Sigmodontinae Wagner 1843
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

description: Sigmodontinae Wagner 1843
Sigmodontinae Wagner 1843, in: Schreber, Die Saugethiere, Suppl., 3: 398.
Synonyms: Akodontini Vorontsov 1959; Hesperomyinae Murray 1866; Hesperomyes Winge 1887; Hesperomyidae Ameghino 1889; Hesperomyini Simpson 1945; Ichthyomyini Vorontsov 1959; Oryzomyini Vorontsov 1959; Phyllotiini Vorontsov 1959; Phyllotini Reig 1980; Reithrodonini Vorontsov 1959; Reithrodontini Reig 1980; Reithrodontina Steppan 1995; Scapteromyini Massoia 1979; Sigmodontes Wagner 1843; Sigmodonini Vorontsov 1959; Sigmodontini Hershkovitz 1966; Thomasomyini Steadman and Ray 1982; Wiedomyini Reig 1980; Zygodontomyini Eisenberg 1989.
Genera: 74 genera with 377 species:
Genus Abrawayaomys Souza Cunha and Cruz 1979 (1 species)
Genus Abrothrix Waterhouse 1837 (9 species)
Genus Aepeomys Thomas 1898 (2 species)
Genus Akodon Meyen 1833 (41 species)
Genus Amphinectomys Malygin 1994 (1 species)
Genus Andalgalomys Williams and Mares 1978 (3 species)
Genus Andinomys Thomas 1902 (1 species)
Genus Anotomys Thomas 1906 (1 species)
Genus Auliscomys Osgood 1915 (3 species)
Genus Bibimys Massoia 1979 (3 species)
Genus Blarinomys Thomas 1896 (1 species)
Genus Brucepattersonius Hershkovitz 1998 (8 species)
Genus Calomys Waterhouse 1837 (12 species)
Genus Chelemys Thomas 1903 (3 species)
Genus Chibchanomys Voss 1988 (2 species)
Genus Chilomys Thomas 1897 (1 species)
Genus Chinchillula Thomas 1898 (1 species)
Genus Delomys Thomas 1917 (3 species)
Genus Deltamys Thomas 1917 (1 species)
Genus Eligmodontia F. Cuvier 1837 (4 species)
Genus Euneomys Coues 1874 (4 species)
Genus Galenomys Thomas 1916 (1 species)
Genus Geoxus Thomas 1919 (1 species)
Genus Graomys Thomas 1916 (4 species)
Genus Handleyomys Voss, Gómez-Laverde, and Pacheco 2002 (2 species)
Genus Holochilus Brandt 1835 (3 species)
Genus Ichthyomys Thomas 1893 (4 species)
Genus Irenomys Thomas 1919 (1 species)
Genus Juliomys González 2000 (2 species)
Genus Juscelinomys Moojen 1965 (3 species)
Genus Kunsia Hershkovitz 1966 (2 species)
Genus Lenoxus Thomas 1909 (1 species)
Genus Loxodontomys Osgood 1947 (2 species)
Genus Lundomys Voss and Carleton 1993 (1 species)
Genus Megalomys Trouessart 1881 (2 species)
Genus Megaoryzomys Lenglet and Coppois 1979 (1 species)
Genus Melanomys Thomas 1902 (3 species)
Genus Microakodontomys Hershkovitz 1993 (1 species)
Genus Microryzomys Thomas 1917 (2 species)
Genus Neacomys Thomas 1900 (8 species)
Genus Necromys Ameghino 1889 (9 species)
Genus Nectomys Peters 1860 (5 species)
Genus Neotomys Thomas 1894 (1 species)
Genus Nesoryzomys Heller 1904 (4 species)
Genus Neusticomys Anthony 1921 (5 species)
Genus Noronhomys Carleton and Olson 1999 (1 species)
Genus Notiomys Thomas 1890 (1 species)
Genus Oecomys Thomas 1906 (15 species)
Genus Oligoryzomys Bangs 1900 (18 species)
Genus Oryzomys Baird 1857 (43 species)
Genus Oxymycterus Waterhouse 1837 (16 species)
Genus Paralomys Thomas 1926 (1 species)
Genus Pearsonomys Patterson 1992 (1 species)
Genus Phaenomys Thomas 1917 (1 species)
Genus Phyllotis Waterhouse 1837 (13 species)
Genus Podoxymys Anthony 1929 (1 species)
Genus Pseudoryzomys Hershkovitz 1962 (1 species)
Genus Punomys Osgood 1943 (2 species)
Genus Reithrodon Waterhouse 1837 (2 species)
Genus Rhagomys Thomas 1917 (2 species)
Genus Rheomys Thomas 1906 (4 species)
Genus Rhipidomys Tschudi 1845 (17 species)
Genus Salinomys Braun and Mares 1995 (1 species)
Genus Scapteromys Waterhouse 1837 (2 species)
Genus Scolomys Anthony 1924 (2 species)
Genus Sigmodon Say and Ord 1825 (14 species)
Genus Sigmodontomys J. A. Allen 1897 (2 species)
Genus Tapecomys Anderson and Yates 2000 (1 species)
Genus Thalpomys Thomas 1916 (2 species)
Genus Thaptomys Thomas 1916 (1 species)
