See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270805933

Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference

Article  in  Journal of Mammalogy · June 2007

DOI: 10.1644/06-MAMM-R-422.1

CITATIONS READS

42 7,703

2 authors, including:

Sergio Solari
University of Antioquia
130 PUBLICATIONS   3,065 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Phytotelmata mosquitoes in the northern Andes, Colombia View project

Systematics of bats View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sergio Solari on 29 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BOOK REVIEWS
Journal of Mammalogy, 88(3):824, 2007 From those foundation chapters, the authors then provide 5
chapters that focus on the special relationships squirrels have
Thorington, R. W., Jr., and K. E. Ferrell. 2006. with humans by asking questions such as ‘‘Do squirrels make
SQUIRRELS: THE ANIMAL ANSWER GUIDE. Johns Hopkins good pets?’’ ‘‘Why are squirrels important?’’ ‘‘Are squirrels
University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 208 pp. ISBN 0-8018- pests?’’ ‘‘Do people hunt and eat squirrels?’’ These chapters
8403-9, price (paper), $24.95. present ‘‘Squirrel Problems’’ from a human viewpoint
(chapter 9) and from a squirrel’s viewpoint (chapter 10). To
Richard Thorington has been an inspiration to many
complete the book, the authors provide a rich sampling of how
emerging mammalogists and those developing an interest in
squirrels have been portrayed in poetry, literature, and
mammals for 4 decades. Working at the Smithsonian Institu-
characterized in religion and mythology.
tion for more than 36 years, Dr. Thorington is renowned for
‘‘Squirrelology’’ (chapter 12) provides the reader a good
his expertise regarding both squirrels and New World primates,
discussion on the best- and least-known squirrels and how
but especially for his love of squirrels. Thor has worked
scientists recognize individual squirrels in the field by using
tirelessly to document sciurid biology and educate the public.
a series of tools such as tags, dyes, and natural markings. Much
Along with Katie Ferrell, also a scientist at the Smithsonian
of this last portion of the book could have been incorporated
Institution working on sciurid morphology and genetics, the
elsewhere, or if the authors wanted these topics to be empha-
authors of Squirrels: The Animal Answer Guide provide both
sized, they could have bolstered these final chapters for greater
a thorough synthesis of the science and a primer for educators
emphasis. This is a minor but noticeable inconsistency of the
and the general public.
presentation of the book. The only other aspect, and more
The back cover of the book provides teasers that will make
difficult to resolve from the writer’s point of view, is that I
most readers want to crack the cover, such as, ‘‘Did you know
found the style of the question-and-answer or frequently-asked-
that a groundhog is really a type of squirrel?’’ ‘‘That squirrels
questions format a bit erratically presented.
control their body temperature with their tails?’’ ‘‘That some
So the authors are in love with squirrels; who isn’t? Clearly,
squirrels have yellow-tinted eye lenses that work like
this book ought to secure sciurids their place among other
sunglasses to reduce glare?’’ ‘‘That tree squirrels can turn their
popular, well-known groups such as marine mammals and pri-
hind feet completely around when climbing down a tree head-
mates. What a treat. Buy it, read it, but don’t squirrel it away—
first?’’ Once in, the reader is hooked.
pass it on!—WILLIAM L. GANNON, UNM Office of Research and
The rodent family Sciuridae is diverse, with 278 species that
Department of Biology, MSC03 2020, University of New
inhabit all continents except Antarctica and Australia. They
Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA; [email protected].
can be as small as a large mouse (40 g—lesser pygmy flying
squirrel [Petaurillus emiliae]) or as large as a medium-sized
carnivore (8.5 kg—gray marmot [Marmota baibacina]).
Journal of Mammalogy, 88(3):824–830, 2007
Everyone knows what squirrels are and could probably come
up with a story about them. They are fascinating and accessible
to us in that they are diurnal and often share areas occupied Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (eds.). 2005. MAMMAL
by humans. To some they are pests. To most they are amuse- SPECIES OF THE WORLD: A TAXONOMIC AND GEOGRAPHIC
ments and sources of inspiration in media as varied as ancient REFERENCE. 3rd edition. Johns Hopkins University Press,
mythologies to David Letterman’s Central Park squirrel-nuts Baltimore, Maryland, 2,142 pp. ISBN 0-8018-8221-4, 2
jokes, or ‘‘Hammy’’ in Dream Works’ Over the Hedge. Squir- volumes, price (hardbound), $125.00.
rels are one of the ‘‘most watched’’ mammals on the planet. This is the 3rd edition of the now classic and official
This is where Squirrels: The Animal Answer Guide is an (endorsed by the American Society of Mammalogists),
appropriate and useful addition to the bookshelf. Within 184 compendium of the living or recently extinct mammal species
pages of text, 12 chapters, 74 black and white photos, 38 color of the world. This edition is issued in a 2-volume set (the 2nd
photos, and about a dozen other figures, the authors engage the volume for Rodentia only), including 9,373 references and an
reader in squirrel biology as if sitting together with the reader index of scientific and common names. As were many of our
over coffee. The chapters include basic taxonomy and char- colleagues, we were waiting for this revised edition since 2003
acters of major groups of squirrels (chapter 1); basics on anat- when it became common knowledge that the revision was
omy and physiology, morphology, and genetics (chapters 2 and essentially complete. Our interests were further enhanced by
some chapters being circulated individually as preprinted
3); behavior and ecology (chapters 4 and 5); reproduction and
copies. We can say that the wait was worth it. Benefits of
development (chapter 6); and feeding ecology (chapter 7).
this kind of effort are innumerable, as attested by its wide use
as the reference for lists of local, regional, and national fauna;
conservation status; updating taxonomic accounts in museums,
zoos, and similar institutions; or even as a source of common
Ó 2007 American Society of Mammalogists names. In this volume, as in the previous one, D. E. Wilson and
www.mammalogy.org D. M. Reeder are general editors for 41 sections corresponding
824
June 2007 BOOK REVIEWS 825

