Neotoma Say and Ord 1825
Creators: name: Wilson, Don E.
name: Reeder, DeeAnn
Publisher: name: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Year: 2005
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Rodentia
Cricetidae
Neotoma

description: 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.
description: Published as part of Wilson, Don E. & Reeder, DeeAnn, 2005, Order Rodentia - Family Cricetidae, pp. 955-1189 in Mammal Species of the World: a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3 rd Edition), Volume 2, Baltimore :The Johns Hopkins University Press on page 1053, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7316535