Genus Thomasomys Coues 1884 (36 species)
Genus Wiedomys Hershkovitz 1959 (1 species)
Genus Wilfredomys Avila-Pires 1960 (1 species)
Genus Zygodontomys J. A. Allen 1897 (2 species)
Discussion: Priority of family-group name Sigmodontinae, dating from Sigmodontes Wagner, 1843, established by Hershkovitz (1966 c) and Reig (1980). Taxonomic and nomenclatural histories of many forms compiled by Tate (1932 a-h). Comprehensive and influential alpha-level classifications presented by Gyldenstolpe (1932), Ellerman (1941), and Cabrera (1961). The studies of Carleton (1980), Gardner and Patton (1976), Hershkovitz (1962, 1966 b, c), Hooper and Musser (1964), and Reig (1980, 1981, 1984, 1987) contain information on higher-level relationships and classificatory arrangements. For critical overviews of phylogenetic and biogeographic issues, see Hershkovitz (1966 b, 1972), Reig (1981, 1984, 1986), D’Elía (2000, 2003), and Pardiñas et al. (2002). Also see commentaries for Neotominae and Tylomyinae, whose genera were formerly arranged within Sigmodontinae, with or without indication of tribal distinction (Carleton and Musser, 1984; McKenna and Bell, 1997; Musser and Carleton, 1993).
For a paleontological background, see Baskin (1978, 1986), Jacobs and Lindsay (1984), Marshall (1979), Reig (1978, 1984), Pardiñas (1999), Pardiñas et al. (2002), Slaughter and Ubelaker (1984), and Simpson (1980). Especially see Pardiñas (1995, 2000 a) for redeterminations of Ameghino’s (1889) many descriptions from Pliocene and Pleistocene beds in Argentina, and Pardiñas et al. (2002) for an encyclopedic review of South American fossil taxa and their bearing on the current systematics and biogeographic history of Sigmodontinae. Within South America, earliest known examples of living genera (Auliscomys, Necromys, and possibly Reithrodon) date from the early Pliocene (Montehermosan Formation), and by the late Pliocene, a greater diversity of genera, living and extinct (Abrothrix, Akodon, Cholomys, Dankomys, Graomys, Panchomys, Scapteromys, Wiedomys), has been recorded (Reig, 1978, 1981, 1994; Pardiñas, 1997, 2000 a; Pardiñas and Tonni, 1998; Quintana, 2002). By Pleistocene times, many fossils of living genera and species are known, mainly from deposits in Argentina and Brazil (Pardiñas, 1999, 2000 a; Pardiñas et al., 2002). A late Pleistocene site in Ecuador contains not only a representative composition of the extant fauna (Akodon, Anotomys, Microryzomys, Phyllotis, Sigmodon, Thomasomys) but also a new genus (Copemyodon) believed to represent a member of the "Copemyne-Peromyscine group" (Fejfar et al., 1993, 1996). In North America, Sigmodon and its possible ancestor Prosigmodon are known from early Pliocene (late Hemphillian) sites in the S USA and N México (Jacobs and Lindsay, 1981; Lindsay and Jacobs, 1985; Martin, 1979). Certain low-crowned tetralophodont forms from the Pliocene of North America (Bensonomys and Symmetrodontomys) have been interpreted as primitive members of Phyllotini and Akodontini (Baskin, 1978, 1986; Czaplewski, 1987; Korth, 1994; Lindsay and Jacobs, 1985), affiliations dismissed by Reig (1980, 1984) as dental convergence. These contrasting views, and their critical bearing on sigmodontine (and neotomine) phylogeny and biogeography, have yet to be satisfactorily reconciled with fresh empirical analyses and from disinterested viewpoints. Using molecular divergence estimates (assuming an Akodon Necromys split at 3.5 million years ago), Smith and Patton (1999) placed the major radiation of sigmodontines within South America at 10-14 million years ago, an interval harmonious with a middle Miocene appearance and well before late Pliocene landbridge formation, as earlier advocated by Hershkovitz (1966 b, 1972 d) and Reig (1980, 1984).
