Differentiating sibling species in the Quaternary fossil record: a comparison of morphological and molecular methods to identifyMicrotus arvalisandM. rossiaemeridionalis(Arvicolinae, Rodenia)

New record of Microtus mystacinus in eastern Kazakhstan: phylogeographical considerations

“…Our estimation is similar to Tougard et al (2008 , 2013 ) as a logical result of the utilization of the same fossil calibration point, but all other specified estimations are much lower and associated with the same mutation rate (3.27 x10 -7 substitutions/site/year) proposed by Martínková et al (2013) specifically for Microtus arvalis based on a recent geological event. It is not easy to judge which values are realistic, but our estimates seem to be compatible with other phylogenetic studies (e.g., Mazurok et al 2001 ; Bannikova et al 2010 ) and the fossil record (e.g., Cuenca-Bescós et al 2001 ; Markova et al 2012 ). Based on this compatibility, we adhere to the values of our estimations.…”

“…It is now generally considered a valid species of the genus Microtus based on hybridisation data, and chromosomal and genetic differences (for reviews see Kryštufek and Vohralík 2005 and Musser and Carleton 2005 ). Several authors have attempted to distinguish Microtus mystacinus from the common vole ( Microtus arvalis ), the Altai vole ( M. obscurus ), and the Middle Eastern vole ( M. transcaspicus ) based on morphological data ( Král et al 1981 ; Zagorodnyuk 1991a , b ; Masing 1999 ; Hotzi et al 2008 ; Markova et al 2009 , 2012 ; Markov et al 2012 ; Ghorbani et al 2015 ). Although some diagnostic characters have been proposed (e.g., qualitative and quantitative cranial and dental morphology) and multivariate morphometric approaches have been applied (e.g., Markov et al 2012 ; Markova et al 2012 ), these approaches have been lacking in diagnostic power ( Kryštufek and Vohralík 2005 ; Markov et al 2012 ), except for characters proposed by Kryštufek and Vohralík (2005) .…”

A complex scenario of glacial survival in Mediterranean and continental refugia of a temperate continental vole species ( Microtus arvalis ) in Europe

“…This scenario is clearly not consistent with the fossil evidence (oldest fossil remains of M. arvalis in Central Europe from the Late Cromerian, 465,000 ybp; (Kowalski, )) although accurate species identification in fossil remains appear to be problematic and should always be considered cautiously for this and related species (Navarro et al, ; Tougard, ). The extreme similarity between sibling vole species (Markova et al, ) and the morphological changes probably suffered by the species between the mid‐Holocene and the present day are known to be unfavorable for diagnosing M. arvalis in the fossil record (Markova, Beeren, van Kolfschoten, Strukova, & Vrieling, ). Here, we focus on extant lineages, and therefore, we lack direct information about extinct lineages, which are often those found in the fossil record but that probably did not survive past periods (Tougard, ).…”

The Small and the Dead: A Review of Ancient DNA Studies Analysing Micromammal Species

“…In addition, all morphological techniques are vulnerable to the confounding factors of physical damage and weak taxonomic signal. Many micromammal groups are highly species rich (e.g., Rodentia [ 54 ]) and rapid rates of diversification can result in genetic speciation without a concordant proliferation of morphological differences [ 55 ]. In addition, some species groups show high levels of phenotypic plasticity (e.g., shrews ( Sorex ) [ 56 ] and Arvicoline rodents [ 28 , 57 ]).…”