to 29 orders plus 1 infraorder, 1 superfamily, and 10 family previous and current editions of the list, as seen in the Primates
accounts. This work resulted from contributions of 26 authors, (e.g., Cebidae), Carnivora (e.g., Viverridae and Felidae), and
fewer than 10 of them living outside the United States. The Rodentia (e.g., Muridae).
format of accounts in this edition is similar to the previous We identify 28 newly described genera in 6 orders, including
volume, with the order Rodentia deserving a more detailed the following: Didelphimorphia: Hyladelphys Voss, Lunde, and
revision through subordinal division. Given the positive Simmons, and Tlacuatzin Voss and Jansa; Dasyuromorphia:
reviews received for the 2nd edition (Corbet and Hill 1994; Micromurexia, Murexechinus, Paramurexia, and Phascomur-
Patterson 1994), this arrangement seems to be well accepted by exia, all by Van Dyck; Primates: Pseudopotto Schwartz; Car-
the scientific community. Under this format, each author has nivora: Neovison Baryshnikov and Abramov; Artiodactyla:
freedom to organize their correspondent section in terms of Pseudoryx Dung, Giao, Chinh, Tuoc, Arctander, and MacKinnon;
systematic and taxonomic decisions, following minimal Rodentia: Monticolomys Carleton and Goodman, Voalavo
requirements (e.g., geographic distribution, common names, Carleton and Goodman, Amphinectomys Malygin, Brucepatter-
conservation status, and identification of synonyms) set by the sonius Hershkovitz, Handleyomys Voss, Gómez-Laverde, and
editors. Pacheco, Juliomys Gonzales, Lundomys Voss and Carleton,
The scope and aim of the work are defined in the Microakodontomys Hershkovitz, Noronhomys Carleton and
Introduction: ‘‘. . . this work is primarily a checklist at the Olson, Pearsonomys Patterson, Salinomys Braun and Mares,
species level . . . ,’’ and pointing to expected differences of Tapecomys Anderson and Yates, Mammelomys Menzies,
opinion in regard to definition of species limits. Table 1, Pithecheirops Emmons, Sommeromys Musser and Durden,
labeled as Comparison of Genera and Species since the Second Pipanacoctomys and Salinoctomys Mares, Braun, Barquez,
Edition, is extremely useful as an overview of the diversity and Diaz, Cuscomys Emmons, and Callistomys Emmons and
recognized in this edition. It is not as ‘‘comparative’’ as the Vucetich. Neotropical rodents account for 14 of 19 new genera in
corresponding table of the 2nd edition because table 1 does not that region.
include the number of genera and species in the previous Other taxonomic changes include an increase of 17
edition, just the number of newly described species since the recognized families (153 versus 136). Most of these changes
2nd edition. However, to determine how many species, genera, are due to the systematic and taxonomic rearrangement of sev-
families, or orders have been added in this edition is not eral groups, a particular case represented by the Carnivora, but
difficult (see our Appendix I). also in Peramelemorphia, Diprotodontia, Pilosa, Scandentia,
For the 787 species added since the 2nd edition (5,416 Chiroptera, Primates, Cetacea, Lagomorpha, and Rodentia (see
versus 4,629), the number of actual newly described species is Appendix I). Five additional orders appear in this edition,
260 (or 33% of the newly added species). This rate is a sign of former Xenarthra is now Pilosa and Cingulata, and Insectivora
the elevation of old synonym and subspecies names by was split into Afrosoricida, Erinaceomorpha, and Soricomor-
recognition of taxonomic discontinuities within previously pha, mostly following McKenna and Bell (1997). Xenarthra
thought natural species (e.g., Patterson 1996, 2000). Appendix I and Insectivora are no longer recognized as valid ordinal
shows how these 260 newly described species are distributed names.
among families. More than 85% of these are small mammals; From orders to genera, the basic taxonomic arrangement
more than 44% are neotropical, with almost 50 species being follows that of McKenna and Bell (1997), with recent
sigmodontine rodents. This is significant not because there are modifications representing the conclusions of corresponding
more unrecognized species in the Sigmodontinae or in the authors (expressed as hypotheses of relationships) added and
neotropical region (Patterson 2001), but it indicates that more noted in the text. Similarly, taxonomic and distributional
research was concentrated in this group or area, and we should comments are provided by each author. These comments
expect similar growth when other taxa and other regions are include references published before 2003, plus a few more
studied as intensively. recent ones accessible to authors during the final review
The number of recognized genera also increased; the 1,229 process. As expected, taxonomic works (especially at such
listed genera (versus 1,135 in the 1993 edition) represent an a large scale) are always susceptible to new findings and
addition of 94 genera. Most changes result from taxonomic publications that make the process of updating a never-ending
revisions of the respective groups, including: 2 Didelphidae, 5 job. In this edition, phylogenetic sequence is generally used for
Dasyuridae, 2 Peramelidae, 1 Pseudocheiridae, 1 Dasypodidae, families or subfamilies. However, genera, subgenera, and
2 Chrysochloridae, 3 Erinaceidae, 3 Soricidae, 1 Cynocepha- species are alphabetically listed.
lidae, 6 Phyllostomidae, 2 Natalidae, 13 Vespertilionidae, 4
Molossidae, 1 Lemuridae, 1 Cheirogaleidae, 1 Lorisidae, 3
Cercopithecidae, 3 Hylobatidae, 3 Phocidae, 3 Cervidae, 5 WHAT IS NEW IN THIS EDITION?
Bovidae, 1 Sciuridae, 1 Geomyidae, 1 Dipodidae, 1 Gliridae, 1 1. Font size and type is larger and easier to read.
Erethizontidae, 1 Caviidae, 2 Octodontidae, 1 Abrocomidae, 2. Common names are added for each species, and also are
and 1 Echimyidae. Extreme change occurred in some orders, indexed at the end of 2nd volume. Previously, these were in
and these are reflected in the number of genera recognized by a separate book (Wilson and Cole 2000).
826 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 88, No. 3

