Mammalian Biology

, Volume 68, Issue 6, pp 351–364 | Cite as

Phylogenetic analysis of sigmodontine rodents (Muroidea), with special reference to the akodont genus Deltamys

  • G. D’ElîaEmail author
  • E. M. González
  • U. F. J. Pardiñas
Original investigation


We present a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis based on cytochrome b gene sequences of sigmodontine rodents. Our particular interest is to estimate the phyletic position of Deltamys, a tax-on endemic to a small portion of the La Plata river basin in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, and to assess its generic status. The three primary conclusions derived from our analyses are: (1) cotton rats (Sigmodon) are the sister group of the remaining sigmodontines, (2) the tribe Akodontini is monophyletic with moderate support, and (3) Deltamys falls outside of a clade containing all species of subgenera of Akodon yet examined, and thus we grant Deltamys status of full genus.


Akodon Akodontini Muroidea Sigmodontinae phylogeny 

Phylogenetische Analyse sigmodontiner Nager (Muroidea), mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der akodonten Gattung Deltamys


Die Autoren stellen eine umfassende phylogenetische Analyse der sigmodontinen Nagetiere mit Hilfe von Cytochrom b Gen-Sequenzen vor. Von besonderem Interesse ist dabei die phyletische Stellung und der fragliche generische Status von Deltamys, einem Taxon, das endemisch in einem kleinen Gebiet des La Plata Flußdeltas in Argentinien, Brasilien und Uruguay vorkommt. Die Studie lieferte drei wesentliche Ergebnisse: (1) Baumwollratten (Sigmodon) bilden die basale Gruppe der Unterfamilie Sigmodontinae, (2) das Tribus Akondontini ist monophyletisch, und (3) Deltamys fällt außerhalb einer Gruppe, die alle untersuchten Arten von Akodon umfaßt, und sollte daher Gattungsrang erhalten.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Banchini, J.; Delupi, L. (1994): Consideraciones sobre el estado sistemâtico de Deltamys kempi Thomas, 1917 (Cricetidae, Sigmodontinae). Physis Sec. C 49, 27–35.Google Scholar
  2. Baskin, J. A. (1986): The late Miocene radiation of Neotropical sigmodontine rodents in North America. In: Vertebrates, Phylogeny, and Philosophy. Ed. by K. M. Flanagan and J. A. Lillegraven. University of Wyoming Contributions to Geology, Special Paper 3, 287–303.Google Scholar
  3. Cabrera, A. (1961): Catálogo de los Mamíferos de América del Sur. Rev. Mus. Argentino Cien. Nat. “Bernardino Rivadavia”, Ciencias Zoológicas 4, 309–732.Google Scholar
  4. Castro, E. C.; Mattevi, M. S.; Maluf, S. W.; Oliveira, L. F. B. (1991): Distinct centric fusions in different populations of Deltamys kempi (Rodentia, Cricetidae) from South America. Cytobios 68, 153–159.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Da Silva, M. N. F.; Patton, J. L. (1993): Amazonian phylogeography: mtDNA sequence variation in arboreal echimyid rodents (Caviomorpha). Mol. Phy. Evol. 2, 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D’Elía, G. (2000): Comments on recent advances in understanding sigmodontine phylogeny and evolution. Mastozool. Neot. 7, 47–54.Google Scholar
  7. D’Elía, G. (2002): Testing patterns and processes of diversification of a South American group of land mammals (Rodentia, Cricetidae, Sigmodontinae). Diss. Thesis, Univ. Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
  8. D’Elía, G.; Pardiñas, U. F. J.; Myers, P. (2003): An introduction to the genus Bibimys (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae): Phylogenetic position and alpha taxonomy. In: Mammalian Diversification: from population genetics to biogeography. Ed. by E. Lacey and P. Myers. Berkeley: University of California Press (in press).Google Scholar
  9. Dickerman, A. W. (1991): Molecular systematics of some new world muroid rodents. Diss. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
  10. Dimmick, W. W.; Ghedotti, M. J.; Grose, M. J.; Maglia, A. M.; Meinhardt, D. J.; Pennock, D. S. (1999): The importance of systematic biology in defining units of conservation. Conser. Biol. 13, 653–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellerman, J. R. (1941): The Families and Genera of Living Rodents. Vol. 2, Family Muridae. London: British Museum of Natural History.Google Scholar
  12. Engel, S. R.; Hogan, K. M.; Taylor, J. F.; Davis, S. K. (1998): Molecular systematics and paleobiogeography of the South American sigmodontine rodents. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15, 35–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farris, J. S. (1983): The logical basis for phylogenetic analysis. In: Advances in Cladistics. Vol. 2. Proced. Sec. Meeting Willi Hennig Society. Ed. by N. I. Platnick and V. A. Funk. New Work: Columbia University Press. Pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
  14. Felsenstein, J. (1985): Confidence limits on phytogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39, 783–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner, A. L.; Patton, J. L. (1976): Karyotipic variation in oryzomyine rodents (Cricetinae) with comments on chromosomal evolution in the Neotropical cricetine complex. Occ. Papers Mus. Zool., Louisiana State University 49, 1–48.Google Scholar
  16. González, E. M.; Massoia, E. (1995): Revalidación del genero Deltamys Thomas, 1917, con la descripción de una nueva subespecie de Uruguay y sur del Brasil (Mammalia: Rodentia: Cricetidae). Com. Zool. Mus. Hist. Nat. Montevideo 182, 1–8.Google Scholar
  17. González, E. M.; Pardiñas, U. F. J. (2002): Deltamys kempi. Mammalian Species 711, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gyldenstolpe, N. (1932): A manual of Neotropical sigmodont rodents. Kunglia Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar. Stockholm, ser. 3, 11, 1–164.Google Scholar
  19. Hershkovitz, P. (1966): South American swamp and fossorial rats of the Scapteromyine group (Cricetinae, Muridae), with comments on the glans penis in murid taxonomy. Z. Säugetierkunde 31, 81–149.Google Scholar
