2007
DOI: 10.1644/05-mamm-a-291r3.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Taxonomic Revision ofThomomys bottaein the Baja California Sur Lowlands

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lack of discrimination power of the models for some species could have resulted because the analysis did not include the most critical variables for the species, as in the case of S. atricapillus, that have a preference for sites with running water (AlvarezCastañeda et al 1996) and D. simulans that have a preference for habitats with deep soils, which, in turn, apparently leads to a mosaic pattern of distribution in the Magdalena Plains (25°N, 111.63°W). In other cases, as with Thomomys bottae, the result can be related to the fact that the species is not correctly represented in the data points because, under natural conditions, their presence or absence is difficult to determine since their distribution is discontinuous and at low density, as opposed to agricultural areas, where distribution is uniform and density increases (Alvarez-Castañeda and Patton 2004;Trujano-Alvarez and Alvarez-Castañeda 2007). For this reason, we suspect that this species shows 'absence' at some data points where they are probably present.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lack of discrimination power of the models for some species could have resulted because the analysis did not include the most critical variables for the species, as in the case of S. atricapillus, that have a preference for sites with running water (AlvarezCastañeda et al 1996) and D. simulans that have a preference for habitats with deep soils, which, in turn, apparently leads to a mosaic pattern of distribution in the Magdalena Plains (25°N, 111.63°W). In other cases, as with Thomomys bottae, the result can be related to the fact that the species is not correctly represented in the data points because, under natural conditions, their presence or absence is difficult to determine since their distribution is discontinuous and at low density, as opposed to agricultural areas, where distribution is uniform and density increases (Alvarez-Castañeda and Patton 2004;Trujano-Alvarez and Alvarez-Castañeda 2007). For this reason, we suspect that this species shows 'absence' at some data points where they are probably present.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Morphological and genetic studies of Thomomys from the BCP lowlands show that the morphology of these gophers does not match with any geographic or genetic patterns. Furthermore, intrapopulation variation is higher within than between groups (Trujano‐Alvarez & Álvarez‐Castañeda, ).…”
Section: Taxonomic Summarymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on our data, we suggest restructuring the infraspecific taxonomy to consist of four subspecies (Fig. 6), from north to south: Thomomys nigricans nigricans (clade I), distributed over southern California and the north-western BCP; Thomomys nigricans martirensis (clade II), occurring throughout the BCP highlands (Sierra Juarez and San Pedro Martir) to the Central Desert; Thomomys nigricans russeolus (clade IIIa), occurring from the Central Valley of Baja California to the Vizcaino Desert area; and Thomomys nigricans anitae (clade IIIb), distributed from north of the San Ignacio Lagoon to the southern tip of BCP (Trujano-Alvarez & Álvarez-Castañeda, 2007). Although the divergence within clade III is recent (150 200 years ago), we retained T. n. russeolus (IIIa) and T. n. anitae (IIIb) as recognizable subspecies because morphological data indicate some differentiation between them (Rios & Álvarez-Castañeda, 2007;Trujano-Alvarez & Álvarez-Castañeda, 2007), and because the genetic break between these subclades coincides with a 140 km-wide area of inimical habitat (see Fig.…”
Section: Taxonomic Summarymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations