Oecomys Thomas 1906

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 : 1136

Oecomys Thomas 1906

Oecomys Thomas 1906 , Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, 18: 444.

Type Species: Rhipidomys benevolens Thomas 1901

Species and subspecies: 15 species:

Species Oecomys auyantepui Tate 1939

Species Oecomys bicolor (Tomes 1860)

Species Oecomys catherinae Thomas 1909

Species Oecomys cleberi Locks 1981

Species Oecomys concolor (Wagner 1845)

Species Oecomys flavicans ( Thomas 1894)

Species Oecomys mamorae Thomas 1906

Species Oecomys paricola (Thomas 1904)

Species Oecomys phaeotis (Thomas 1901)

Species Oecomys rex Thomas 1910

Species Oecomys roberti ( Thomas 1903)

Species Oecomys rutilus Anthony 1921

Species Oecomys speciosus (J. A. Allen and Chapman 1893)

Species Oecomys superans Thomas 1911

Species Oecomys trinitatis (J. A. Allen and Chapman 1893)

Discussion:

Oryzomyini . Diagnosed as a subgenus of Oryzomys to segregate arboreal, pencil-tailed sigmodontines with a long palate from Rhipidomys , under which many of the species included here were first described. Thereafter treated alternatively as a subgenus of Oryzomys ( Ellerman, 1941; Goldman, 1918) or as full genus ( Gyldenstolpe, 1932; Thomas, 1917c) until Hershkovitz's (1960) revision stabilized its ranking as a subgenus (e.g., Cabrera, 1961; Hall, 1981). Systematists have recently acknowledged the morphological and karyotypic distinctiveness of Oecomys at the generic level ( Andrades-Miranda et al., 2001b; Carleton and Musser, 1984; Gardner and Patton, 1976; Reig, 1984, 1986); species so far surveyed genetically are reciprocally monophyletic with other oryzomyine genera ( Smith and Patton, 1999; Weksler, 2003) but broader phylogenetic substantiation is desirable.

Revised by Hershkovitz (1960), who consolidated some 25 species (e.g., Ellerman, 1941; Gyldenstolpe, 1932) into just two, bicolor and concolor . Although this gross underestimation of specific diversity within Oecomys has been intimated by other authors (e.g., Gardner and Patton, 1976; Reig, 1986), it has yet to be documented within a full taxonomic revision. The species identified here mainly repeat those compiled by Musser and Carleton (1993), based on a (still) unfinished revision; while all of these will stand as valid, some, such as O. bicolor and O. trinitatis , are undoubtedly composites even now. Morphological and karyotypic comparisons of species in W Brazil ( Patton et al., 2000) and French Guiana (Voss et al., 2001) underscore the far greater local biodiversity that was masked by Hershkovitz’s (1960) interpretation and supply regional glimpses of the species richness within the Neotropical realm yet to be fully understood

.