Nesomyidae Major 1897
Creators: name: Wilson, Don E.
name: Reeder, DeeAnn
Publisher: name: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Year: 2005
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Rodentia
Nesomyidae

description: Nesomyidae Major 1897
Nesomyidae Major 1897, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1897: 718.
Genera: 21 genera with 61 species in 6 subfamilies:
Subfamily Cricetomyinae Roberts 1951
Genus Beamys Thomas 1909 (2 species)
Genus Cricetomys Waterhouse 1840 (4 species)
Genus Saccostomus Peters 1846 (2 species)
Subfamily Delanymyinae
Genus Delanymys Hayman 1962 (1 species)
Subfamily Dendromurinae G. M. Allen 1939
Genus Dendromus Smith 1829 (12 species)
Genus Dendroprionomys F. Petter 1966 (1 species)
Genus Malacothrix Wagner 1843 (1 species)
Genus Megadendromus Dieterlen and Rupp 1978 (1 species)
Genus Prionomys Dollman 1910 (1 species)
Genus Steatomys Peters 1846 (8 species)
Subfamily Mystromyinae Vorontsov 1966
Genus Mystromys Wagner 1841 (1 species)
Subfamily Nesomyinae Major 1897
Genus Brachytarsomys Günther 1875 (2 species)
Genus Brachyuromys Major 1896 (2 species)
Genus Eliurus Milne Edwards 1885 (10 species)
Genus Gymnuromys Major 1896 (1 species)
Genus Hypogeomys A. Grandidier 1869 (1 species)
Genus Macrotarsomys Milne-Edwards and G. Grandidier 1898 (2 species)
Genus Monticolomys Carleton and Goodman 1996 (1 species)
Genus Nesomys Peters 1870 (3 species)
Genus Voalavo Carleton and Goodman 1998 (1 species)
Subfamily Petromyscinae Roberts 1951
Genus Petromyscus Thomas 1926 (4 species)
Discussion: Although a Nesomyidae per se had been earlier recognized by Tullberg (1899), Weber (1904), and later Chaline et al. (1977), theirs was essentially a grouping of the indigenous Malagasy rodents as already identified by Major (1897; Chaline et al. also included the otomyines, a clade clearly allied with murids—see those accounts). Although differing in contents, the family composition observed here owes its conceptual roots to Lavocat (1973, 1978), who identified a number of small but morphologically well-defined groups as relicts of a middle Tertiary (late Oligocene-early Miocene?) cricetodontine presence in Africa and expanded the definition of Nesomyidae to embrace their diverse descendants (also see Carleton and Musser, 1984:344). The results of DNA hybridization and mitochondrial and nuclear gene-sequence studies, although not wholly concordant, have supplied some empirical basis for Lavocat’s view of Nesomyidae, associating Cricetomyinae, Dendromurinae, Mystromyinae, and Nesomyinae in a monophyletic lineage basal to other muroid taxa representing Cricetidae and Muridae (DuBois et al., 1996; Jansa et al., 1999; Michaux and Catzeflis, 2000; Michaux et al., 2001 b).
Fossil representatives of Nesomyidae, as construed here, date from the early Miocene of Africa (see individual subfamily comments), with extinct taxa such as Notocricetodon and Protarsomys (Afrocricetodontinae sensu Lavocat, 1973, 1978) variously implicated in the origin of several of the living genera and-or subfamilies. The paleontological argument for such phyletic links remains sketchy and the hard evidence from critical middle Tertiary beds is scanty. Such Tertiary discoveries nonetheless continue to emerge from Africa and will help much to illuminate the validity of a family Nesomyidae upon their critical study. The alternative possibility obviously demands attention: do the subfamilies associated here form a polyphyletic wastebasket for the remnants of early evolutionary branches within other major radiations of Muroidea, by implication Cricetidae or Muridae? This is the considered view of Tong and Jaeger (1993:56) regarding Lavocat’s expansive concept of Nesomyidae. Mustering evidence to tease apart these hypotheses will require denser taxonomic sampling in molecular studies and broader appeal to organ systems other than the dentition in morphological investigations.
description: Published as part of Wilson, Don E. & Reeder, DeeAnn, 2005, Order Rodentia - Family Nesomyidae, pp. 930-955 in Mammal Species of the World: a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3 rd Edition), Volume 2, Baltimore :The Johns Hopkins University Press on page 930, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7316535