Giant White-tailed Uromys

materials_examined

Type material. SYNTYPE, AM S 1848, skull only (the body apparently being lost). Cape York. Revised diagnosis. Uromys caudimaculatus differs from U. anak and U. neobritannicus in possessing a posterior palatal spine, an only rudimentary postorbital process; narrow, tapering posterior nasals which terminate anterior to the posterior ends of the lachrymals; in having the hindfoot not usually longer than 22 % of the head-body length and ear length more than 43 % of condylobasal length; the incisive foramina are more than 20 % of the palatal length, while the toothrow is less than 20 % of condylobasal length. The colour is a medium brown-grey, the feet are white, the tail scales arranged in clear rings and longer than broad, with a white tail tip. It differs from U. hadrourus in its larger size, less inflated braincase, and larger postorbital process and anterolateral bullar spurs, shorter ears and longer white tail tip, greater frontal convexity, narrower feet and less posteriorly extensive nasals. It differs from U. emmae n. sp. in its more elongate rostrum, narrower and longer hindfoot, relatively smaller teeth, longer ears, more inflated frontals, and in having the distalmost portio

A revision of the genus Uromys Peters, 1867 (Muridae: Mammalia) with descriptions of two new species

discussion

Discussion: Subgenus Uromys. The Australian population has been studied from viewpoints of chromosomal morphology (Baverstock et al., 1977 c), heterochromatin variation (Baverstock et al., 1976 b, 1982), electrophoretic data (Baverstock et al., 1981), G-banding homologies (Baverstock et al., 1983 b), morphology of male reproductive tract (Breed, 1986), and spermatozoal structure (Breed, 1984; Breed and Sarafis, 1978). Donnellan (1987) provided chromosomal information for samples from New Guinea, Breed and Aplin (1994) reported spermatozoal morphology, and Lidicker (1968) described phallic anatomy. Morphology of gastrointestinal tract and its significance covered by Comport and Hume (1998). Mahoney and Richardson (1988: 189) cataloged taxonomic, distributional, and biological references covering Australian populations. Two different chromosomal forms of Australian U. caudimaculatus exist, one extending from McIlwraith Ranges northward, the other from Cooktown southward; they are separated by a 200 km break in rainforest (Baverstock et al., 1976 b, 1977 c; Donnellan, 1989). Significance of morphological variation among samples from mainland New Guinea assessed in the context of a sys

Order Rodentia - Family Muridae

distribution

Distribution: Australia: NE coastal Queensland in tropical forests from Townsville area north to tip of Cape York, and a few islands off the coast of N Queensland (Moore, 1995: 640; Watts and Aslin, 1981: 91). New Guinea: widespread throughout lowland and midmontane regions on the mainland, sea level to 1925 m; also on Aru Isls, Kai Isls, Waigeo Isl, Yapen Isl, and Normanby and Fergusson in the D’Entrecasteaux Arch. (Flannery, 1995 a, b; Leary and Seri, 1997).

Order Rodentia - Family Muridae

materials_examined

Type Locality: Australia, Queensland, Cape York (see Mahoney and Richardson, 1988).

Order Rodentia - Family Muridae