jeanflop/post_ocr_correction2 huggingface dataset:
values of table II appear to be near-reciprocal, and their Mean Percent Deviation from Average (Champion et al., 1974) averages 4.93±2.62%. Keeping this homoplasy as such, the delta-Mode values were averaged in an incomplete matrix of DNA/DNA distances (table III), from which a phylogenetic tree was constructed by hand, assuming near-equality of rates of change (fig. 2). The root has been placed at mid-length of the segment leading to the outgroup Ondatra zibethicus (a choice made in agreement with the dental morphology). Every node in the tree of figure is bordered by a rectangle representing ± one standard deviation of the mean value of the hybrid comparisons involved in that node (data in table III). MORPHOLOGICAL DISTANCES. — The so-called Procrustean approaches [15, 16, 18] measure differences between morphological shapes and allow us to establish morphological (phenetic) distances. The vole skulls are described by 43 homologous landmarks (fig. 3). They are compared using a least-square fitting technique (LSTRA; Sneath, 1967; David and Laurin, 1989; Laurin and David, 1991; Rohlf, 1990; Rohlf and Bookstein, 1990) available in the program Procrustes (David and Laurin, 1992). The shape difference between two skulls is summarized by a series of vectors, each vector joining a homologous landmark. Fig. 1. Melting curves of percent single-copy DNA eluted versus temperature, in the 62.5-95.0°C range. Each curve is based on the average (vertical bars represent standard deviation) of the radioactive counts from N hybrids. The single-copy DNA tracer (*) is Clethrionomys rufocanus. A: *C. rufocanus/C. rufocanus homologue; B: *C. rufocanus/C. rutilus; C: *C. rufocanus/C. gapperi; D: *C. rufocanus/Eothenomys melanogaster; E: *C. rufocanus/Ondatra zibethicus. Fig. 1. Courbes d'élution thermique des ADN hybrides dissociés en fonction de la température (de 62,5 à 95,0° C). Chaque courbe est basée sur la moyenne (les barres verticales représentant l'écart-type) des comptages radioactifs à N hybrides. L'ADN non répété marqué radioactivement (traceur) est celui de l'espèce Clethrionomys rufocanus. A: homologue *C. rufocanus/C. rufocanus; B: *C. rufocanus/C. rutilus; C: *C. rufocanus/C. gapperi; D: *C. rufocanus/Eothenomys melanogaster; E: *C. rufocanus/Ondatra zibethicus. Fig. 2. Phylogenetic tree derived from the data of tables II and III. Ondatra zibethicus
homologous landmark. Fig. 1. Melting curves of percent single-copy DNA eluted versus temperature, in the 62.5-95.0°C range. Each curve is based on the average (vertical bars represent standard deviation) of the radioactive counts from N hybrids. The single-copy DNA tracer (*) is Clethrionomys rufocanus. A: *C. rufocanus/C. rufocanus homologue; B: *C. rufocanus/C. rutilus; C: *C. rufocanus/C. gapperi; D: *C. rufocanus/Eothenomys melanogaster; E: *C. rufocanus/Ondatra zibethicus. Fig. 1. Courbes d'élution thermique des ADN hybrides dissociés en fonction de la température (de 62,5 à 95,0° C). Chaque courbe est basée sur la moyenne (les barres verticales représentant l'écart-type) des comptages radioactifs à N hybrides. L'ADN non répété marqué radioactivement (traceur) est celui de l'espèce Clethrionomys rufocanus. A: homologue *C. rufocanus/C. rufocanus; B: *C. rufocanus/C. rutilus; C: *C. rufocanus/C. gapperi; D: *C. rufocanus/Eothenomys melanogaster; E: *C. rufocanus/Ondatra zibethicus. Fig. 2. Phylogenetic tree derived from the data of tables II and III. Ondatra zibethicus is an outgroup, and the root of the tree is placed at mid-length of the branch connecting O. zibethicus to the other taxa. The thin boxes bordering each node représent ± one standard deviation. Fig. 2. Arbre phylogénétique moléculaire basé sur les données des tableaux II et III. Ondatra zibethicus est le groupe externe, et la racine de l'arbre est placée à mi-chemin du segment joignant Ondatra zibethicus aux autres taxons. Les rectangles bordant chaque nœud représentent ± un écart-type. TABLE