Chromosomal and molecular studies of cryptic species of the subgenus Terricola (Rodentia, Arvicolinae, Microtus) in the Caucasian region: Analysis of new records

High molecular variability in three pine vole species of the subgenus Terricola ( Microtus , Arvicolinae) and plausible source of polymorphism

“…subterraneus as well as the isolation of M . majori that coincides with the results of the same gene analysis performed by other authors on limited material (Baskevich, Potapov, Khlyap, et al, 2016; Jaarola et al, 2004). Genetic distances between the three studied species of the subgenus Terricola significantly exceeded the minimal values (2%–5%) that were determined for mammalian species comparison and proposed as the “mark” for discrimination in the genetic species concept (Baker & Bradley, 2006; Bradley & Baker, 2001).…”

“…subterraneus , and M . majori as well the isolated position of the latter species from the other two, as was revealed in the majority of previous publications (Baskevich, 1997; Baskevich et al, 2018; Baskevich, Potapov, Khlyap, et al, 2016; Jaarola et al, 2004; Martínková & Moravec, 2012; Mezhzherin et al, 1995; Tougard, 2017). The result is in accordance with paleontological data and the ecological preferences of extant species of the subgenus Terricola and their ancestral fossil forms.…”

“…daghestanicus , and M . subterraneus differ from each other in their molecular genetic characteristics (Baskevich et al, 2018; Baskevich, Potapov, Khlyap, et al, 2016; Baskevich, Potapov, & Mironova, 2016; Bogdanov, Khlyap, et al, 2020; Jaarola et al, 2004; Macholán et al, 2001; Martínková & Moravec, 2012; Mezhzherin et al, 1995; Tougard, 2017) as well as in their ecological preferences (Baskevich, 1997; Shvarts, 1985; Tembotov & Khatoukhov, 1979; Zagorodnyuk, 1992). Recent taxonomic checklists (Musser & Carleton, 2005; Pavlinov & Lissovsky, 2012) supported the specific status of M .…”

“…Other scientists (Corbet, 1978;Gromov & Polyakov, 1977;Ognev, 1950) recognized subterraneus and majori forms as distinct species, and daghestanicus form as a subspecies of majori. Later, different karyotypes were described in all of these forms: 2n = 54, NF = 60 in majori; 2n = 38-54, NF = 58 in daghestanicus (Akhverdyan et al, 1992;Baskevich et al, 1984;Baskevich, Potapov, Khlyap, et al, 2016;Ivanov & Tembotov, 1972;Khatoukhov et al, 1978;Lyapunova et al, 1988); 2n = 52-54, NF = 60 in subterraneus (Baskevich et al, 2007(Baskevich et al, , 2018Bulatova et al, 2007;Macholán et al, 2001;Meylan, 1972;Mitsainas et al, 2010;Sablina et al, 1989;Zagorodnyuk, 1988;Zima & Kral, 1984). These karyotypic peculiarities served as the basis for recognition of all of the forms as distinct species: Microtus majori Thomas, 1906 (Major's pine vole), Microtus daghestanicus Shidlovsky, 1919 (the Caucasus or Daghestan pine vole), and Microtus subterraneus de Selys-Longchamps, 1836 (the common or European pine vole) (Ivanov & Tembotov, 1972;Khatoukhov et al, 1978;Niethammer & Krapp, 1982;Baskevich et al, 1984).…”

Cytogenetic Characteristics of Microtus guentheri, Microtus arvalis sensu lato and Microtus majori (Mammalia: Rodentia) From Turkey: Constitutive Heterochromatin Distribution

“…Microtus majori diploid chromosome number and sex chromosome morphology was similar in the studies conducted previously in Turkey and Caucasia (Zima and Král, 1984;Macholan et al, 2001;O'Brien, 2006;Kuliev and Bickham, 2010;Arslan and Zima, 2014;Baskevich et al, 2015). As an exception to this result, in studies conducted by Çolak et al, (1997b) on samples of M. majori species, X chromosome was reported to be subtelocentric.…”