Microcavia australis (I. Geoffroy and d'Orbigny, 1833)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.6620/ZS.2017.56-29 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B6A61F-FF89-C60D-FCE5-0DBDFA99FE6D |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Microcavia australis |
status |
|
Microcavia australis View in CoL (I. Geoffroy and d’Orbigny,
1833)
( Figs. 3-6 View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig )
C [avia]. australis I. Geoffroy and d’Orbigny, 1833:1 .
Kerodon Kingii Bennett, 1836:190 View in CoL [type locality “apud Portum Desire dictum, ad Patagoniae littus orientale” (= Puerto Deseado, Santa Cruz, Argentina)].
Caviella australis nigriana Thomas, 1921:446 [type locality “ Neuquen, R. Negro” (= Neuquén, Argentina).
Type locality: “sur les bords du Rio Negro, vers le Quarante- unième degré,” restricted to “on the Lower Rio Negro,” Río Negro, Argentina ( Thomas 1929:44).
Emended morphological diagnosis: A medium-size species of Microcavia (length of head and body ca. 188 mm, condylo-incisive length ca. 40 mm) characterized by the following combinations of characters: dorsal coloration brownish to olive brown, with gray to yellowish gray underparts; skull strongly built, wide and relatively short; dorsal profile bowed to strongly bowed; nasals narrow anteriorlyt; zygomatic arches widely expanded and rounded; inferior process of the jugal posteriorly extended to the level of the posterior border of the glenoid fossa; suture between palatines occupied by a triangular to more or less heart-shaped palatal crista; rounded to acute posterior palatal edges, large sphenopalatine vacuities and relatively narrow presphenoids; incisors orthodont to proodont and usually visible from above.
Distribution: M. australis is found in Argentina from highland areas (> 2000 m a.s.l.) of Mendoza province in the west and southern Buenos Aires province in the east, south to Santa Cruz province and adjoining parts of southern Chile ( Dunnum 2015; Udrizar Sauthier et al. 2016). Populations from high mountain areas of San Juan Province could also correspond to M. australis , at least judging by their small size and skull morphology (q.v., Taraborelli et al. 2007).
Taxonomic remarks: No trend in size or morphologic variation was detected throughout the extensive distribution of M. australis s.s. We found not evidence indicating that southern Patagonian populations are different, as has been suggested by the taxonomic scheme of Thomas (1921); therefore, no subspecies are recognized.
R |
Departamento de Geologia, Universidad de Chile |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.