3. Conservation status is added for each species, in most cases available to them. Changes in the diversity of some genera
including status according the World Conservation Union are quite remarkable, as exemplified by changes in the
(IUCN), Convention on International Trade in Endangered numbers of species from the 2nd to the 3rd edition: Cryptotis
Species (CITES), and the United States Endangered Species (14 to 30), Sorex (70 to 77), Hipposideros (53 to 67), Myotis
Act as of February 2004. (84 to 103), Callithrix (9 to 21), Callicebus (13 to 28),
4. Synonyms include currently recognized subspecies; some Cercopithecus (18 to 25), Rattus (56 to 66), Oryzomys (36 to
authors indicate them by using boldface type. As a rule, 43), Thomasomys (25 to 36), Ctenomys (38 to 60), Ochotona
synonyms for these subspecies follow those bold-typed (25 to 30), or the impressive Crocidura (151 to 172, the most
names. diverse mammal genus). In some cases, diversity within
5. Authority and date for each synonym are included. a genus is reduced as a result of comprehensive studies of
6. No appendices are included in this edition, although intraspecific variation or by splitting polyphyletic genera, as
something similar to appendix I of the 2nd edition would occurs in Eptesicus (32 to 23), Pipistrellus (50 to 31), Gazella
be welcome, as the International Commission on Zoological (16 to 10), or Proechimys (32 to 25). Whenever relevant to
Nomenclature continues ruling over many complex taxo- these current estimates of diversity, detailed morphological,
nomic issues. However, many of the relevant data are karyotypic, and genetic data are provided. However, some-
already included in individual comments. times this results in difficulty to cross reference taxa when no
7. A list of museum acronyms or abbreviations is provided, indication is made to their treatment in the previous edition
which is necessary because some authors make reference to (Wilson and Reeder 1993).
specific specimens in their taxonomic accounts. From
a preliminary review, it is only used by Musser and HOW MUCH CHANGE CAN WE EXPECT
Carleton in their section on muroid rodents. These authors FOR A NEXT EDITION?
go into details seen nowhere else in this edition, listing Recently, Baker and Bradley (2006) suggested that although
individual specimen vouchers to support taxonomic and catalogs and species lists are not uniform in terms of the species
systematic decisions. It is remarkable that many of Musser concept they apply, the biological species concept as an
and Carleton’s conclusions on higher taxonomy of rodents extension of morphological differences between taxa is the
have been confirmed by subsequent analyses of genetic prevailing view. They argued that a strict application of
(Jansa and Weksler 2004; Steppan et al. 2004) or monophyly, as based on genetic data, and genetic isolation
morphological data in a larger data set (Jenkins et al. (rather than reproductive isolation) should demonstrate that
2005). Praise for them! current diversity is underestimated. If their predictions are
8. The editors saved considerable space and created a much valid, a future edition of the Mammal Species of the World
more user friendly index by listing the species level should have an increase of almost 40% in the number of
alphabetically referenced to each genus, but removing a list species. As taxonomic and geographic sampling increase, most
of species in each genus (as in the previous edition). of the potential changes will be those produced by the
recognition of species-level taxa now listed as synonyms or
subspecies. The editors (p. xix) recognize the significant impact
WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR THOSE MAJOR of molecular techniques, and anticipate continued changes to
TAXONOMIC CHANGES? the present arrangement.
Genetic data are playing a major role in the understanding of A paper by Weksler et al. (2006), introducing 10 new
biological diversity, and this is evident in the recognition of generic names from a review of rats of the genus Oryzomys,
new taxa at every level. Although many of the newly described and recent research on the bat genus Carollia (Baker et al.
genera represent new species so distinct in terms of mor- 2002; Hoffmann and Baker 2003; Solari and Baker 2006), are
phology that they are granted generic level (e.g., Cuscomys examples of this trend. The power of DNA sequence data to
Emmons, 1999), when genetic evidence ‘‘breaks down’’ document monophyly and paraphyly, and the resulting un-
a nonmonophyletic taxon (e.g., Tonatia; see Lee et al. 2002) derstanding of morphological and karyotypic variation in
the result is usually the recognition of full generic status for a phylogenetic framework is an immediate product of the
names previously considered junior synonyms or subgenera interface of genetics and the systematic arrangement in Wilson
(i.e., Lophostoma d’ Orbigny, 1836). If no name is suitable to and Reeder’s volume.
represent the new grouping, then a new name is proposed (e.g.,
Tlacuatzin Voss and Jansa, 2003). The monophyly criterion,
as demonstrated by 1 or 2 sets of evidence (one of them WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THESE REARRANGEMENTS
usually DNA sequences analyses), is becoming more important IN THE ‘‘REAL WORLD’’?
and this is noticeable in the new arrangement proposed for Changes in this edition were used to reorganize the
many taxa. collection of mammals housed in the National Sciences
Comments clearly reflect the experience and dedication of Research Laboratory, Museum of Texas Tech University, and
the authors, but also the larger amount of information the same is happening in other collections of mammals (e.g.,
June 2007 BOOK REVIEWS 827

