Pseudomys (Gyomys) desertor Troughton, 1932c
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.3853/j.2201-4349.69.2017.1653 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:68F315FF-3FEB-410E-96EC-5F494510F440 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7562157 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DD87C8-FFE5-7369-1914-FF7CFEB99220 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Pseudomys (Gyomys) desertor Troughton, 1932c |
status |
|
Pseudomys (Gyomys) desertor Troughton, 1932c View in CoL View at ENA
Rec. Aust. Mus. 18(6): 293. (20 April 1932).
Common name. Desert Mouse.
Current name. Pseudomys desertor Troughton, 1932c ; following Jackson & Groves (2015).
Holotype. M.1306 by original designation. Skin mount, incomplete skull, indeterminate sex, originally entered in M Register as “ Mus nanus Gould , Central Australia ”. Presented by Professor Baldwin Spencer, registered on 15 July 1896. Sex, collector and collection date not indicated in register.
Condition. Cranium missing both zygomatic arches, missing basioccipital, left upper tooth row is detached; both dentaries missing angular processes. Skin mount: bald patch on the dorsal surface, tail tip fractured.
Type locality. Given as “Central Australia ” (= Northern Territory, Australia) by Troughton (1932c) and Mahoney & Richardson (1988).
Paratype. M.1307 by original designation. Sex not recorded, skin mount, skull in situ, same Register details as holotype.
Comments. Troughton based his description on two skin mounts that were part of the series originally identified by Waite (1898a) as Mus nanus Gould, 1858 . Troughton gave the registration numbers of the holotype and paratype but was unable to match either specimen to Waite’s original specimens. Although Waite (1898a) stated that he had five specimens, he designated only four, as specimens A to D from Wycliffe Creek, Barrow Creek and Alice Springs, NT. Tate (1951b) compared measurements given by Troughton and Waite and concluded that the holotype was Waite’s male specimen “B”, from Wycliffe Creek. However, the three external measurements provided by Troughton would seem to be applicable to several of Waite’s specimens, casting doubt on Tate’s determination of the type locality as Wycliffe Creek.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.