Crocidura foetida (Peters, 1870)
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.6870843 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6870086 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/3D474A54-A079-8715-FF12-AD761B3BFC13 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Crocidura foetida |
| status |
|
Bornean White-toothed Shrew
French: Crocidure de Bornéo / German: Borneo-Weifdzahnspitzmaus / Spanish: Musarana de Borneo
Other common names: Bornean Shrew; Lowland Bornean Shrew (foetida), Mountain Bornean Shrew (doriae), Kelabit Shrew (kelabit)
Taxonomy. Crocidura (Crocidura) foetida Peters, 1870 View in CoL ,
“Benkajang (Borneo).”
Although it was originally described as a full species, Lord Medway in 1965 consid- ered it a subspecies of C. fuliginosa . Most mammologists followed this taxonomic change, until in 1995 M. Ruedi considered it a distinct species. An allozyme study showed discrete variation among the different subspecies. Recent mtDNA analysis points toward cryptic diversity in this spe-
cies. Three subspecies recognized.
Subspecies and Distribution.
C.f.doriaePeters,1870—seemstoreplacefoetidainthemountainsofNBorneo.
C. f. kelabit Medway, 1965 — restricted to the Kelabit Highlands in NE Sarawak (recorded in Bario Airport wasteland and surrounding forest). View Figure
Descriptive notes. Head-body 64-100 mm, tail 54-83 mm, hindfoot 13-4-16 mm; weight 9-2-16 g. The Bornean White-toothed Shrew can be externally distinguished from other sympatric shrews by its large size (head—body more than 60 mm), which sets it apart from all other Bornean species apart from the Kinabalu White-toothed Shrew ( C. baluensis ), the Bornean Water Shrew ( Chimarrogale phaeura ), and the Black Shrew ( Suncus ater ). From the first two of these larger species it can be distinguished by a shorter hindfoot (less than 16 mm) and shorter mid-dorsal fur (less than 8 mm); other diagnostic features are the lack of conspicuous scales on the tail (present in Kinabalu White-toothed Shrew), of silvery guard hairs on the hindquarters, and of fringes of white stiff hairs on the feet (present in Bornean Water Shrew). From the Black Shrew it can be distinguished by skull measurements and dental anatomy: the Bornean White-toothed Shrew has three unicuspids while the Black Shrew has four.
Habitat. The Bornean White-toothed Shrew is a generalist species distributed from sea level to 1900 m. It is known to occur in primary dipterocarp and riparian forest, secondary forests, plantations, gardens, wastelands and open grass. It has been recorded around buttress roots, limestone walls, small burrows under old fallen logs, bamboo patches, close to small streams, and in tall grass at the border of trails. It is known to be syntopic with the Bornean Water Shrew (recorded at elevations of 1800 m).
Food and Feeding. Bornean White-toothed Shrews are insectivorous, although they might feed on carcasses when available, since they are attracted by baits such as salted fish and prawn paste. No studies on feeding behavior have been undertaken as yet.
Breeding. A gravid female with three fetuses and six nipples was recorded in mid-September, during the masting season.
Activity patterns. The Bornean White-toothed Shrew has frequently been captured after rain, both during the day and at night. It roosts underground.
Movements, Home range and Social organization. The most abundant shrew in the lowlands of Borneo. Nevertheless, its population densities are much lower than in most Eurasian species: on Balambangan Island at sea level, an individual was captured after 40-50 trap nights; in Poring at 550 m, an individual was caught every 293 trap nights; and in Trus Madi at 900 m, an individual was caught every 582 trap nights. Males have a conspicuous lateral gland that secretes a strong odor; when threatened, it will rub this gland and spread the secretion all over its body.
Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCN Red Lust, given its wide distribution,its occurrence in protected areas, and its tolerance of habitat modification, and also because it is unlikely to be declining at anything close to the rate required to qualify for listing in a threatened category.
Bibliography. Bennet et al. (1987), Camacho-Sanchez & Hinckley (2016), Cassola (2016y), Corbet & Hill (1992), Hawkins et al. (2018), Hinckley et al. (2016), Jenkins (1982), Medway (1965), Nor (1996), Payne et al. (1985), Phillipps & Phillipps (2016), Ruedi (1995, 1996), Wilson et al. (2006), Yasuma et al. (2003).
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.