Museum of Southwestern Biology, New Mexico–W. L. LITERATURE CITED

Gannon, pers. comm.). In the case of the National Sciences BAKER, R. J., AND R. D. BRADLEY. 2006. Speciation in mammals and the
Research Laboratory, 641 taxonomic changes were made to the genetic species concept. Journal of Mammalogy 87:643–662.
database, which includes 2,520 species and almost 108,000 BAKER, R. J., S. SOLARI, AND F. G. HOFFMANN. 2002. A new Central
records. However, this number does not include required American species from the Carollia brevicauda complex. Occa-
sional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 217:1–11.
revision of actual specimens for species that are being split in
BARQUEZ, R. M., M. A. MARES, AND J. K. BRAUN. 1999. The bats of
2 or more taxa. Updating databases to keep a standard and Argentina. Special Publications, The Museum, Texas Tech
current nomenclature (like that of present edition) will require University 42:1–275.
significant effort. Time and human resources needed for such CORBET, G. B., AND J. E. HILL. 1994. Review: Wilson, D. E., and D.
an effort will require careful planning. In addition, because M. Reeder (eds.). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic
changes have been made at several taxonomic levels, and and geographic reference, 2nd edition. Journal of Mammalogy
75:239–243.
taxonomic organization differs among individual collections, HOFFMANN, F. G., AND R. J. BAKER. 2003. Comparative phylogeog-
ad hoc criteria should be applied. raphy of short-tailed bats (Carollia: Phyllostomidae). Molecular
A book of this scope is rarely error free and, although not our Ecology 12:3403–3414.
aim, we noted a few minor mistakes in this edition: in table 1 JANSA, S. A., AND M. WEKSLER. 2004. Phylogeny of muroid rodents:
(p. xxvi), Peramelemorphia is misspelled ‘‘Paramelemorphia’’; relationships within and among major lineages as determined by
IRBP gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
there are 6 (not 5) newly described species of Macropodidae,
31:256–276.
and 52 (not 53) of Cricetidae. In the order Didelphimorphia, the JENKINS, P. D., C. W. KILPATRICK, M. F. ROBINSON, AND R. J. TIMMINS.
distribution of D. albiventris extends as far north as Colombia 2005. Morphological and molecular investigations of a new family,
(p. 5), but in its restricted meaning it goes up to Bolivia (Lemos genus and species of rodent (Mammalia: Rodentia: Hystricognatha)
and Cerqueira 2002), and Monodelphis osgoodi was not from Lao PDR. Systematics and Biodiversity 2:419–454.
included in M. adusta (p. 15) in the previous edition (see LEE, T. E., JR., S. R. HOOFER, AND R. A. VAN DEN BUSSCHE. 2002.
Molecular phylogenetics and taxonomic revision of the genus
1993:21). In the Chiroptera, rosenbergi, a synonym of Artibeus Tonatia (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae). Journal of Mammalogy
glaucus, is misspelled ‘‘rosenbergii’’ (p. 418), ‘‘Buenos Aires’’ 83:49–57.
is listed as type locality for Eumops patagonicus (p. 438), but LEMOS, B., AND R. CERQUEIRA. 2002. Morphological differentiation in
this actually correspond to ‘‘Chubut’’ (see Barquez et al. 1999), the white-eared opossum group (Didelphidae, Didelphis). Journal of
and Myotis caucensis, a synonym of M. nigricans (p. 513) was Mammalogy 83:354–369.
MCKENNA, M. C., AND S. K. BELL. 1997. Classification of mammals
described by J. A. Allen (1914), not Miller and G. M. Allen
above the species level. Columbia University Press, New York.
