MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6912762170 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7221934

Peromyscus sonoriensis

2019· article· he· W6912762170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2019
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeromyscusDeer mouseNational monumentAmphibian

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peromyscus sonoriensis (LeConte) Hesp [eromys] sonoriensis Le Conte, 1853:413. Hesperomys austerus Baird, 1855:336. Mus bairdii Hoy and Kennicott, 1857:92. Hesperomys sonoriensis var. nebrascensis Coues, 1877:79. Hesperomys leucopus arcticus Mearns, 1890:285 Hesperomys leucopus nebrascensis Mearns, 1890:285. Hesperomys leucopus deserticolus Mearns, 1890:287. Hesperomys leucopus rufinus Merriam, 1890:65. Peromyscus texanus nebrascensis J. A. Allen, 1896:251. Sitomys americanus artemisiae Rhoads, 1894:260. Sitomys insolatus Rhoads, 1894:256. Peromyscus michiganensis pallescens J. A. Allen, 1896:238. Peromyscus texanus saturatus Bangs, 1897:75. Peromyscus texanus subarcticus J. A. Allen, 1899:15. Peromyscus akeleyi Elliot, 1899:226. Peromyscus maniculatus arcticus Osgood, 1900:33. Peromyscus oreas rubidus Osgood, 1901a:193. Peromyscus perimekurus Elliot, 1903:156. Peromyscus oresterus Elliot, 1903:159. Peromyscus luteus Osgood, 1905:77. Peromyscus maniculatus artemisiae Osgood, 1909:58. Peromyscus maniculatus saturatus Osgood, 1909:61. Peromyscus maniculatus hollisteri Osgood, 1909:62. Peromyscus maniculatus austerus Osgood, 1909:63. Peromyscus maniculatus rubidus Osgood, 1909:65. Peromyscus maniculatus rufinus Osgood, 1909:72. Peromyscus maniculatus nebrascensis Osgood, 1909:75. Peromyscus maniculatus luteus Osgood, 1909:77. Peromyscus maniculatus bairdi Osgood, 1909:79. Peromyscus maniculatus pallescens Osgood, 1909:83. Peromyscus maniculatus sonoriensis Osgood, 1909:89. Peromyscus maniculatus borealis Mearns, 1911:102. Peromyscus maniculatus nebrascensis Mearns, 1911:102. Peromyscus maniculatus osgoodi Mearns, 1911:102. Peromyscus maniculatus angustus Hall, 1932:423. Peromyscus maniculatus ozarkiarum Black, 1935:144. Peromyscus maniculatus gunnisoni Goldman, 1937:224. Peromyscus maniculatus alpinus Cowan, 1937:215. Peromyscus maniculatus georgiensis Hall, 1938:455. Peromyscus maniculatus serratus Davis, 1939:290. Peromyscus maniculatus inclarus Goldman, 1939:355. Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii McCabe and Cowan, 1945:197. Peromyscus maniculatus saxamans McCabe and Cowan, 1945:198. Holotype. —United States National Museum (catalog number 146); adult, sex unknown, skin and skull. Type locality. — Mexico; Sonora; Santa Cruz; collected on 28 September 1851 by J. H. Clark. Subspecies. —Although we were not able to examine all of the recognized subspecies that potentially are referable to P. maniculatus, we tentatively assign the following 15 subspecies recognized in Hall (1981) and Hogan et al. (1993) to P. sonoriensis: alpinus, artemisiase, austerus, borealis, hollisteri, inclarus, luteus, nebrascensis, ozarkiarum, pallescens, rubidus, rufinus, saturatus, saxamans, serratus, and sonoriensis. Diagnosis. —Coloration varies greatly between subspecies (austerus darker in color whereas pallescens is much paler than other subspecies), however, most adults are ochraceous buff (Osgood 1909). Size small for species group, especially relative to length of the tail; measurements obtained from Osgood (1909) for several of the subspecies now assigned to P. sonoroensis, indicated a total length averaging 151 mm; (range 126–176 mm) and tail length averaging 65.5 mm (range 56–75 mm). Tail tends to be more thickly haired and more sharply bicolored (Osgood 1909) than other species in the group. In this study, Cyt b sequences indicated that P. sonoriensis differed from P. gambelii, P. melanotis, P. polionotus, P. sejugis, and P. maniculatus (sensu stricto), by 4.55%, 6.02%, 4.71%, 4.42%, and 4.68%, respectively. Genetic differentiation (= 1.27%) based on DNA sequences obtained from 