Following Thomas (1906 d, 1916 c, 1917 c), sigmodontine genera have been informally or formally arranged into tribes (see discussions in Carleton and Musser, 1989; D’Elía, 2000; Hershkovitz, 1966 c; Reig, 1981, 1984; Smith and Patton, 1999; Voss, 1993). Confirmatory evidence for the monophyly and formal employment of these suprageneric groupings is vastly improved—especially for the Akodontini (D’Elía, 2003; D’Elía et al., 2003; Reig, 1987; Smith and Patton, 1991, 1993; Steppan, 1995), Ichthyomyini (Voss, 1988), Oryzomyini (Myers et al., 1995; Patton and da Silva, 1995; Smith and Patton, 1999; Steppan, 1995; Voss and Carleton, 1993; Weksler, 2003), and Phyllotini (Braun, 1993; Olds and Anderson, 1989; Ortiz et al., 2000 b; Spotorno et al., 2001; Steppan, 1993, 1995)—but much probing phylogenetic investigation of this kind is yet required.
The tribal affiliations cited here basically conform to Reig (1980, 1981, 1984), as modified by Smith and Patton (1999). Notably, we continue to maintain the Thomasomyini (= Aepeomys, Chilomys, Rhipidomys, and Thomasomys) as distinct from the Oryzomyini (see Thomas, 1906 d, 1917 c; Hershkovitz, 1966 c; Carleton and Musser, 1989; Voss and Carleton, 1993); furthermore, we resurrect Vorontsov’s (1959) Reithrodontini for the (Euneomys (Neotomys Reithrodon )) clade (see comments under Reithrodon). An oxymycterine group, as informally used by Hershkovitz (1966 c), was never named, and evidence for such a tribe as phyletically distinct from Akodontini has not been forthcoming (Barrantes et al., 1993; D’Elía, 2003; D’Elía et al, 2003; Reig, 1987; Smith and Patton, 1999). Similarly, the scapteromyines of Hershkovitz (1966 c), formalized as Scapteromyini by Massoia (1979 b; also Reig, 1980, 1981, 1984, and McKenna and Bell, 1997), appear to be polyphyletic and cladistically interspersed among akodontines in molecular studies to date (D’Elía, 2003; D’Elía et al., in press; Smith and Patton, 1999). On the other hand, a congruent body of evidence reveals that certain genera currently aligned within Akodontini, here parenthetically identified as the Southern Andean clade, may eventually warrant tribal recognition (Barrantes et al., 1993; D’Elía, 2003; D’Elía et al., 2003; Reig, 1986, 1987; Smith and Patton, 1999; Spotorno et al., 1990); this possibility should be pursued and framed within a full and proper diagnosis. An intractable residuum of genera, many of them the "plesiomorphic Neotropical muroids" enumerated by Voss (1993), so far refuses to disclose their genealogical secrets, whether based on morphological or molecular information, and are noted as Sigmodontinae incertae sedis (see Table 1).
Faunal treatises and annotated checklists are becoming more available, providing taxonomic, distributional, and bibliographic compilations for Sigmodontinae, on both continental (Eisenberg, 1989; Eisenberg and Redford, 1999; Emmons and Feer, 1997; Redford and Eisenberg, 1992) and regional scales (Argentina — Braun and Mares [1995 b], Chebez and Massoia [1996], Díaz [2000], Díaz and Barquez [1999], Galliari et al. [1996], Heinonen Fortabat and Chebez [1997], Mares et al. [1981 b, 1989 b, 1997]; Pardiñas et al. [2003 b]; Bolivia —Anderson [1993, 1997], Anderson et al. [1993], Salazar-Bravo et al. [2003]; Brazil — Avila-Pires [1994], Fonseca et al. [1996]; Chile — Muñoz-Pedreros [2000]; Colombia — Alberico et al. [2000]; Ecuador — Tirira [1999, 2000]; Panamá — Mendez [1993]; Paraguay — Gamarra de Fox and Martin [1996]; Perú —Pacheco et al. [1995]; Surinam — Husson [1978]; Uruguay —González [2000 b, 2001], Mones [2001], Mones and Philippi [1992]; Venezuela — Linares [1998]). The amount of taxonomic detail, extent of specimen documentation, and primary literature attribution presented in the aforementioned works vary greatly.
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 1086, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7316535