(1928). In the Rodentia, the type locality for Amphinectomys MEDELLÍN, R. A. 1995. Revisión: Wilson, D. E., y D. M. Reeder
savamis (Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae) is given as: ‘‘Henaro (editores). Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and
Errera’’ (p. 1101), but the correct name should be Jenaro geographic reference. Revista Mexicana de Mastozoologı́a 1:77–78.
Herrera (Patterson 2000). PATTERSON, B. D. 1994. Review: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (eds.).
One mistake from the previous volume was related to the 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic
reference, 2nd edition. Journal of Mammalogy 75:236–239.
account of species by families and orders in table 1. The total PATTERSON, B. D. 1996. The ‘species alias’ problem. Nature 380:589.
sum of species by families was 4,631, an increase of 2 with PATTERSON, B. D. 2000. Patterns and trends in the discovery of new
respect to the actual 4,629 species (as from orders). Medellı́n neotropical mammals. Diversity and Distributions 6:145–151.
(1995) noted this, but attributed it to errors in the number of PATTERSON, B. D. 2001. Fathoming tropical biodiversity: the
Sciurognathi rodent and mustelid species. However, the error continuing discovery of neotropical mammals. Diversity and
Distributions 7:191–196.
was actually in the number of bat species, which is 925. The
SOLARI, S., AND R. J. BAKER. 2006. Mitochondrial DNA, karyotypic,
total by families given for bats is 927; the additional 2 were and morphological variation in the Carollia castanea (Chiroptera:
a mistake in the total for phyllostomids, only 141 not 143. Phyllostomidae) species complex, with description of a new species.
None of these minor errors diminish the value and merit of this Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 254:1–16.
edition; rather they speak volumes about the work of both STEPPAN, S. J., R. M. ADKINS, AND J. ANDERSON. 2004. Phylogeny and
editors and authors, and the value of the information in such divergence-date estimates of rapid radiations in muroid rodents
based on multiple nuclear genes. Systematic Biology 53:533–
a well-organized format. 553.
We acknowledge the collaboration of several members of WEKSLER, M., A. R. PERCEQUILLO, AND R. S. VOSS. 2006. Ten new
our laboratory in the Department of Biology, and in the genera of oryzomyine rodents (Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae). Amer-
Natural Science Research Laboratory, Museum of Texas ican Museum Novitates 3537:1–29.
Tech University, especially to M. R. Marchán for her data WILSON, D. E., AND F. R. COLE. 2000. Common names of mammals
of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
on the collection catalog.—SERGIO SOLARI AND ROBERT J.
D.C.
BAKER, Department of Biological Sciences and The WILSON, D. E., AND D. M. REEDER (eds.). 1993. Mammal species of the
Museum, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-3131, world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. 2nd ed. Smithsonian
USA; [email protected]. Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
828 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 88, No. 3

APPENDIX I
Species diversity as recognized in the 3rd edition of Mammal Species of the World (MSW), compared to its equivalent in the 2nd edition. The
difference (Diff.) in number of species, and the actual number of newly described species (Descr.) are listed. Extreme changes in some groups (see
the text) hinder straightforward comparisons.

