Emma's Uromys

description

Figs 10 - 12, Table 2 Type material. HOLOTYPE, AM M 7200, adult female skin and skull. Collected by Col. C. B. ~ hillips of the USA Typhus Commission on Owi Island (1016 ' E 136 ° 13 ' S), Schouten Group, Geelvinck Bay, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. The specimen was registered on 1 July 1946, and was probably collected during 1944 - 1945. Etymology. For the junior author's daughter, Emma. Diagnosis. Uromys emmae can be distinguished from all other species of Uromys except U. caudimaculatus in having a mottled section of the tail, where the light tip contacts the darker proximal part. It differs from U. caudimaculatus in the following ways: i) hindfoot shorter, broader; ii) body fur shorter, coarser; iii) white mottling on tail restricted to distal third, where it is limited in extent, and terminal 1 cm brown (in other species white tail section much more extensive); iv) rostrum relatively and absolutely shorter; v) preorbital foramen hidden behind zygomatic plates (most of it visible in other species); vi) frontals not inflated, supraorbital ridging better developed, incisive foramina shorter (only 18.4 % of palate length); vii) molars relatively larger (21 % of condylobasal length); viii

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

discussion

Discussion. As in the case of U. boeadii, careful consideration has been given as to whether the taxon U. emmae should be recognised as a new species, or elongated hindfeet and a long skull are typical of as a subspecies of U. caudimaculatus, always a terrestrial taxa (eg, Xenuromys barbatus, Melomys difficult question to resolve when dealing with lorentzi). The combination ofa short, broad hindfoot and insular taxa for which the criterion of reproductive short snout may well indicate that U. emmae is more isolation is immaterial and sample size is small. We arboreal than U. caudimaculatus. (3) It shares decided that U. emmae should be described as a full plesiomorphic features with U hadrourus: nasofrontal species for the following reasons. 1) It differs from suture well posterior to the level of the preorbital Uromys caudimaculatus in a number of features that foramen; thin preorbital bar; uninflated interorbital are not observed to vary among the previously profile; weaker zygomatic arches; and broader feet, recognised subspecies of the latter taxa. These features recalling U. (Cyromys). It retains other apparently include the short, very broad hindfoot; short rostrum; plesiomor

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

discussion

Discussion: Subgenus Uromys. Still known only by the holotype. Morphologically and phylogenetically most closely related to the Australian-New Guinea U. caudimaculatus and NE Australian U. hadrourus (Groves and flannery, 1994).

Order Rodentia - Family Muridae

distribution

Distribution: Recorded only from Pulau Awai, but may also occur on adjacent Biak and Supiori Isls (Flannery, 1995 b).

Order Rodentia - Family Muridae