History of the systematics of rodents

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Systema Naturae

In the Systema Naturae , Carl von Linné introduced the Glires order in 1758 .

In his Systema Naturae, Carl von Linné summarized all rodents including the hare-like in the order Glires ("Bilche"; from Latin glis " Bilch "). In addition, the glires mostly contained a number of other, unrelated mammal species and were thus polyphyletic . The order was divided into several genera. In the first edition of 1735 it contained Hystrix , Lepus , Sciurus , Castor and Mus as well as the genus Sorex and thus also included shrews . In the second edition of 1740 these were removed again, instead the opossum rats were added as the genus Didelphis in the sixth edition of 1748 .

In the tenth edition of 1758, Linné used the two-part notation he had been using for plants since 1753 for the first time to name animal species. He removed the opossums again and instead added the rhinos with the genus Rhinoceros . The number of genera was now six, the 36 species were mostly native to Europe:

In the twelfth edition of 1766, Linnaeus removed the rhinos again. For this he took on part of the bats with the genus Noctilio . When it was first described by Johann Friedrich Gmelin in the 13th edition in 1788, the finger animal was also assigned to the Glires as Sciurus madagascariensis due to its regrowing incisors .

Rodentia and Lagomorpha

Also hare-like like the mountain hare were originally classified as rodents.

In 1792, Felix Vicq d'Azyr used the designation Rodentes ("rodent"; from Latin rodere " gnaw ") for rodents, including the rabbit-like . Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger summarized the latter in 1811 as Duplicidentata ("double tooth" ; from Latin duplicis "double" and dens "tooth") within the rodents in the rank of a family. Georges Cuvier divided the order "Rongeurs" ("rodents"; from the French ronger "gnaw") in 1817 into

  • Rodents with a collarbone ("Rongeurs à clavicules") including the finger animal and
  • Rodents without a collarbone ("Rongeurs san clavicules") including the rabbit-like .

A year earlier he had already used the terms Claviculata and Non-Claviculata, which are now known as nomen oblitum, for the two groups. In 1821 John Edward Gray also assigned his order Rosores to rodents, rabbits and finger animals. The name Rodentia goes back to Thomas Edward Bowdich , who recognized rodents and rabbits as belonging together in 1821 and described their characteristics.

Beavers were soon grouped together with the croissants as Sciuromorpha.

In 1839, George Robert Waterhouse described different manifestations of the rodents' masticatory muscles . Building on this, Johann Friedrich von Brandt split the rodents into orders in 1855

  • Sciuromorpha ("squirrel-like"; from ancient Greek σκιά skia "shadow, outline", ούρα oura "tail, tail" and μορφή morphē "shape, form"),
  • Myomorpha ("mouse-like"; from ancient Greek μυς mys "mouse") with mouse-like , jumping mice , dormouse and pocket rodents ,
  • Hystrichomorpha ("porcupine"; from ancient Greek ύστριξ ystrix "porcupine") and
  • Lagomorpha ("hare-like"; from ancient Greek λαγώς / λαγός lagōs / lagos "hare").

Even after the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species (The Origin of Species) in 1859 has been maintained this division. In 1866 and 1868 , Ernst Haeckel divided his order Rodentia ("rodent animals") into the sub-orders Sciuromorpha, Myomorpha, Hystrichomorpha and Lagomorpha. He considered the "finger animal" called Chiromys madagascariensis to be a transitional form between the half-monkeys and the rodents descending from it, and the Sciuromorpha ("squirrel-like") as the closest to it.

Simplicidentata and Hystricognathi

By Wilhelm Lilljeborg introduced in 1866 Simplicidentati name ( "Einfachzähner."; From Latin simplicis "simple" and dens "tooth") took Edward R. Alston in 1876 and shared the order glires then according to their gnawing teeth in

Even William Henry Flower announced its 1883 order Rodentia in these two submissions. In 1884, Max Schlosser used the terms Pliodonta for rabbits and Miodonta for rodents, which are now valid as nomen oblitum, and Haeckel contrasted the rabbits with rodents as palarodentia in 1895.

In 1899, Tycho Tullberg also considered the structure of the lower jaw in addition to the masticatory muscles and divided the subordination Simplicidentati into two tribes

  • Sciurognathi ("with croissant jaw "; from ancient Greek skia "shadow", oura "tail" and gnathos "jaw") with the sub-tribus Sciuromorphi and Myomorphi as well
  • Hystricognathi ("with porcupine jaw"; from ancient Greek hystrix "porcupine") with the sub-tribus Bathyergomorphi and Hystrichomorphi.