MSW 1993 No. spp. MSW 2005 No. spp. Diff. Descr.
Mammalia 4,629 Mammalia 5,416 787 260
Monotremata
Tachyglossidae 2 Monotremata
Tachyglossidae 4 2 1
Monotremata
Ornithorhynchidae 1 Monotremata
Ornithorhynchidae 1 0
Didelphimorphia
Didelphidae 63 Didelphimorphia
Didelphidae 87 24 2
Paucituberculata
Caenolestidae 5 Paucituberculata
Caenolestidae 6 1 1
Microbiotheria
Microbiotheriidae 1 Microbiotheria
Microbiotheriidae 1 0
Notoryctemorphia
Notoryctidae 2 Notoryctemorphia
Notoryctidae 2 0
Dasyuromorphia
Thylacinidae 1 Dasyuromorphia
Thylacinidae 1 0
Dasyuromorphia
Myrmecobiidae 1 Dasyuromorphia
Myrmecobiidae 1 0
Dasyuromorphia
Dasyuridae 61 Dasyuromorphia
Dasyuridae 69 8 5
Peramelemorphia
Peramelidae — Peramelemorphia
Thylacomyidae 2 2
Peramelemorphia
Peramelidae — Peramelemorphia
Chaeropodidae 1 1
Peramelemorphia
Peramelidae þ Peroryctidae 21 Peramelemorphia
Peramelidae 18
3
Diprotodontia
Phascolarctidae 1 Diprotodontia
Phascolarctidae 1 0
Diprotodontia
Vombatidae 3 Diprotodontia
Vombatidae 3 0
Diprotodontia
Burramyidae 5 Diprotodontia
Burramyidae 5 0
Diprotodontia
Phalangeridae 18 Diprotodontia
Phalangeridae 27 9 3
Diprotodontia
Pseudocheiridae 14 Diprotodontia
Pseudocheiridae 17 3
Diprotodontia
Petauridae 10 Diprotodontia
Petauridae 11 1
Diprotodontia
Tarsipedidae 1 Diprotodontia
Tarsipedidae 1 0
Diprotodontia
Acrobatidae 2 Diprotodontia
Acrobatidae 2 0
Diprotodontia
Potoroidae — Diprotodontia
Hypsiprymnodontidae 1 1
Diprotodontia
Potoroidae 9 Diprotodontia
Potoroidae 10 1
Diprotodontia
Macropodidae 54 Diprotodontia
Macropodidae 65 11 6
Insectivora
Tenrecidae 24 Afrosoricida
Tenrecidae 30 6 5
Insectivora
Chrysochloridae 18 Afrosoricida
Chrysochloridae 21 3 1
Macroscelidea
Macroscelididae 15 Macroscelidea
Macroscelididae 15 0
Tubulidentata
Orycteropodidae 1 Tubulidentata
Orycteropodidae 1 0
Hyracoidea
Procaviidae 6 Hyracoidea
Procaviidae 4
2
Proboscidea
Elephantidae 2 Proboscidea
Elephantidae 3 1
Sirenia
Dugongidae 2 Sirenia
Dugongidae 2 0
Sirenia
Trichechidae 3 Sirenia
Trichechidae 3 0
Xenarthra
Dasypodidae 20 Cingulata
Dasypodidae 21 1 1
Xenarthra
Bradypodidae 3 Pilosa
Bradypodidae 4 1 1
Xenarthra
Megalonychidae 2 Pilosa
Megalonychidae 2 0
Xenarthra
Myrmecophagidae — Pilosa
Cyclopedidae 1 1
Xenarthra
Myrmecophagidae 4 Pilosa
Myrmecophagidae 3
1
Scandentia
Tupaiidae 19 Scandentia
Tupaiidae 19 0
Scandentia
Tupaiidae — Scandentia
Ptilocercidae 1 1
Dermoptera
Cynocephalidae 2 Dermoptera
Cynocephalidae 2 0
Primates
Cheirogaleidae 7 Primates
Cheirogaleidae 21 14 6
Primates
Lemuridae 10 Primates
Lemuridae 19 9
Primates
Megaladapidae 7 Primates
Lepilemuridae 8 1
Primates
Indriidae 5 Primates
Indriidae 11 6 1
Primates
Daubentoniidae 1 Primates
Daubentoniidae 1 0
Primates
Loridae 6 Primates
Lorisidae 9 3 1
Primates
Galagonidae 11 Primates
Galagidae 19 8 1
Primates
Tarsiidae 5 Primates
Tarsiidae 7 2
Primates
Cebidae þ Callitrichidae 84 Primates
Cebidae 56
28 8
Primates
Cebidae — Primates
Aotidae 8 8
Primates
Cebidae — Primates
Pitheciidae 40 40 3
Primates
Cebidae — Primates
Atelidae 24 24
Primates
Cercopithecidae 81 Primates
Cercopithecidae 132 51 4
Primates
Hylobatidae 11 Primates
Hylobatidae 14 3
Primates
Hominidae 5 Primates
Hominidae 7 2
Rodentia
Aplodontiidae 1 Rodentia
Aplodontiidae 1 0
Rodentia
Sciuridae 273 Rodentia
Sciuridae 278 5
Rodentia
Myoxidae 26 Rodentia
Gliridae 28 2 1
Rodentia
Castoridae 2 Rodentia
Castoridae 2 0
Rodentia
Heteromyidae 59 Rodentia
Heteromyidae 60 1 2
June 2007 BOOK REVIEWS 829

