Ochotona hyperborea cinereofusca ( Schrenk, 1858 )

Lissovsky, Andrey A., Obolenskaya, Ekaterina V., Dokuchaev, Nikolai E. & Okhlopkov, Innokentiy M., 2021, Intraspecific variation and taxonomy of northern pika Ochotona hyperborea (Mammalia, Lagomorpha), Journal of Mammalogy 102 (1), pp. 28-53 : 38

Ochotona hyperborea cinereofusca ( Schrenk, 1858)

Ochotona svatoshi Turov, 1924

Ochotona hyperborea davanica Sokolov et al. 1994 Ochotona hyperborea stenorostrae Sokolov et al. 1994 )

Neotype (designated herein, see below [Nomenclatural notes] for the rationale for designation of a neotype, as per Art. 75 of the ICZN [1999]).— ZMMU S-175370, adult female, skull (Supplementary Data SD9). Collected by A. A. Lissovsky and S. V. Kruskop 8 April 2003. Right lower jaw is broken. The specimen identification ( O. hyperborea versus O. mantchurica ) was carried out on the basis of morphology and bioacoustics ( Lissovsky 2005; Lissovsky et al. 2008).

Type locality.— Russia, Zabaykalskiy Territory, left bank of Shilka River , 18 km below the mouth of the Dzheltuga River, 158 km above the mouth of the Shilka River ; 53.421°N, 119.871°E.

Description.— Pikas of the C genetic lineage; southern acoustic race. Specimens of O. h. cinereofusca can be distinguished from O. h. cinereoflava on the basis of genetic traits only. Differences with another spatial neighbor O. h. fedoseevi include the shape of the frequency modulation curve of alarm call ( Fig. 6 ).

Distribution.— Wide range from the Sayan and Khangai Mountains, Tannu-Ola Range in Tuva to the North Baikal Plateau in the north, and Khentiyn Nuruu, as well as mountains along the left bank of Shilka River in the east. Although O. h. cinereofusca seems to be separated from other subspecies by unsuitable habitats (Supplementary Data SD6 and SD7), there are two zones of introgression of O. h. cinereofusca genes into other subspecies. One of them, in Tukuringra Range, involves O. h. fedoseevi ssp. n. The second, in Aldan Plateau, involves O. h. cinereoflava.

Nomenclatural notes.— The name cinereofusca was not used stably during the 20th century. Different authors have applied this name to different pikas of the Manchurian region. Leaving aside the problem of incorrect taxonomic identification of pikas from this region ( Lissovsky et al. 2008; Formozov and Baklushinskaya 2011), the majority of authors have applied the name cinereofusca to O. mantchurica , mainly as “ O. alpina cinereofusca ” ( Kuznetsov 1929; Ognev 1940; Feng and Zheng 1985; Smith et al. 1990; Hoffmann and Smith 2005). Yakhontov and Formozov (1992) proposed using this name for O. hyperborea . Sokolov et al. (1994) did not use this name at all, although they placed it in the list of synonyms of O. alpina (considering O. mantchurica ) and stated that the name belongs to O. hyperborea .

The nominal taxon Lagomys hyperboreus var. cinereofusca was described by L. Schrenk on the basis of two specimens collected by R. Maak in the “ Amur River.” The specimens were lost before S. Ognev (1940) wrote his revision. Published dates of the collected specimens allowed several authors (Yakhontov and Formozov 1992; Lissovsky et al. 2008; Formozov and Baklushinskaya 2011) to find exact localities where the specimens were collected. On the first day, 18 May, Maak collected a specimen in a site near the mouth of Tontokoy Spring (53.194°N, 119.419°E); the fact of collecting a pika is mentioned in the report ( Maak 1859). The second day, 20 May, Maak landed at a meadow near the lower Anikino River (53.444°N, 120.287°E) and near the mouth of the Grishkina River (53.479°N, 120.760°E); no information about pikas was recorded for this day. All three sites are located on the left bank of the Shilka River. Lissovsky explored pika settlements along the entire length of Shilka River and found that the river separates O. hyperborea and O. mantchurica ( Lissovsky et al. 2008) . Northern pikas sparsely inhabit only the left bank, while the Manchurian pikas live on the right bank only. Lissovsky explored all three places that comprise the terra typica of O. h. cinereofusca (Tontokoy, Anikino, and Grishkina) and did not find pikas in any area. The meadow near the lower Anikino River has good taluses suitable for pikas, while stony habitats near the Tontokoy Spring and near mouth of the Grishkina River were found unsuitable for pikas at the moment of observation. It is highly likely that the stones were covered by vegetation during the last 150 years and abandoned by pikas. During the expeditions along the Shilka, one specimen (ZMMU S-175370) was collected between Tontokoy and Anikino.

Several years later, Formozov and Baklushinskaya (2011) designated the lost specimen collected by R. Maak near the mouth of Tontokoy Spring, as a lectotype, acting under the Art. 74.4 (ICZN 1999). The conclusion of this publication includes the statement that allocation of the name O. h. cinereofusca to O. hyperborea or O. mantchurica cannot be considered as definitively solved because pikas from the terra typica (Tontokoy Spring at the moment) had not yet been studied.

Such a detailed explanation is necessary because the taxonomic allocation of the nominal taxon Lagomys hyperboreus var. cinereofusca is crucial for the arrangement of pika names under discussion. The name cinereofusca was described long before the name mantchurica . Thus, if the name belongs to O. mantchurica , the latter species and the subspecies of O. hyperborea under discussion will be renamed. Until there is some probability of allocating cinereofusca to O. mantchurica , the nomenclature of the two species remains unstable. The nomenclatural action of Formozov and Baklushinskaya destabilize the situation because it deprives us of a chance to analyze material from the terra typica (because there is no more available habitat for pikas in this location). The lectotype (and paralectotype) of the nominal taxon Lagomys hyperboreus var. cinereofusca was collected on the border of the distribution of two pika species; this lectotype (and the paralectotype) was lost many years ago, while the type specimen is urgently needed to identify taxonomic allocation of the name-bearer; hence, we designate a neotype here. The neotype is selected among the specimens collected as close as possible to the localities collected by Maak. This action should resolve the use of unstable names of two species of pikas from Amur region.

Figures

Fig. 6.—Distribution of alarm calls of Ochotona hyperborea in the space of principal components (PCs) of parameters of the shape of the frequency modulation curve. Each call is marked by the identifier of Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 lineage. A representative sonogram of each acoustic race is shown.