5.32) which has considerable amounts of clay and earth adhering to the claws, forepaws and muzzle, suggesting that it was dug from a burrow.Published as part of Groves, C. P. & Flannery, Tim F., 1994, A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species, pp. 145-169 in Records of the Australian Museum 46 (2) on pages 149-150, DOI: 10.3853/j.0067-1975.46.1994.12, http://zenodo.org/record/465470
Uromys caudimaculatus subsp. multiplicatus
No full textUromys caudimaculatus multiplicatus (Jentink, 1907) Synonyms. Uromys nero Thomas, 1913; U. scaphax Thomas, 1913;?u. waigeoensis Frechkop, 1932. Type material. HOLOTYPE, Leiden Museum (no number), collected at Sentani Lake (2037'S 141°30'E), Irian Jaya, by the Humboldt Bay Expedition on April 18, 1903. Revised diagnosis. Can be distinguished from other subspecies as follows: i) tail much shorter than head and body; ii) hindfoot short (18-22% of head and body); iii) size small as in U. c. papuanus (condylobasallength 57-64 mm; iv) head and body 273-310 mm, see Table 2); v) feet diffusely white above; vi) tail yellow under base with very little (maximum one third) of its length white above, very little or no mottling, tail scales in clear rings; vii) fur tends to be soft, thick, with grizzling due to yellow or red brown tips to hairs; viii) frontals flat; ix) bullae rounded. Discussion. There are differences between the type series of U. nero and the juvenile holotype of U. multiplicatus and others of this subspecies (those from the Setakwa and Mimika Rivers, Alkmaar and Bivak Island), the former being darker and of larger size. This may represent simple clinal changes with increasing altitude. The holotype of U. waigeoensis is described as being very large (head and body length 370 mm), but no other differences from the present subspecies seem apparent. Distribution. This subspecies is distributed throughout mainland Irian Jaya, possibly including Waigeo Island. Related taxa of uncertain status. Uromys siebersi Thomas, 1923, is from the Kei Islands. This poorly known taxon (known from two skins and a single skull) exhibits a mosaic of features that make it difficult to determine whether it should be placed with U. c. caudimaculatus or U. c. papuanus, or recognised as a distinct subspecies. On the basis of metrical characters it falls near the south-west New Guinean samples. On the basis of its pelage colouration, tail and skull morphology, however, it is very close to Aru Islands U. c. caudimaculatus, differing in that it is slightly smaller, the tail is slightly more mottled at the transition, and the frontals are less convex. In these features it resembles U. c. papuanus. Thus it is intermediate between these two subspecies. The single specimen known from Yapen Island (to the north of New Guinea) also somewhat resembles U. c. caudimaculatus from the Aru Islands on morphology, and falls within that subspecies on the basis of metrical characters. Because it is represented by only a single specimen, the allocation of the Yapen form must remain uncertain at present.Published as part of Groves, C. P. & Flannery, Tim F., 1994, A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species, pp. 145-169 in Records of the Australian Museum 46 (2) on pages 153-154, DOI: 10.3853/j.0067-1975.46.1994.12, http://zenodo.org/record/465470
Uromys (Cyromys) porculus
No full textUromys (Cyromys) porculus (Thomas, 1904) Type material. HOLOTYPE, adult male BM 89.4.3.8, collected at Aola, Guadalcanal, by C.M. Woodford. Revised diagnosis. Smaller than any other species of Uromys (Cyromys), and brown rather than grey above with fur not woolly in texture; also unique by virtue of its possession of grey based belly fur and in having a more finely scaled tail (13-14 scales per cm). The skull is longer and narrower than in U. rex, and the molars relatively narrower than in U. imperator. It differs additionally from U. rex, and resembles U. imperator, in its less prominent frontotemporal ridges and its subvertical ascending ramus, and from both U. rex and U. imperator in its more nearly parallel zygomatic arches and broad-arched nasofrontal suture. Discussion. Although the only known specimen was described in 1904, the date of registration (1889), and the fact that it was collected by Woodford at Aola, suggest that this specimen was probably collected at the same time as the original U. rex and U. imperator material or shortly thereafter. The very short tail of this species suggests that it may have been terrestrial. Questioning local people by one of us (TFF) reveals that today there is no clear local knowledge of this species, and it is probably extinct. If this is so, then evidently both terrestrial species of Guadalcanal Uromys are probably now extinct, while the only arboreal species survives. The only known skull of U. porculus has the molars so worn that few details of the crown remain. The soft palate is unknown. We assign it to Uromys (Cyromys), rather than to Solomys, for the following reasons. The anterolateral spur of the bulla is very large, as is typical of the species of Uromys, but not Solomys or Melomys. This enlargement of the anterolateral spur of the bulla appears to be synapomorphic of Uromys if any other of the Melanesian mosaic-tailed murid genera (Melomys, Solomys, Pogonomelomys) is taken as an outgroup. A second feature typical of the species of Uromys is that the bony palate extends to a level near the posterior end of M3. This is also a derived condition for Uromys, being unknown in other mosaic-tailed rats. Furthermore, the palate shows no sign of thickening or the development of a large post palatal spine as is seen in the species of Solomys. The skull is elongate and narrow (a common feature in Uromys). As U. porculus shows no derived features typical of other Melanesian murid genera, we are confident that we are correct in placing it within Uromys. The placement within Uromys (Cyromys) is somewhat more problematic; but it lacks all of the derived features for U. (Uromys), and possesses the apparently derived states of the orbitotemporal fossa, frontotemporal and coronal sutures, preorbital foramen and ascending ramus orientation which characterise U. (Cyromys). Also, the tail scales are widely spaced, mainly flat but slightly raised distally, rounded or bluntly pointed, and some have one to three longitudinal ridges. Within the subgenus it clearly retains primitive features in its external morphology and the morphology of the zygomatic arches and posterior nasals. Cladistically, it is the sister taxon to U. rex and U. imperator.Published as part of Groves, C. P. & Flannery, Tim F., 1994, A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species, pp. 145-169 in Records of the Australian Museum 46 (2) on pages 150-151, DOI: 10.3853/j.0067-1975.46.1994.12, http://zenodo.org/record/465470
- …
