Talk:Aquatic rat

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 August 2019 and 20 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 15jlittle. Peer reviewers: Martinmikala, Beautimuss, Kim.kevin1, MissPak1984, Lukewrightcsu, AlexP7890, Jreiney, TJC94, Aaliyah60206, TayToTheRenee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Mistake under the header Karyotype?

Under the header "Karyotype" the wikipedia page currently claims: "The karyotype has been reported to have diploid chromosome count of 2n = 92, but this number may have actually come from a specimen of the related Pittier's crab-eating rat, Ichthyomys pittieri. [8]"

But as far as I can see, the cited article (Schmid et al, 1988) states that the specimen was misclassified as I. trichotis, not as I. pittori? (See quotes below). Is this a mistake or have these two since been found to be identical species? In that case it would be more accurate to cite an additional source.

"On the highest chromosome number in mammals", Schmid et al., Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 1988 (https://doi.org/10.1159/000132683) is the article currently cited as source 8. The authors state in the introduction: "a taxonomical revision showed that the A. leander karyotyped by Gardner (1971) was misclassified (see Discussion)". In the discussion section the authors explain: "A revision of the ichthyomyine genera by R.S. Voss (cited in Honacki et al., 1982, p 398) revealed that the specimen of A. leander used by Gardner (1971 ) for karyotype analysis was misidentified. The specimen in question can be referenced to a species originally described in 1897 as Ichthyomys trichotis, which was subsequently transferred to Rheomys and, finally, to Anatomys (R.S. Voss, personal communication). It therefore should come as no surprise that the karyotype found for I. pittieri in the present study and that described for "Anotomys leander" (in fact, /. trichotis) are identical." AspidoscelisNeomexicanus (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point. I think the original reference (Gardner, 1971) is https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02138898. Voss (2015:283) says the specimen is most like Chibchanomys orcesi. Salazar-Bravo et al. (2023:52) move orcesi out of Chibchanomys, but imply that the specimen the karyotype was based on is an undescribed species of Chibchanomys.

• Salazar-Bravo, J., Tinoco, N., Zeballos, H., Brito, J., Arenas-Viveros, D., Marín-C., D., Ramírez-Fernández, J.D., Percequillo, A.R., Lee, T.E., Jr., Solari, S., Colmenares-Pinzon, J., Nivelo, C., Rodríguez-Herrera, B., Merino, W., Medina, C.E., Murillo-García, O. and Pardiñas, U.F.J. 2023-01-13. Systematics and diversification of the Ichthyomyini (Cricetidae, Sigmodontinae) revisited: evidence from molecular, morphological, and combined approaches. PeerJ 11:e14319. doi:10.7717/peerj.14319
• Voss, R.S. 2015. Tribe Ichthyomyini Vorontsov, 1959. Pp. 279–291 in Patton, J.L., Pardiñas, U.F.J. and D'Elía, G. (eds.). Mammals of South America, Volume 2: Rodents. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1290 pp.

This article doesn't need to cover all the details, but we should say clearly that the karyotype is not for Anatomys. Ucucha (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Edited the article to reflect this discussion. Ucucha (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)