APPENDIX I.—Continued.
MSW 1993 No. spp. MSW 2005 No. spp. Diff. Descr.
Rodentia
Geomyidae 35 Rodentia
Geomyidae 40 5
Rodentia
Dipodidae 51 Rodentia
Dipodidae 51 0
Rodentia
Muridae — Rodentia
Platacanthomyidae 2 2
Rodentia
Muridae — Rodentia
Spalacidae 36 36 4
Rodentia
Muridae — Rodentia
Calomyscidae 8 8
Rodentia
Muridae — Rodentia
Nesomyidae 61 61 6
Rodentia
Muridae — Rodentia
Cricetidae 681 681 52
Rodentia
Muridae 1,326 Rodentia
Muridae 730
596 33
Rodentia
Anomaluridae 7 Rodentia
Anomaluridae 7 0
Rodentia
Pedetidae 1 Rodentia
Pedetidae 2 1
Rodentia
Ctenodactylidae 5 Rodentia
Ctenodactylidae 5 0
Rodentia
Bathyergidae 12 Rodentia
Bathyergidae 16 4 2
Rodentia
Hystricidae 11 Rodentia
Hystricidae 11 0
Rodentia
Petromuridae 1 Rodentia
Petromuridae 1 0
Rodentia
Thryonomyidae 2 Rodentia
Thryonomyidae 2 0
Rodentia
Erethizontidae 12 Rodentia
Erethizontidae 16 4 2
Rodentia
Chinchillidae 6 Rodentia
Chinchillidae 7 1
Rodentia
Dinomyidae 1 Rodentia
Dinomyidae 1 0
Rodentia
Caviidae þ Hydrochaeridae 15 Rodentia
Caviidae 18 3 2
Rodentia
Dasyproctidae 13 Rodentia
Dasyproctidae 13 0
Rodentia
Agoutidae 2 Rodentia
Cuniculidae 2 0
Rodentia
Ctenomyidae 38 Rodentia
Ctenomyidae 60 22 5
Rodentia
Octodontidae 9 Rodentia
Octodontidae 13 4 3
Rodentia
Abrocomidae 3 Rodentia
Abrocomidae 10 7 2
Rodentia
Echimyidae 78 Rodentia
Echimyidae 90 12 13
Rodentia
Myocastoridae 1 Rodentia
Myocastoridae 1 0
Rodentia
Capromyidae 20 Rodentia
Capromyidae 20 0
Rodentia
Heptaxodontidae 5 Rodentia
Heptaxodontidae 4
1
Lagomorpha
Ochotonidae 26 Lagomorpha
Ochotonidae 30 4 2
Lagomorpha
Ochotonidae — Lagomorpha
Prolagidae 1 1
Lagomorpha
Leporidae 54 Lagomorpha
Leporidae 61 7 3
Insectivora
Erinaceidae 21 Erinaceomorpha
Erinaceidae 24 3 1
Insectivora
Nesophontidae 8 Soricomorpha
Nesophontidae 9 1
Insectivora
Solenodontidae 3 Soricomorpha
Solenodontidae 4 1 1
Insectivora
Soricidae 312 Soricomorpha
Soricidae 376 64 17
Insectivora
Talpidae 42 Soricomorpha
Talpidae 39
3
Chiroptera
Pteropodidae 166 Chiroptera
Pteropodidae 186 20 6
Chiroptera
Rhinolophidae 130 Chiroptera
Rhinolophidae 77
53 4
Chiroptera
Rhinolophidae — Chiroptera
Hipposideridae 81 81 7
Chiroptera
Megadermatidae 5 Chiroptera
Megadermatidae 5 0
Chiroptera
Rhinopomatidae 3 Chiroptera
Rhinopomatidae 4 1
Chiroptera
Craseonycteridae 1 Chiroptera
Craseonycteridae 1 0
Chiroptera
Emballonuridae 47 Chiroptera
Emballonuridae 51 4 2
Chiroptera
Nycteridae 12 Chiroptera
Nycteridae 16 4
Chiroptera
Myzopodidae 1 Chiroptera
Myzopodidae 1 0
Chiroptera
Mystacinidae 2 Chiroptera
Mystacinidae 2 0
Chiroptera
Phyllostomidae 141 Chiroptera
Phyllostomidae 160 19 9
Chiroptera
Mormoopidae 8 Chiroptera
Mormoopidae 10 2
Chiroptera
Noctilionidae 2 Chiroptera
Noctilionidae 2 0
Chiroptera
Furipteridae 2 Chiroptera
Furipteridae 2 0
Chiroptera
Thyropteridae 2 Chiroptera
Thyropteridae 3 1 1
Chiroptera
Natalidae 5 Chiroptera
Natalidae 8 3
Chiroptera
Molossidae 80 Chiroptera
Molossidae 100 20 2
Chiroptera
Vespertilionidae 318 Chiroptera
Vespertilionidae 407 89 18
Pholidota
Manidae 7 Pholidota
Manidae 8 1
Carnivora
Felidae 36 Carnivora
Felidae 40 4
Carnivora
Viverridae 34 Carnivora
Viverridae 35 1 1
Carnivora
Viverridae — Carnivora
Eupleridae 8 8
Carnivora
Viverridae — Carnivora
Nandiniidae 1 1
Carnivora
Herpestidae 37 Carnivora
Herpestidae 33
4
Carnivora
Hyaenidae 4 Carnivora
Hyaenidae 4 0
Carnivora
Canidae 34 Carnivora
Canidae 35 1
Carnivora
Ursidae 9 Carnivora
Ursidae 8
1
Carnivora
Ursidae — Carnivora
Ailuridae 1 1
830 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 88, No. 3

