Eospalax G. M. Allen 1938
Creators: name: Wilson, Don E.
name: Reeder, DeeAnn
Publisher: name: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Year: 2005
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Rodentia
Spalacidae
Eospalax

description: Eospalax G. M. Allen 1938
Eospalax G. M. Allen 1938, Mammals of China and Mongolia, Nat. Hist. Central Asia, Vol. 2, pt. 1: vii.
Type Species: Siphneus fontanieri Milne-Edwards 1867
Synonyms: Allosiphneus Kretzoi 1961; Zokor Ellerman 1941.
Species and subspecies: 3 species:
Species Eospalax fontanierii (Milne-Edwards 1867)
Species Eospalax rothschildi (Thomas 1911)
Species Eospalax smithii (Thomas 1911)
Discussion: Extant and extinct species recorded only from China. Phylogenetic relationships reviewed by Lawrence (1991, as Myospalax; see above discussion) and Zheng (1994), both of whom brought together fontanieri, rothschildi, and smithi in a cluster defined by a suite of derived morphological features (convex occipital shield, long incisive foramina bisected by premaxillary-maxillary suture, carotid canal at basioccipital-basisphenoid suture, configuration of pterygoid fossa, hypsodent and rootless molars). All three have always been recognized as species, usually grouped at the species-group or subgeneric level (G. M. Allen, 1940; Corbet, 1978 c; Kuzhyakin, 1965; Leroy, 1940). The three were carefully described by G. M. Allen (1940), who also provided distributional and habitat information.
Zheng (1994) recognized Allosiphneus for the extinct species arvicolinus, which has rootless molars and belongs in this group, but the traits distinguishing this genus define only a different species to us. He also included an assemblage of rooted species sorted into the genera Prosiphneus, Myotalpavus, and Pliosiphneus. We do not appreciate the cladistic support for the latter two and include them in Prosiphneus. The distinguishing traits among them are not nearly of the same magnitude as those between Eospalax, Myospalax, and Mesosiphneus; Prosiphneus thus contains extinct species with rooted molars. Lawrence (1991:282) did not recognize this dichotomy: "Placing species that have not achieved complete rootless hypsodonty in the separate genus Prosiphneus is an artifical division of a monophyletic group." Her conclusion was influenced by study of fossil youngi, which at the time was included in Prosiphneus, and her analysis placed it in the same group as Myospalax, an arrangement also proposed by Zheng (1994). Lawrence otherwise did not have available any of the species placed in Prosiphneus by Zheng, and we cannot assess the generic validity from Zheng’s report because he offered no diagnosis or definition of it. Until phylogenetic relationships among the extinct species with rooted molars in Prosiphneus and those extant and extinct forms in Eospalax are illuminated, the two genera should be retained. If shown to be congeneric, Eospalax G. M. Allen (1939) would be replaced by Prosiphneus Tielhard de Chardin (1926).
description: Published as part of Wilson, Don E. & Reeder, DeeAnn, 2005, Order Rodentia - Family Spalacidae, pp. 907-926 in Mammal Species of the World: a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3 rd Edition), Volume 2, Baltimore :The Johns Hopkins University Press on page 907, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7316535