Even Max Wilhelm Weber presented in 1904 to the Simplicidentata as subordination. The division into Simplicidentata and Duplicidentata can also be found in William King Gregory 1910, who assigned the order Glires to a taxon Rodentia. The systematics of rodents (order Rodentia or Glires) published by Richard Lydekker in 1911 in the Encyclopædia Britannica is based on Weber's results :

Later on, porcupine relatives such as the common guinea pig were compared to the other rodents as hystricognathi.

Rabbits are not rodents

James Williams Gidley put rodents and rabbits in the separate orders Rodentia and Lagomorpha for the first time in 1912. He thought the two groups were not closely related to each other and instead suspected a relationship between the hare-like and the ungulate . It relied on external similarities with some cloven-hoofed animals from the Cenozoic to the food, the kind chew and similarities in the structure of the ankle .

Guinea pigs are rodents

The guinea pig has some peculiarities compared to other mammals.

In the provocative publication Is the Guinea-Pig a Rodent? (“Is the guinea pig a rodent?”) Put forward Dan Graur , Winston A. Hide and Wen-Hsiung Li in the journal Nature in June 1991 that the guinea pig relatives are not related to the mouse relatives and that the rodents do not form a monophyletic group . The caviomorpha would have before the primates and artiodactyls separated from the mice relatives and they (or the porcupine relatives in total) are in the rank of order to raise. This was supported by phylogenetic studies using sequence analysis using the maximum parsimony method of known data on the amino acid sequence of 15 proteins . The three also referred to previously established morphological and molecular peculiarities of the guinea pig compared to other higher mammals . Its insulin differs from that of other mammals in its anabolic and growth- supporting activities and its ability to form hexamers . Since, according to other studies, the mouse relatives split off from the predators , hare-like , cloven-hoofed animals and primates earlier than they separated, the three also considered an early split of the guinea pig relatives within the higher mammals to be possible.

Graur, Hide and Li confirmed in April 1992 together with Andrey Zharkikh and in May / June 1992 together with Zharkikh and Din-Pow Ma on the basis of 18 protein sequences the hypothesis of probable polyphylyia in rodents. According to this, the guinea pig relatives within the higher mammals split off at an early stage, namely before mice relatives, rabbits, primates, bats , cloven-hoofed animals and predators separated from one another. The comb fingers also seemed to have separated from their mouse relatives earlier than primates and ungulates, but they are not the oldest side line of rodents.

Masami Hasegawa , Ying Cao , Jun Adachi and Taka-aki Yano did not consider this hypothesis to be justified in February 1992 on the basis of studies using the maximum likelihood method . Li, Hide and Graur, on the other hand, claimed in September 1992 that studies using this method also support the polyphylie of rodents. W. Patrick Luckett and Jean-Louis Hartenberger contradicted the hypothesis in June 1993. Her investigation of the morphology and development of the skull , dentition , postcranial skeleton and fetal membranes confirmed the traditionally assumed monophyly of rodents and the sister group relationship with the rabbit-like. Their assessment of known molecular data also provides little or no support for the hypothesis. The guinea pig differs in many proteins from other porcupine relatives, but the hypothesis put forward is rather the result of an unsuitable selection of the sequence data.

[...]

