Microtus irani, Thomas, 1921
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.6707142 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6725317 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F06D13-FFE7-202E-0D8A-186C00F9F6B7 |
|
treatment provided by |
Carolina |
|
scientific name |
Microtus irani |
| status |
|
173. View On
Iranian Vole
French: Campagnol persan / German: Iran-Wihlmaus / Spanish: Topillo de Iran
Other common names: Persian Vole; Schidlovsky Pine Vole (schidlovskii)
Taxonomy. Microtus irani Thomas, 1921 View in CoL , “Bagh-i-Rezi, Shiraz, [ Iran]. Alt. 5200" [= 1585 m].”
Microtus irani is in subgenus Sumeriomys and socialis species group. In the past, M. irani was occasionally synonymized with M. socialis . If recognized as a species on its own right, then rani included medium-sized species of Microtus with moderately shallow skull, swollen bullae, and complex molar pattern ( paradoxus , mustersi , and partly also guentheri ). Taxonomic scope of rani is still ill-defined. Diploid number is 60 in subspecies karamani and schidlovskii but is not known with certainty in subspecies wrani. Molecular studies identified close relationships between rani, schidlovski, and karamani, which are synonymized here. A new species was described recently near Kilis, southern Turkey, as M. elbeyli by N. Yigit, E. Colak and M. Sozen in 2016. Earlier, the same population was classified as M. irani . Karyotype of M. elbeyli is unique (2n = 46), but its molecular makeup is not known. M. elbeyli is known only from the type locality and its position within the subgenus Sumeriomys is enigmatic. Low diploid number suggests elbeyli to belong to the guenther: species group and may be close to M. dogramacii . Three subspecies recognized.
Subspecies and Distribution.
M.i.karamaniKrystufeketal.,2010—STurkey,Lebanon,NWSyria,andWIran.
M. i. schidlovskii Argyropulo, 1933 — E Turkey, SC Georgia, W Armenia, and NW & N Iran. Also present in Iraq, but subspecies involved not known. View Figure
Descriptive notes. Head-body 105-130 mm, tail 20-36 mm for subspecies rani head-body 107-123 mm, tail 26-31-7 mm, and weight 33-41-7 g for subspecies karamani; head-body 84-112 mm, tail 21-34 mm for subspecies schidlovskii. Males (schidlovskii) are, on average, heavier (32-7 g) than females (26-9 g). The Iranian Vole is mediumto large-sized, with tail less than 25% of head-body length. Eyes are relatively large, and ears overtop pelage. Females have two pairs of pectoral and two pairs of inguinal nipples. Fur is long, dense, and soft. Dorsum is pale and sandy buff in rani, grayish brown or brown in schidlovskii, and pinkish buff to brownish buff with fawn tints, grizzled by blackish tips of long hair, in karamani. Venter is whitish to grayish white, clouded by slate-colored bases of hairs; demarcation on flanks is faint ( irani ) or distinct (karamani). Tail is indistinctly bicolored, fawn, white, buffwhite, or brownish above. Skull is moderately deep, with wide interorbital region. Bullae are swollen in karamani. Angular process on outer wall of mandibular rhamus is prominent. Incisors are orthodont in karamani, and proodont in the remaining subspecies. Molars are complex, and M? has in some populations a high incidence of postero-lingual loop.
Habitat. Steppe in mountains, grasslands with clumps of bushes, cultivated fields, and orchards at elevations of 1000-2100 m.
Food and Feeding. Iranian Voles can cause local damage to agriculture.
Breeding. Gestation of subspecies schidlovskii lasts 21-22 days, and mean litter size is 3-4. At low densities, female Iranian Voles mature at 65 days old, but at high densities, maturity is postponed to 76 days.
Activity patterns. Iranian Voles were captured during day and night. They dig simple burrows.
Movements, Home range and Social organization. No information.
Status and Conservation. Classified as Data Deficient on The IUCN Red List. Subspecies schidlovskii was classified as a distinct species as Least Concern on The IUCN Red List (as M. schidlovskii). Unsettled taxonomy is the main obstacle for objective assessment of conservation status.
Bibliography. Arslan et al. (2016), Gromov & Erbajeva (1995), Krystufek & Kefelioglu (2001), Krystufek, Abi-Said & Hladnik (2013), Krystufek, Buzan et al. (2009), Krystufek, Vohralik et al. (2010), Mahmoudi, Darvish & Aliabadian (2014, 2015), Yigit et al. (2016), Zorenko (2013), Zorenko et al. (1994).
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.
