Taxonomy of voles of the subgenus Sumeriomys Argyropulo, 1933 (Rodentia, Arvicolinae, Microtus)

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Dentition and baculum morphology in social voles of the subgenus Sumeriomys from the Southern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia were examined. The specimens investigated come from 20 different sites, majority of which are the type localities for the nominal species-level taxa. Also results of the study of the karyotype, including differentially stained chromosomes for social voles from different parts of their geographic range and their hybrids are discussed. The synaptoneme complexes (SCs) for study of the chromosome pairing in different forms of voles was investigated. For Microtus (S.) schidlovskii Argyropulo, 1933 and M. (S.) paradoxus Ognev et Heptner, 1928 a species status is confirmed by our research. Two new subspecies of M (S). socialis Pallas, 1773 are described: M. s. aristovi Golenishchev ssp. nov. and M. s. zaitsevi Golenishchev ssp. nov. The identification keys based on the baculum structure for the subgenus Sumeriomys are presented.

Comparison of the chromosome banding patterns in three species of social voles (Microtus irani karamani, M. schidlovskii, M. anatolicus) from Turkey

“…anatolicus: Kefelioğlu and Kryštufek, 1999). The karyotypes of these three taxa seem to be quite similar according to studies that applied conventional staining of chromosomes (Kefelioğlu, 1995;Golenishchev et al, 1999Golenishchev et al, , 2002Kefelioğlu and Kryštufek, 1999;Kryštufek and Kefelioğlu, 2001;Yiğit et al, 2006;Kryštufek et al, 2010). Investigations involving chromosomal banding techniques were, however, exceptional (Yavuz et al, 2009).…”

Social but lonely: Species delimitation of social voles and the evolutionary history of the onlyMicrotusspecies living in Africa

“…With the currently available sequences, we delimited nine species of social voles, assuming M. irani karamani is not elevated to species. Our dataset still lacks sequences specifically attributed to described taxonomic entities of dubious status; for example, M. philistinus (Israel and Palestine), M. shevketi , M. lydius , M. ankaraensis , M. elbeyli from eastern Turkey, and M. martinoi , M. macedonicus , and M. stranzensis from the Balkans (Chassovnikarova, Markov, Atanasov, & Dimitrov, ; Golenishchev et al, ; Kryštufek & Vohralík, ; Kryštufek et al, ; Yiğit & Çolak, ; Yiğit et al, ). These are probably synonyms to one of the four species delimited within the guentheri ‐group, probably M. philistinus to M. guentheri and all else to M. hartingi (except M. elbeyli which shows a differentiated karyotype of 2 n = 46; Yiğit et al, ).…”

“…With the currently available sequences, we delimited nine species of social voles, assuming M. irani karamani is not elevated to species. Our dataset still lacks sequences specifically attributed to stranzensis from the Balkans (Chassovnikarova, Markov, Atanasov, & Dimitrov, 2008;Golenishchev et al, 2002;Kryštufek & Vohralík, 2005;Kryštufek et al, 2010;Yiğit & Çolak, 2002;Yiğit et al, 2016).…”

“…Social voles constitute a group of Microtus species that are mainly distributed in western and central Asia and southeastern Europe. They show a relatively low level of morphological variation, a high level of karyotypic divergence, overlapping distributions and interspecific hybridization (Golenishchev, Sablina, Borodin, & Gerasimov, ). As a result, the systematic treatment of this group has changed repeatedly during the past decades, ranging from an independent genus Sumeriomys Argyropulo, 1933 (e.g., Zagorodnyuk, ) to a single species Microtus socialis (Pallas, 1773) (e.g., Corbet, ; Harrison & Bates, ).…”

“…Still there is much confusion on the correct application of the nomenclature resulting in the use of more than one name for the same taxonomic entity (e.g., M. guentheri and its synonym M. philistinus ). Moreover, several forms have been proposed on the grounds of morphology and/or chromosomal data as subspecies, semi‐species or sister species to M. guentheri (Golenishchev et al, ; Kryštufek et al, ; Yiğit, Çolak, & Sözen, ; Yiğit et al, ). Contributing new DNA sequences to the known phylogeny of social voles may help clarify these taxonomic issues; for example, a recent molecular study of Armenian populations of M. schidlovskii Argyropulo, 1933 and Turkish M. irani karamani , which placed them in the same taxon (Zorenko, Koren, & Kryštufek, ).…”