Neotoma Say and Ord 1825

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 : 1053

Neotoma Say and Ord 1825

Neotoma Say and Ord 1825 , J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 4: 345.

Type Species: Mus floridana Ord 1818

Synonyms: Homodontomys Goldman 1910 ; Parahodomys Gidley and Gazin 1933 ; Parneotoma Hibbard 1967 .

Species and subspecies: 22 species in 3 subgenera:

Subgenus Neotoma (Neotoma) Say and Ord 1825

Subgenus Neotoma (Teonoma) Gray 1843

Subgenus Neotoma (Teanopus) Merriam 1903

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) albigula Hartley 1894

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) angustapalata Baker 1951

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) anthonyi J. A. Allen 1898

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) bryanti Merriam 1887

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) bunkeri Burt 1932

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) chrysomelas J. A. Allen 1908

Species Neotoma (Teonoma) cinerea (Ord 1815)

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) devia Goldman 1927

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) floridana (Ord 1818)

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) fuscipes Baird 1857

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) goldmani Merriam 1903

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) lepida Thomas 1893

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) leucodon Merriam 1894

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) macrotis Thomas 1893

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) magister Baird 1857

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) martinensis Goldman 1905

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) mexicana Baird 1855

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) micropus Baird 1855

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) nelsoni Goldman 1905

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) palatina Goldman 1905

Species Neotoma (Teanopus) phenax Merriam 1903

Species Neotoma (Neotoma) stephensi Goldman 1905

Discussion:

Neotomini. Phylogenetic relationships of the genus considered by Hooper and Musser (1964 a), Carleton (1980), and Edwards and Bradley (2002 b). Anatomical systems described by Arata (1964), Burt and Barkalow (1942), Carleton (1973, 1980), Hooper (1960), and Howell (1926); fossil taxa (Miocene-Recent) and trends in dental evolution reviewed by Zakrewski (1993). Karyotypic variation and evolution assessed by Mascarello and Hsu (1976) and Koop et al. (1985); multispecific surveys of molecular variation and its systematic implications covered by Planz et al. (1996), Edwards and Bradley (2001, 2002 a, b), and Edwards et al. (2001), especially for temperate forms.

Revised by Goldman (1910), then including only Homodontomys , Teonoma , and the nominate subgenus. Burt and Barkalow (1942) established the prevailing subgeneric framework (e.g., Hall, 1981), also relegating Hodomys and Teanopus to subgenera. Carleton (1973, 1980) reinstated Hodomys as a genus (see above account), an action supported by phylogenetic analysis of cytochrome b sequences ( Edwards and Bradley, 2002 b). Traditional species groups within the subgenus Neotoma (e.g., Burt and Barkalow, 1942; Goldman, 1910) are undergoing critical reassessment; see Birney (1976), Mascarello (1978), Planz et al. (1996), Edwards et al. (2001), and Edwards and Bradley (2002 a, b) for evolving views on interspecific affinities

.