III Matrix of delta-Mode distances, averaged for reciprocity, and number of hybrid comparisons. Abbreviations: C.: Clethrionomys; E.: Eothenomys; M.: Microtus, O.: Ondatra; a: no comparison available; values in parentheses are averages of C. rufocanus/Ondatra zibethicus and C. gapperi/O. zibethicus hybrids. Matrice des distances delta-Mode, moyennée dans le cas de comparaisons réciproques, et nombre d'hybrides analysés. Abbréviations: C.: Clethrionomys; E.: Eothenomys; M.: Microtus, O.: Ondatra, a: pas de comparaison disponible; les valeurs entre parenthèses sont la moyenne des hybrides C. rufocanus/O. zibethicus et C. gapperi/O. zibethicus. C. rufocanus C. glareolus C. gapperi M. epiroticus C. rufocanus C. glareolus 3.9±0.6 (4) C. gapperi 4.0±0.3(6) 2.1±0.3 (7) O. zibethicus 10.0±0.3 (3) (10.4±0.3 (")) 10.8±0.2 (2) 10.5±0.1 (3) M. epiroticus 8.2±0.4 (6) 8.1±0.3
est le groupe externe, et la racine de l'arbre est placée à mi-chemin du segment joignant Ondatra zibethicus aux autres taxons. Les rectangles bordant chaque nœud représentent ± un écart-type. TABLE III Matrix of delta-Mode distances, averaged for reciprocity, and number of hybrid comparisons. Abbreviations: C.: Clethrionomys; E.: Eothenomys; M.: Microtus, O.: Ondatra; a: no comparison available; values in parentheses are averages of C. rufocanus/Ondatra zibethicus and C. gapperi/O. zibethicus hybrids. Matrice des distances delta-Mode, moyennée dans le cas de comparaisons réciproques, et nombre d'hybrides analysés. Abbréviations: C.: Clethrionomys; E.: Eothenomys; M.: Microtus, O.: Ondatra, a: pas de comparaison disponible; les valeurs entre parenthèses sont la moyenne des hybrides C. rufocanus/O. zibethicus et C. gapperi/O. zibethicus. C. rufocanus C. glareolus C. gapperi M. epiroticus C. rufocanus C. glareolus 3.9±0.6 (4) C. gapperi 4.0±0.3(6) 2.1±0.3 (7) O. zibethicus 10.0±0.3 (3) (10.4±0.3 (")) 10.8±0.2 (2) 10.5±0.1 (3) M. epiroticus 8.2±0.4 (6) 8.1±0.3 (8) 8.4±0.5 (8) (il) No comparison available; values in ( ) are averages of C. rufocanus/O. zibethicus and C. gapperi/O. zibethicus hybrids. point of the first skull to its equivalent on the second skull. Vector fields characterize differences in shape morphology fully independent of size. The sum of vector lengths (IA) is used as a morphological distance between compared specimens, and these distances are clustered into phenetic trees. The analysis of the morphological relationships between Clethrionomys and Eothenomys is based on skull measurements of C. glareolus, C. rutilus, C. rufocanus, E. melanogaster, Microtus epiroticus and Ondatra zibethicus as an outgroup. Complete comparisons between all possible pairs of species yielded the matrix of morphological distances illustrated in table IV. These distances were transformed into a phenetic tree (fig. 4) by using the Fitch (no constancy of rates of morphological change is assumed) algorithm in the Phylip package (Felsenstein, 1990). DISCUSSION. A close evolutionary relationship among the genera of the tribe Clethrionomyini has long been recognized (Miller, 1896) and recently reinforced by a qualitative myological and osteological analysis (Stein, 1987). This latter study, combining data from karyology, biochemistry, soft anatomy, and external morphology, has suggested that: (1) Eothenomys melanogaster melanogaster TABLE IV
(IA) is used as a morphological distance between compared specimens, and these distances are clustered into phenetic trees. The analysis of the morphological relationships between Clethrionomys and Eothenomys is based on skull measurements of C. glareolus, C. rutilus, C. rufocanus, E. melanogaster, Microtus epiroticus and Ondatra zibethicus as an outgroup. Complete comparisons between all possible pairs of species yielded the matrix of morphological distances illustrated in table IV. These distances were transformed into a phenetic tree (fig. 4) by using the Fitch (no constancy of rates of morphological change is assumed) algorithm in the Phylip package (Felsenstein, 1990). DISCUSSION. A close evolutionary relationship among the genera of the tribe Clethrionomyini has long been recognized (Miller, 1896) and recently reinforced by a qualitative myological and osteological analysis (Stein, 1987). This latter study, combining data from karyology, biochemistry, soft anatomy, and external morphology, has suggested that: (1) Eothenomys melanogaster melanogaster TABLE IV Matrix of morphometric distances between Ondatra zibethicus, Microtus epiroticus, Eothenomys melanogaster, Clethrionomys glareolus, C. rutilus and C. rufocanus. Matrice des distances morphologiques entre Ondatra zibethicus, Microtus epiroticus, Eothenomys melanogaster, Clethrionomys glareolus, C. rutilus et C. rufocanus. 12 3 4 5 E. melanogaster 2/C. glareolus 2.35 3/C. rufocanus 2.52 1.99 4/C. rutilus 2.35 2.02 2.34 5/O. zibethicus 3.54 4.19 3.38 4.13 6/M. epiroticus 2.60 2.34 1.90 2.52 3.72 in the genus Clethrionomys, the species C. glareolus, C. gapperi, and C. rutilus are closely related, whereas C. rufocanus was shown very distinctive and considered primitive within the genus; (2) Clethrionomys and Eothenomys (represented here by E. melanogaster) are sister-groups. A recent molecular study by scnDNA hybridization (Guileva et al., 1990) has indeed yielded estimates of genomic distances which clearly indicate that C. rufocanus is the most divergent species among Clethrionomys. The delta-Mode values of table II indicate that the five species and two genera of Clethrionomyini surveyed in this study are more related to each other than to Ondatra or to Microtus. From this, it appears that the Clethrionomyini may be considered monophyletic when compared to the Microtini or Ondatrini, a view which is in agreement with other non-molecular approaches (review in
rutilus 2.35 2.02 2.34 5/O. zibethicus 3.54 4.19 3.38 4.13 6/M. epiroticus 2.60 2.34 1.90 2.52 3.72 in the genus Clethrionomys, the species C. glareolus, C. gapperi, and C. rutilus are closely related, whereas C. rufocanus was shown very distinctive and considered primitive within the genus; (2) Clethrionomys and Eothenomys (represented here by E. melanogaster) are sister-groups. A recent molecular study by scnDNA hybridization (Guileva et al., 1990) has indeed yielded estimates of genomic distances which clearly indicate that C. rufocanus is the most divergent species among Clethrionomys. The delta-Mode values of table II indicate that the five species and two genera of Clethrionomyini surveyed in this study are more related to each other than to Ondatra or to Microtus. From this, it appears that the Clethrionomyini may be considered monophyletic when compared to the Microtini or Ondatrini, a view which is in agreement with other non-molecular approaches (review in Stein, 1987) suggesting that these voles might form a natural clade. The morphological relationships derived from the Homologous Landmarks approach (fig. 4) show similarities and differences with those based on the molecular data (fig. 2). In both approaches Ondatra zibethicus has been taken as an outgroup to root the trees, and both approaches sustain the relationships between Clethrionomys and Eothenomys (Corbet, 1978; Miller, 1896). Both approaches also suggest that C. glareolus and C. rutilus are closely related, and that C. rufocanus is the most divergent species within Clethrionomys. This view is supported by another molecular approach using DNA/DNA hybridization (Guileva et al., 1990). Differences between the two approaches concern the relative position of Microtus epiroticus versus C. rufocanus and of E. melanogaster versus C. rufocanus. Morphology suggests some convergence between C. rufocanus and M. epiroticus, whereas the molecular data clearly have M. epiroticus as an outgroup of the Clethrionomyini. The morphological distances also indicates that Eothenomys belongs to the clade Clethrionomys, and this casts some doubt on the validity of the genus Eothenomys (unpublished additional molecular data indeed indicate that E. kageus clusters within the genus Clethrionomys). For laboratory help, we thank Gérard Assié, Gilbert Pistre, and Anne Lagriffoul; this
