2005
DOI: 10.1644/786.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lutrogale perspicillata

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The members of these spatial groups operated separately (spending more than half their time in individual core areas), with the female groups configured around fresh water and rich fishing patches, which in RDH terms were both not easily partitioned but shareable. Similar mechanisms might explain the socioecology of Cape clawless otter, among which total homerange length correlated with mean reed bed (a high-density food patch) nearest neighbour distance (Somers & Nel, 2004), and groups of up to four female hairy-nosed otters in Cambodia (Otter, 2003;Hwang & Larivière, 2005).…”
Section: Does Patch Dispersion Predict Territory Size?mentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The members of these spatial groups operated separately (spending more than half their time in individual core areas), with the female groups configured around fresh water and rich fishing patches, which in RDH terms were both not easily partitioned but shareable. Similar mechanisms might explain the socioecology of Cape clawless otter, among which total homerange length correlated with mean reed bed (a high-density food patch) nearest neighbour distance (Somers & Nel, 2004), and groups of up to four female hairy-nosed otters in Cambodia (Otter, 2003;Hwang & Larivière, 2005).…”
Section: Does Patch Dispersion Predict Territory Size?mentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Since then, some authors have considered Lutrogale synonoymous with Lutra (e.g., Chasen 1940) or as a subgenus of Lutra (e.g., Ellerman and Morrison-Scott 1966;Harris 1968;Payne et al 1985) whereas others recognize Lutrogale as a monotypic genus (Pocock 1941;Van Zyll De Jong 1972, 1987Corbet and Hill 1992;Willemsen 1986Willemsen , 1992Wozencraft 2005). Lutrogale is distinguished from Lutra by having a short, smooth pelage, a highly arched skull with large orbits set more anteriorly and laterally, a shortened rostrum, larger teeth, and a tail that is dorsoventrally flattened distally with distinctive integumentary keels (Pohle 1919;Pocock 1941;Harris 1968;Willemsen 1980Willemsen , 1992Hwang and Larivière 2005). The characters of the skull, teeth and tail in Lutrogale are shared with Pteronura (the giant otter, which has a completely keeled tail) and morphometric or cladistic analyses of morphology, as well as comparisons of behavior and vocalizations among lutrines, have suggested a relationship between these genera (Van Zyll de Jong 1972, 1987Duplaix 1980).…”
Section: Phylogenetic Relationships Of Lutrogale Perspicillatamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pairing of these two species is surprising given their considerable morphological and ecological differences. The body mass of Lutrogale is two to three times larger than that of A. cinerea (7-11 vs. \3.5 kg, respectively) (Larivière 2003; Hwang and Larivière 2005). Lutrogale has well-developed claws and fully webbed forefeet and hindfeet whereas the claws are rudimentary in adults and the feet incompletely webbed in A. cinerea.…”
Section: Phylogenetic Relationships Of Lutrogale Perspicillatamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations