| OCR Text |
Show 1^96.] GENERA OF RODENTS. 1021 92. Evotomys, Coues. P. A c Philad. 1874, p. 186. 93. Microtus, Scbrank. Fauna Boica, i. p. 66 (1798). [Arvlcola, Lac. Mem. de l'Inst. iii. p. 495 (1801).] (b) 94. Synaptomys, Bd. Mamm. N. A. pp. xliv, 558 (1857). 95. Lemmus, Link. Zool. Beytr. i. pt. 2, p. 75 (1795). [Myodes, Pall. Zoogr. Ross.-Asiat. p. 173 (1811).] 96. Dicrostonyx, Glog. Naturgesch. p. 97 (1841). [Cunlculus, Wagl. Isis, 1832, p. 1220.] (c) 97. Ellobius, Pisch. Zoognosia, iii. p. 72 (1814). L. SlPHNEINJE1. 98. Siphneus2, Bts. Het geslacht d. Muizen, p. 20 (1827). VII. Spalacidae3. A. RHIZOMYINJE. 99. Rhizomys, Gray. P. Z. S. 1831, p. 95. 1 Mr. Gerrit Miller, to whose paper on Voles and Lemmings I am much indebted, has thrown doubt on the validity of the Siphneince as a subfamily (N. A m . Fauna, no. 12, p. 8, footnote, 1896), and in so far as regards Ellobius, hitherto always put with Siphneus, he is apparently correct, as its differences from the Voles and Lemmings do not seem to be much greater than those that separate these two groups from each other, and the Voles, Lemmings, and Ellobius may suitably form three groups of the subfamily Microtince. I have had to reverse the order of the genera from that given by Mr. Miller, in order to bring the Murine Phenacomys and Evotomys towards the Muridas, Synaptomys towards the Voles, and the Lemmings, as a whole, towards Ellobius. With regard to Siphneus itself, however, I think its peculiarities are amply sufficient to necessitate its being set over against all the rest of the group in a subfamily by itself. The modification that its anteorbital foramen has undergone, in comparison with that of the Microtince, is, however, curiously paralleled by that of the widely different Spalacidce, and may be simply an adaptive modification due to a strictly talpine life. But in any case its differences, both external, cranial, and dental, are clearly sufficient to demand separate subfamily rank. 2 Dr. J. A. Allen, Bull. A m . Mus. N. BZ. vii. p. 183 (1895), considers Kerr's Myotalpa should replace Siphneus; but as the result is attained by a method about the detailed working of which opinions are still divided, I provisionally use the better-known term. 3 Not only do the Bathyergince of Alston's Spalacidce of course go off to form a separate family, but it is very doubtful whether Spalax and Bhizomys, combined by him in the Spalacince, are rightly put even in one family, their resemblances being perhaps more adaptive than genetic. Winge puts Bhizomys with tbe Muridaj, and Spalax with the Dipodidae, but does not give sufficient reasons for these allocations. This is one of those cases where a myological investigation is likely to be of much service; and the group is commended to the attention of Mr. Parsons, whose recent papers on Rodent myology have been of much |