and both approaches sustain the relationships between Clethrionomys and Eothenomys (Corbet, 1978; Miller, 1896). Both approaches also suggest that C. glareolus and C. rutilus are closely related, and that C. rufocanus is the most divergent species within Clethrionomys. This view is supported by another molecular approach using DNA/DNA hybridization (Guileva et al., 1990). Differences between the two approaches concern the relative position of Microtus epiroticus versus C. rufocanus and of E. melanogaster versus C. rufocanus. Morphology suggests some convergence between C. rufocanus and M. epiroticus, whereas the molecular data clearly have M. epiroticus as an outgroup of the Clethrionomyini. The morphological distances also indicates that Eothenomys belongs to the clade Clethrionomys, and this casts some doubt on the validity of the genus Eothenomys (unpublished additional molecular data indeed indicate that E. kageus clusters within the genus Clethrionomys). For laboratory help, we thank Gérard Assié, Gilbert Pistre, and Anne Lagriffoul; this study would not have been feasible were it not for the generous help of those people who have collected the animals and properly preserved their tissues: Marie-Claude Desset, Robert S Hoffmann, Rolf A. Ims, Charles G. Sibley and Vitaly Volobouev. We thank J.-J. Jaeger for his valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Funding was provided by the French Ministry for National Education (DRED) "Approches interdisciplinaires et développements méthodologiques, 1990", Contribution 93-004 de l'Institut des Sciences de l'Évolution de Montpellier (URA 327 CNRS). Note remise le 19 juin 1992, acceptée après révision le 8 janvier 1993. REFERENCES V. BAUCHAU and J. CHALINE, Variabilité de la troisième molaire supérieure de Clethrionomys glareolus (Arvicolidae, Rodentia) et sa signification évolutive, Mammalia, 51, 1987, pp. 587-598. M. D. CARLETON and G. G. MUSSER, Muroid Rodents, in Orders and families of Recent mammals of the world, S. ANDERSON and J. K. JONES Eds., Wiley and Sons, New York, 1984, pp. 289-379. F. CATZEFIS, DNA hybridization as a guide to phylogenies: raw data in muroid rodents, in Evolution of subterranean mammals at the organismal and molecular levels, E. NEVO and O. A. REIG Eds., Wiley-Liss, New York, 1990, pp. 317-345. F. CATZEFIS, Animal tissue
earlier draft of this paper. Funding was provided by the French Ministry for National Education (DRED) "Approches interdisciplinaires et développements méthodologiques, 1990", Contribution 93-004 de l'Institut des Sciences de l'Évolution de Montpellier (URA 327 CNRS). Note remise le 19 juin 1992, acceptée après révision le 8 janvier 1993. REFERENCES V. BAUCHAU and J. CHALINE, Variabilité de la troisième molaire supérieure de Clethrionomys glareolus (Arvicolidae, Rodentia) et sa signification évolutive, Mammalia, 51, 1987, pp. 587-598. M. D. CARLETON and G. G. MUSSER, Muroid Rodents, in Orders and families of Recent mammals of the world, S. ANDERSON and J. K. JONES Eds., Wiley and Sons, New York, 1984, pp. 289-379. F. CATZEFIS, DNA hybridization as a guide to phylogenies: raw data in muroid rodents, in Evolution of subterranean mammals at the organismal and molecular levels, E. NEVO and O. A. REIG Eds., Wiley-Liss, New York, 1990, pp. 317-345. F. CATZEFIS, Animal tissue collections for molecular genetics and systematics, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 1991, p. 168. F. CATZEFIS, F. H. SHELDON, J. E. ALQUIST and C. G. SIBLEY, DNA/DNA hybridization evidence of the rapid rate of muroid rodent DNA evolution, Mol. Biol. Evol., 4, 1987, pp. 242-253. F. CATZEFIS, E. NEVO, J. E. ALQUIST and C. G. SIBLEY, Relationships of the chromosomal species in the Eurasian molerats of the Spalax ehrenbergi group as determined by DNA/DNA hybridization, and an estimate of the spalacid-murid divergence time, J. Mol. Evol., 29, 1989, pp. 223-232. J. CHALINE, Arvicolid data (Arvicolidae, Rodentia) and evolutionary concepts, Evolutionary Biology, 21, 1987, pp. 237-310. J. CHALINE and J.