APPENDIX I.—Continued.
MSW 1993 No. spp. MSW 2005 No. spp. Diff. Descr.
Carnivora
Otariidae 14 Carnivora
Otariidae 16 2
Carnivora
Odobenidae 1 Carnivora
Odobenidae 1 0
Carnivora
Phocidae 19 Carnivora
Phocidae 19 0
Carnivora
Mustelidae 65 Carnivora
Mustelidae 59
6
Carnivora
Mustelidae Carnivora
Mephitidae 12 12
Carnivora
Procyonidae 18 Carnivora
Procyonidae 14
4
Perissodactyla
Equidae 9 Perissodactyla
Equidae 8
1
Perissodactyla
Tapiridae 4 Perissodactyla
Tapiridae 4 0
Perissodactyla
Rhinocerotidae 5 Perissodactyla
Rhinocerotidae 5 0
Artiodactyla
Suidae 16 Artiodactyla
Suidae 19 3 1
Artiodactyla
Tayassuidae 3 Artiodactyla
Tayassuidae 3 0
Artiodactyla
Hippopotamidae 4 Artiodactyla
Hippopotamidae 2
2
Artiodactyla
Camelidae 6 Artiodactyla
Camelidae 4
2
Artiodactyla
Tragulidae 4 Artiodactyla
Tragulidae 8 4
Artiodactyla
Moschidae 4 Artiodactyla
Moschidae 7 3
Artiodactyla
Cervidae 43 Artiodactyla
Cervidae 51 8 5
Artiodactyla
Antilocapridae 1 Artiodactyla
Antilocapridae 1 0 2
Artiodactyla
Giraffidae 2 Artiodactyla
Giraffidae 2 0
Artiodactyla
Bovidae 137 Artiodactyla
Bovidae 143 6
Cetacea
Balaenidae 3 Cetacea
Balaenidae 4 1
Cetacea
Balaenopteridae 6 Cetacea
Balaenopteridae 7 1
Cetacea
Eschrichtiidae 1 Cetacea
Eschrichtiidae 1 0
Cetacea
Neobalaenidae 1 Cetacea
Neobalaenidae 1 0
Cetacea
Delphinidae 32 Cetacea
Delphinidae 34 2
Cetacea
Monodontidae 2 Cetacea
Monodontidae 2 0
Cetacea
Phocoenidae 6 Cetacea
Phocoenidae 6 0
Cetacea
Physeteridae 3 Cetacea
Physeteridae 3 0
Cetacea
Platanistidae 5 Cetacea
Platanistidae 2
3
Cetacea
Platanistidae — Cetacea
Iniidae 3 3
Cetacea
Ziphiidae 19 Cetacea
Ziphiidae 21 2 1

View publication stats