Reithrodontomys Giglioli 1874 Reithrodontomys Giglioli 1874, Bull. Soc. Geogr. Ital., Roma, 11: 326. Type Species: Reithrodon megalotis Baird 1857 Synonyms: Cudahyomys Hibbard 1944; Ochetodon Coues 1874. Species and subspecies: 20 species in 2 subgenera: Subgenus Reithrodontomys (Reithrodontomys) Giglioli 1874 Subgenus Reithrodontomys (Aporodon) Howell 1914 Species Reithrodontomys (Aporodon) brevirostris Goodwin 1943 Species Reithrodontomys (Reithrodontomys) burti Benson 1939 Species Reithrodontomys (Reithrodontomys) chrysopsis Merriam 1900 Species Reithrodontomys (Aporodon) creper Bangs 1902 Species Reithrodontomys (Aporodon) darienensis Pearson 1939 Species Reithrodontomys (Reithrodontomys) fulvescens J. A. Allen 1894 Species Reithrodontomys (Aporodon) gracilis J. A. Allen and Chapman 1897 Species Reithrodontomys (Reithrodontomys) hirsutus Merriam 1901 Species Reithrodontomys (Reithrodontomys) humulis (Audubon and Bachman 1841) Species Reithrodontomys (Reithrodontomys) megalotis (Baird 1857) Species Reithrodontomys (Aporodon) mexicanus (Saussure 1860) Species Reithrodontomys (Aporodon) microdon Merriam 1901 Species Reithrodontomys (Reithrodontomys) montanus (Baird 1855) Species Reithrodontomys (Aporodon) paradoxus Jones and Genoways 1970 Species Reithrodontomys (Reithrodontomys) raviventris Dixon 1908 Species Reithrodontomys (Aporodon) rodriguezi Goodwin 1943 Species Reithrodontomys (Aporodon) spectabilis Jones and Lawlor 1965 Species Reithrodontomys (Reithrodontomys) sumichrasti (Saussure 1861) Species Reithrodontomys (Aporodon) tenuirostris Merriam 1901 Species Reithrodontomys (Reithrodontomys) zacatecae Merriam 1901 Discussion: Reithrodontomyini. Genus viewed as closely related to Peromyscus, whether defined broadly (Hooper and Musser, 1964 b) or narrowly (Carleton, 1980). Cladistic interpretations of banded chromosomes have not corroborated so close an affinity (Rogers et al., 1984; Stangl and Baker, 1984 b), but those of mitochondrial and nuclear gene sequences continue to support near kinship (Allard and Honeycutt, 1991; D’Elía, 2003; Engel et al., 1998; Smith and Patton, 1999), although the sampling of critical exemplars in the latter studies can be much improved. Alpha taxonomy revised by Allen (1895), Howell (1914), and Hooper (1952), the last of whom framed the currently-used subgeneric division (Aporodon and Reithrodontomys) and species groups (megalotis, fulvescens, mexicanus, and tenuirostris). For comparative studies of morphology, see Arata (1964), Carleton (1973, 1980), and Hooper (1952, 1959); of karyology, see Carleton and Myers (1979), Engstrom et al. (1981), Hood et al. (1984), and Robbins and Baker (1980); of allozymic variation, see Arellano et al. (2003), Arnold et al. (1983), and Nelson et al. (1984); of gene-sequence data, see Bell et al. (2001). In general, the aforementioned studies and information sources lack the taxonomic breadth or data structure appropriate to critically test the phyletic validity of the subgeneric dichotomy and all four species groups proposed by Hooper (1952). We repeat his intrageneric classification as the last synoptic treatment, bearing that caveat in mind: e.g., Carleton and Myers (1979) recommended research emphasis upon species-group associations and their interrelationships instead of the two subgenera. Distributions and species limits of all species groups in Middle America require renewed systematic attention. A key to the species is found in Spencer and Cameron (1982); ecogeographic distributions of Mexican species reviewed by Sánchez (1993).

Published as part of Wilson, Don E. & Reeder, DeeAnn, 2005, Order Rodentia - Family Cricetidae, pp. 955-1189 in Mammal Species of the World: a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3 rd Edition), Volume 2, Baltimore :The Johns Hopkins University Press on page 1080, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7316535