-D. GRAF, Phylogeny of the Arvicolidae (Rodentia): biochemical and paleontological evidence, Journal of Mammalogy, 69, 1988, pp. 22-33. A. B. CHAMPION, E. M. PRAGER, D. WACHTER and A. C. WILSON, Microcomplement fixation, in Biochemical and immunological taxonomy of animals, C. A. WRIGHT Ed., Acad. Press, London, 1974, pp. 397-416. M. CHOW and W. YUANKING, Pleistocene environmental changes, mammalian faunas and Fossil man of China, Contributions to the XIII INQUA, Beijing, 1992, pp. 6-14. G. B. CORBET, The mammals of the Palearctic Region: a taxonomic review, Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London, 1978,
J. E. ALQUIST and C. G. SIBLEY, Relationships of the chromosomal species in the Eurasian molerats of the Spalax ehrenbergi group as determined by DNA/DNA hybridization, and an estimate of the spalacid-murid divergence time, J. Mol. Evol., 29, 1989, pp. 223-232. J. CHALINE, Arvicolid data (Arvicolidae, Rodentia) and evolutionary concepts, Evolutionary Biology, 21, 1987, pp. 237-310. J. CHALINE and J.-D. GRAF, Phylogeny of the Arvicolidae (Rodentia): biochemical and paleontological evidence, Journal of Mammalogy, 69, 1988, pp. 22-33. A. B. CHAMPION, E. M. PRAGER, D. WACHTER and A. C. WILSON, Microcomplement fixation, in Biochemical and immunological taxonomy of animals, C. A. WRIGHT Ed., Acad. Press, London, 1974, pp. 397-416. M. CHOW and W. YUANKING, Pleistocene environmental changes, mammalian faunas and Fossil man of China, Contributions to the XIII INQUA, Beijing, 1992, pp. 6-14. G. B. CORBET, The mammals of the Palearctic Region: a taxonomic review, Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London, 1978, pp. 1314. B. DAVID et B. LAURIN, Déformations ontogéniques et évolutives des organismes : l'approche par la méthode des points homologues, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 309, 1989, pp. 1271-1276. B. DAVID et B. LAURIN, PROCRUSTES: an interactive program for Shape analyses using Landmarks, Version 2.0, Univ. Bourgogne, 1992. J. FELSENSTEIN, PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package), Univ. Washington, version 3.3, 1990. J.-D. GRAF, Génétique biochimique, zoogéographie et taxonomie des Arvicolidae (Mammalia, Rodentia), Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 89, 1982, pp. 749-787. E. A. GUILEVA, D. E. RYBNIKOV and G. P. MIROSHNICHENKO, DNA-DNA hybridization and phylogenetic relationships in two genera of voles, Alticola and Clethrionomys (Microtinae: Rodentia), Doklady Akad. Nauk. USSR, 311, 1990, pp. 477-480 (in Russian). J. H. HONACKI, K. E. KINMAN and J. W. KOEPF Eds., Mammal species of the World, The Assoc. Syst. Coll., Lawrence, Kansas, 1982, pp. 1-694. Y. KAWAMURA, Quaternary Rodent Faunas in the Japanese Islands (part 1), Mem. Faculty of Science, Kyoto Univ., ser. Geology, 53, 1988, pp. 207-273. B. LAURIN and B. DAVID, Analysis of the shape changes among brachiopods by using landmarks. Application to the Jurassic Septaliphoria lineage, Brachiopods through time, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1991, pp. 81-87. C. R. MARSHALL, Character Analysis and the Integration of
FELSENSTEIN, PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package), Univ. Washington, version 3.3, 1990. J.