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Carolus Linnaeus: Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus differentiis, synonymis, locis. 10th edition, vol. 1. Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm 1758, 824 pages ( full text as GIFs  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove it Note. ).@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www-gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de  
  2. ↑ Carolus Linnaeus: Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus differentiis, synonymis, locis. 12th edition, vol. 1. Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm 1766, pp. 1-532.
  3. ↑ Carolus Linnaeus (revision: Johann Friedrich Gmelin): Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus differentiis, synonymis, locis. 13th Edition, Vol. 1. GE Beir, Lipsiae 1788, 232 pages.
  4. ↑ Malcolm C. McKenna, Susan K. Bell: Classification of Mammals: Above the Species Level . Columbia University Press, New York 1997, XII + 631 pages, ISBN 0-231-11013-8 .
  5. ^ The Taxonomicon . Universal Taxonomic Services, Amsterdam.
  6. ^ Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger: Prodromus Systematis Mammalium et Avium additis terminis zoographicis uttriusque classis. Salfeld, Berlin 1811, 301 pages (p. 91).
  7. ↑ Georges Cuvier: Le règne animal; distribué d'après son organization; pour service de base à l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction à l'anatomie comparée. Vol. 1: Les mammifères. Deterville, Paris 1817, 540 pages.
  8. ^ John Edward Gray, On the Natural Arrangement of Vertebrose Animals. In: London Medical Repository. 15 (1), 1821, pp. 296-310 (p. 302).
  9. ^ Thomas Edward Bowdich: An Analysis of the Natural Classifications of Mammalia, for the Use of Students and Travelers. J. Smith, Paris 1821, 115 pages (pp. 7, 51).
  10. ↑ George Robert Waterhouse: Observations on the Rodentia with a View to Point Out Groups as Indicated by the Structure of the Crania in This Order of Mammals. In: Magazine of Natural History. Row 2, No. 3, 1839, pp. 90-96.
  11. ^ Johann Friedrich von Brandt: Contributions to the closer knowledge of the mammals of Russia. In: Mémoires Mathématiques, Physiques et Naturelles. No. 7, 1855. Imperial Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, pp. 1–365 (pp. 144, 152, 235, 283, 292, 294, 295, 319).
  12. ↑ Ernst Haeckel: General Morphology of Organisms. Georg Reimer, 1866 ( Classification ( Memento of the original from July 11, 2006 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this note. ). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bio.pu.ru
  13. ↑ Ernst Haeckel: The natural history of creation. 1868 (full text: 18th lecture ).
  14. ↑ William Lilljeborg: Systematisk öfversigt af de gnagande däggdjuren, glires. Kungliga Akademi Boktryck, Uppsala 1866. pp. 1-59.
  15. ^ Edward R. Alston: On the Classification of the Order Glires. In: Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 1876, pp. 61-98 (p. 64).
  16. ^ Edward R. Alston: Mammalia. RH Porter, London 1879–1882, xx + 220 pages and 22 plates ( JPG ).
  17. ^ William Henry Flower: On the Arrangement of the Orders and Families of Existing Mammalia . In: Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. No. 18, 1883, pp. 178-186.
  18. ↑ Max Schlosser: The rodents of the European Tertiary along with some considerations about the organization and the historical development of rodents in general. , Addenda and Corrections to: Rodents of the European Tertiary. In: Palaeontographica. No. 31, 1884, pp. 19-162, 323-330 (p. 133).
  19. ↑ Tycho Tullberg: About the rodent system. A Phylogenetic Study. In: Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientarium Upsaliensis. Vol. 3, No. 18, 1899, pp. 1-514.
  20. ↑ Max Wilhelm Weber: The mammals. Introduction to the anatomy and systematics of recent and fossil mammals. Vol. 2: Systematic part. 2nd edition. G. Fischer, Jena 1904, 879 pages (pp. 490, 495).
  21. ^ William King Gregory: The Orders of Mammals. In: Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. No. 37, 1910, pp. 1-524.
  22. ↑ James Williams Gidley: The Lagomorphs As an Independent Order. In: Science . No. 36, 1912, pp. 285-286
  23. ↑ Darren Naish: The Most Freaky of All Animals: Rabbits
  24. ^ Dan Graur, Winston A. Hide, Wen-Hsiung Li: Is the Guinea-Pig a Rodent? In: Nature . No. 351, June 20, 1991, pp. 649-651 ( Abstract & References ).
  25. ^ Dan Graur, Winston A. Hide, Andrey Zharkikh, Wen-Hsiung Li: The Biochemical Phylogeny of Guinea-Pigs and Gundis, and the Paraphyly of the Order Rodentia. In: Comparative Biochemistry Physiology . No. 101B, April 1992, pp. 495-498 PMID 1611868 .
  26. ↑ Wen-Hsiung Li, Winston A. Hide, Andrey Zharkikh, Din-Pow Ma, Dan Graur: The Molecular Taxonomy and Evolution of the Guinea Pig. In: The Journal of Heredity . Vol. 83, No. 3, May / June 1992, pp. 174-181, ISSN  0022-1503 ( abstract ).
  27. ↑ Masami Hasegawa, Ying Cao, Jun Adachi, Taka-aki Yano: Rodent Polyphyly? In: Nature . No. 355, February 13, 1992, p. 595 ( references ).
  28. ↑ Wen-Hsiung Li, Winston A. Hide, Dan Graur: Origin of Rodents and Guinea-Pigs. In: Nature . No. 359, September 24, 1992, pp. 277-278 ( references ).
  29. ^ W. Patrick Luckett, Jean-Louis Hartenberger: Monophyly or Polyphyly of the Order Rodentia: Possible Conflict Between Morphological and Molecular Interpretations. In: Journal of Mammalian Evolution . Vol. 1, No. 2, June 1993, pp. 127-147, ISSN  1064-7554 ( doi: 10.1007 / BF01041591 ).