186 individuals of P. sonoriensis. This species exhibited a moderate level of genetic divergence even though it possesses the broadest geographic distribution of the P. maniculatus species group. Distribution. —Occurs primarily west of the Mississippi River from the Yukon and Northwest Territory southward to northern California and the United States/Mexico border (along Arizona and New Mexico) then eastward across northern Texas to Arkansas. The distribution of P. sonoriensis does not include: 1) the coastal islands and mainlands fromAlaska southward to Oregon; in this area P. keeni may exclude P. sonoriensis or the two species may be sympatric; 2) southcentral California and Baja California and the southwest corner of Arizona where P. gambelii occurs; and 3) southern New Mexico, and southwestern of Texas where P. labecula occurs. Populations of mice that are assignable to P. sonoriensis appear to occur on Isle Royale, Michigan (Dragoo et al. 2006; this study) and in southern Michigan (Lansman et al. 1983); whereas samples from northcentral Michigan are assignable to P. maniculatus (Lansman et al. 1983). Additional samples are needed from much of the Great Lakes region to resolve this conundrum. Comparisons. —A member of the P. maniculatus species group. Similar in coloration but smaller in size compared to other members of the P. maniculatus species group. Specimens from the Pacific Northwest are darker in pelage color (more similar to P. keeni) than those occurring in the central and eastern portions of the continent exhibit. Differs from P. keeni in external measurements such as tail length (averaging <100 mm compared to an average length> 100 mm in P. keeni). Remarks. —Two seventy-two samples examined were assigned to P. sonoriensis. Of these samples, the closest examined herein (Grant County, New Mexico) was approximately 200 km northeast of the type locality in Santa Cruz, Sonora. Chromosomal data are highly variable for this group with a broad range of FNs (72–86) with some well-studied subspecies, such as P. m. bardii, reported as highly polymorphic (74–85). A trend in the data suggest that lower FNs (72–80) for this species occur in the Pacific Northwest, where populations exist in sympatry with P. keeni (Gunn and Greenbaum et al. 1986; Gunn 1988; Hogan et al. 1993). The FNs reported for P. sonoriensis span the ranges reported for P. gambelii, P. labecula, and P. maniculatus; but differ substantially from those observed for P. melanotis (FN = 62, Hsu and Arrighi 1968; Bowers et al. 1973), P. polionotus (FN = 69–71, Te and Dawson 1971), and P. sejugis (FN = 76, Smith et al. 2000). Several previous studies (Dragoo et al. 2006, Gering et al. 2009, Kalkvik et al. 2012, Natarajan et al. 2015, Sawyer et al. 2017, and Greenbaum et al. 2017 indicated that populations of P. maniculatus in the eastern regions of the United States were genetically divergent from central and western populations. Similarly, DNA sequence data (Cyt b gene), presented herein, suggest elevation to species status that would include 17 currently recognized subspecies of P. maniculatus. This population encompasses the largest geographic area of any clade recovered in this study. Divergence dates suggest P. sonoriensis last shared a common ancestor with the lineage giving rise to P. polionotus approximately 1.40 mya. As discussed earlier, P. sonoriensis appears to be sympatric with samples of P. gambelii in western Nevada (NAS Fallon Air Force Base) and at two separate localities in east-central California (one in Mono County and one in Tuolumne County). Further, P. sonoriensis appears to be sympatric with samples of P. labecula in southcentral New Mexico (6.2 mi NW of Timberon). Additional data are need from these areas to determine if these genetic species (see Bradley and Baker 2001; Baker and Bradley 2006) are behaving as biological species (Mayr 1942) as well as genetic species.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicBat Biology and Ecology Studies→French-language works237,207→