  20. Hershkovitz, P. (1972): The recent mammals of the Neotropical region: a Zoogeographic and ecologic review. In: Evolution, Mammals, and Southern Continents. Ed. by A. Keast, F. C. Erk, and B. Glass. Albany: State University of New York Press. Pp. 311–431.Google Scholar
  21. Hopper, E. T.; Musser, G. G. (1964): The glans penis in Neotropical cricetines (family Muridae) with comments on classification of muroid rodents. Mis. Pub. Mus. Zool., University of Michigan 123, 1–57.Google Scholar
  22. Irwin, D. M.; Kocher, T. D.; Wilson, A. C. (1991): Evolution of the cytochrome b gene of mammals. J. Mol. Evol. 32, 128–144.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs, L. L.; Lindsay, E. H. (1984): Holarctic radiation of Neogene muroid rodents and the origin of South American cricetids. J. Vert. Paleo. 4, 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maddison, W. P.; Maddison, D. R. (1992): MacClade. Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Massoia, E. (1964): Sistemática, distribución geográfica y rasgos etoecológicos de Akodon (Deltamys) kempi (Rodentia, Cricetidae). Physis Sec. C 24, 299–305.Google Scholar
  26. Massoia, E. (1980): Nuevos datos sobre Akodon, Deltamys y Cabreramys con la descripción de una nueva especie y subespecie (Mammalia, Rodentia, Cricetidae). Nota preliminar. Hist. Nat. 1, 179.Google Scholar
  27. Massoia, E. (1983): La alimentación de algunas aves del Orden Strigiformes en la Argentina. El Hornero (Numéro extra), 124–148.Google Scholar
  28. Mckenna, M. C.; Bell, S. K. (1997): Classification of Mammals above the Species Level. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Moritz, C. (1994): Applications of mitochondrial DNA analysis in conservation: a critical review. Mol. Ecol. 3, 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Musser, G. G.; Carleton, M. D. (1993): Family Muridae. In: Mammal Species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Ed. by D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pp. 501–755.Google Scholar
  31. Myers, P.; Lundrigan, B. L.; Tucker, P. K. (1995): Molecular phylogenetics of oryzomyine rodents: the genus Oligoryzomys. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 4, 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nixon, K. C. (1999): The Parsimony Ratchet, a new method for rapid parsimony analysis. Cladistics 15, 407–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pardiñas, U. F. J.; D’Elía, G.; Cirignoli, S. (2003): The genus Akodon (Muroidea: Sigmodontinae) in Misiones, Argentina. Mamm. Biol. (in press).Google Scholar
  34. Reig, O. A. (1980): A new fossil genus of South American cricetid rodents allied to Weidomys, with an assessment of the Sigmodontinae. J. Zool. (London) 192, 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reig, O. A. (1984): Distribução geográphica e história evolutiva dos roedores muroideos sulamericanos (Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae). Rev. Bras. Gen. 7, 333–365.Google Scholar
  36. Reig, O. A. (1987): An assessment of the systematics and evolution of the Akodontini, with the description of new fossil species of Akodon (Cricetidae, Sigmodontinae). In: Studies in Neotropical Mammalogy: Essays in Honor of Philip Hershkovitz. Ed. by B.D. Patterson and R.M. Timm. Fieldiana: Zoology (New Series) 39, 347–399.Google Scholar
  37. Sbalqueiro, I. J.; Mattevi, M. S.; Oliveira, L. F. B. (1984): An X1X1X2X2/X1X2Y mechanism of sex determination in a South American rodent, Deltamys kempi (Rodentia, Cricetidae). Cytogen. Cell Gen. 38, 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siddal, M. E. (1995): Another monophyly index: revisiting the jackknife. Cladistics 11, 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sikes, D. S.; Lewis, P.O. (2001): Beta software, version 1. PAUPRat: PAUP* implementation of the pasimony ratchet. Distributed by the authors. Storrs: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, M. F.; Patton, J. L. (1993): The diversification of South American murid rodents: evidence from mitochondrial DNA sequence data for the akodontine tribe. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 50, 149–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, M. F.; Patton, J. L. (1999): Phylogenetic relationships and the radiation of sigmodontine rodents in South America: Evidence from cytochrome b. J. Mamm. Evol. 6, 89–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swofford, D (2000): PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods), 4.0. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Tate, G. H. H. (1932): The taxonomic history of the South and Central American oryzomine genera of rodents (excluding Oryzomys): Nesoryzomys, Zygodontomys, Chilomys, Delomys, Phaenomys, Rhagomys, Rhipidomys, Nyctomys, Oecomys, Thomasomys, Inomys, Aepeomys, Neacomys, and Scolomys. Am. Mus. Novitates 581, 1–28.Google Scholar
  44. Thomas, O. (1917): On small mammals from the Delta del Paraná. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 8, 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thomas, O. (1918): On small mammals from Salta and Jujuy collected by Mr. E. Budin. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 9, 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson, J. D.; Gibson, T. J.; Plewniak, F.; Jeanmougin, F.; Higgins, D. G. (1997): The Clustal X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nuc. Acids Res. 24, 4876–4882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. D’Elîa
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • E. M. González
    • 1
    • 3
  • U. F. J. Pardiñas
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.The University of Michigan Museum of ZoologyAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Laboratorio de EvoluciónFacultad de CienciasMontevideoUruguay
  3. 3.Museo Nacional de Historia NaturalMontevideoUruguay
  4. 4.Centro Nacional PatagónicoPuerto Madryn, ChubutArgentina

Personalised recommendations