-D. GRAF, Génétique biochimique, zoogéographie et taxonomie des Arvicolidae (Mammalia, Rodentia), Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 89, 1982, pp. 749-787. E. A. GUILEVA, D. E. RYBNIKOV and G. P. MIROSHNICHENKO, DNA-DNA hybridization and phylogenetic relationships in two genera of voles, Alticola and Clethrionomys (Microtinae: Rodentia), Doklady Akad. Nauk. USSR, 311, 1990, pp. 477-480 (in Russian). J. H. HONACKI, K. E. KINMAN and J. W. KOEPF Eds., Mammal species of the World, The Assoc. Syst. Coll., Lawrence, Kansas, 1982, pp. 1-694. Y. KAWAMURA, Quaternary Rodent Faunas in the Japanese Islands (part 1), Mem. Faculty of Science, Kyoto Univ., ser. Geology, 53, 1988, pp. 207-273. B. LAURIN and B. DAVID, Analysis of the shape changes among brachiopods by using landmarks. Application to the Jurassic Septaliphoria lineage, Brachiopods through time, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1991, pp. 81-87. C. R. MARSHALL, Character Analysis and the Integration of Molecular and Morphological Data in an Understanding of sand Dollar Phylogeny, Mol. Biol. Evol., 1992, pp. 309-322. L. R. MARTIN, The biostratigraphy of arvicoline rodents in North America, Trans. Nebraska Acad. Sci., 7, 1979, pp. 91-100. G. S. MILLER, Genera and subgenera of voles and lemmings, North Amer. Fauna, 12, 1896, pp. 1-78. F. J. ROHLF, Rotational fit (Procrustes) Methods, in Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometries Workshop, Univ. Michigan Museum, Ann Arbor, F. J. ROHLF and F. L. BOOKSTEIN Eds., 1990, pp. 227-236. F. J. ROHLF and F. L. BOOKSTEIN Eds., Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop, Univ. Michigan Museum, Ann Arbor, 1990. J.-X. SHE, F. BONHOMME, P. BOURSOT, L. THALER and F. CATZEFIS, Molecular phylogenies in the genus Mus: comparative analysis of electrophoretic, scnDNA hybridization, and mtDNA RFLP data, Biol. J. Linnean Soc., London, 29, 1989, pp. 83-103. F. H. SHELDON and A. H. BLEDSOE, Indexes to the reassociation and stability of solution DNA hybrids, J. Mol. Evol., 29, 1989, pp. 328-343. C. G. SIBLEY and J. E. ALQUIST, The phylogeny and relationships of the ratite birds as indicated by DNA-DNA hybridization, in Evolution today, G. G. E. SCUDDER and J. L. REVEL Eds., Carnegie-Mellon Univ. Press, Pittsburgh, 1981,
1896, pp. 1-78. F. J. ROHLF, Rotational fit (Procrustes) Methods, in Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometries Workshop, Univ. Michigan Museum, Ann Arbor, F. J. ROHLF and F. L. BOOKSTEIN Eds., 1990, pp. 227-236. F. J. ROHLF and F. L. BOOKSTEIN Eds., Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop, Univ. Michigan Museum, Ann Arbor, 1990. J.-X. SHE, F. BONHOMME, P. BOURSOT, L. THALER and F. CATZEFIS, Molecular phylogenies in the genus Mus: comparative analysis of electrophoretic, scnDNA hybridization, and mtDNA RFLP data, Biol. J. Linnean Soc., London, 29, 1989, pp. 83-103. F. H. SHELDON and A. H. BLEDSOE, Indexes to the reassociation and stability of solution DNA hybrids, J. Mol. Evol., 29, 1989, pp. 328-343. C. G. SIBLEY and J. E. ALQUIST, The phylogeny and relationships of the ratite birds as indicated by DNA-DNA hybridization, in Evolution today, G. G. E. SCUDDER and J. L. REVEL Eds., Carnegie-Mellon Univ. Press, Pittsburgh, 1981, pp. 301-335. P. H. A. SNEATH, Trend-surface analysis of transformation grids, J. Zool., 1967, pp. 65-122. B. R. STEIN, Phylogenetic relationships among four arvicolid genera, Zeitsch.f. Saugetierkunde, 52, 1987, pp. 140-156. S. D. WERMAN, M. S. SPRINGER and R. J. BRITTEN, Nucleic acids: DNA/DNA hybridization, in Molecular systematics, D. M. HILLIS and C. MORITZ Eds., Sinauer Ass., Massachusetts, 1990, pp. 204-249. M. L. ZELDITCH, F. L. BOOKSTEIN and B. L. LUNDRIGAN, Ontogeny of integrated skull growth in the cotton rat Sigmodon fulviventer, Evolution, 1992, pp. 1164-1180. S. ZHENG and C. LI, Comments on fossil Arvicolids of China, in Int. Symp. Evol. Phylog. Biostrat. Arvicolids, O. FEJFAR and W.-D. HEINRICH Eds., 1990, pp. 431-442. W. D. and F. C. : Institut des Sciences de l'Évolution, URA CNRS 327, USTL, place Eugène Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier Cedex, France; B. D., B. L., J. C. and L. V. : Paléontologie Analytique et Géologie Sédimentaire, URA CNRS 157, Centre des Sciences de la Terre, 6, boulevard Gabriel, 21000 Dijon, France; M. H. : Laboratory of Experimental Animals, Osaka City University Medical school, Osaka 545, Japan. Paléontologie/Paleontology Systématique et évolution du genre Procervulus, cervidé (Artiodactyla, Mammalia) du Miocène inférieur d'Europe Beatriz AZANZA Résumé La révision du