Mammals of Mato Grosso, Brazil: Annotated Species List and Historical Review

Abstract

The state of Mato Grosso is one of the largest (903 357 km 2 ) and most diverse in terms of vegetation in Brazil, encompassing three distinct Neotropical biomes -the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanaltherefore holding high faunal diversity. Our goal in this paper was to review the history of mammalogy in this state, and to provide a checklist of mammals, with comments on taxonomy, distribution, conservation status and type of records for the species present in Mato Grosso. These records were based primarily on voucher specimens housed in scienti c collections, but a few were based on personal observations and photographs. We listed 268 species belonging to 149 genera, 36 families and 10 orders, which represent 38% of mammal species occurring in Brazil. The most representative families were Phyllostomidae (63 species), Cricetidae (42) and Didelphidae (31). Our list includes 33 threatened species, representing 12% of Mato Grosso mammal species and 30% of all threatened mammal species of Brazil. We discuss the main threats to this group, and argue that social and political projects together with basic scienti c knowledge are urgent to ensure a profound change in the current scenario.RESUMO. Mamíferos de Mato Grosso, Brasil: lista anotada e revisão histórica. O estado de Mato Grosso é um dos maiores (903 357 km 2 ) e mais diversos do país em termos de to sionomias, abrangendo três biomas Neotropicais distintos -Amazônia, Cerrado e Pantanal -apresentando, consequentemente, uma elevada diversidade faunística. Os objetivos do presente estudo foram revisar a história da Mastozoologia neste estado e fornecer uma lista atual de mamíferos com comentários a respeito da taxonomia, distribuição, estado de conservação e tipos de registro para as espécies que ocorrem no Mato Grosso. Os registros aqui obtidos basearam-se, primordialmente, em espécimes-testemunho depositados em coleções cientí cas, mas algumas

Systematics of Neotropical Spiny Mice, Genus Neacomys Thomas, 1900 (Rodentia: Cricetidae), from Southeastern Amazonia, with Descriptions of Three New Species

“…(2015), "Neacomys sp. " by Di-Nizo et al (2017) and Brandão et al (2019), and "Neacomys sp. C" by Oliveira da Silva et al (2019).…”

Cryptic diversity and range extension in the big-eyed bat genus Chiroderma (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae)

“…The big-eyed bats in the genus Chiroderma Peters (Phyllostomidae) are characterized by greatly reduced nasal bones in the skull and a combination of external features including a white dorsal stripe that does not extend onto the head; legs and interfemoral membrane conspicuously hairy; and relatively large eyes (Straney 1984;Gardner 2008). The genus currently comprises six species (Simmons 2005, Taddei andLim 2010): C. doriae Thomas, 1891 occurs in central-eastern Brazil and Paraguay; C. improvisum Baker & Genoways, 1976 is endemic to the Lesser Antillean islands of Guadeloupe, Montserrat, and Saint Kitts (Beck et al 2016); C. salvini Dobson, 1878 is found from Mexico to Bolivia (recent records from Brazil are misidentifications of C. villosum Peters, 1860 -see Brandão et al 2019); C. trinitatum Goodwin, 1958 is distributed from Honduras (Turcios-Casco et al 2020) and Costa Rica to Amazonian Brazil and Trinidad; C. villosum ranges from Mexico to southeastern Brazil and Trinidad; and C. vizottoi Taddei & Lim, 2010 is found only in northeastern Brazil.…”

Marsupiais do Brasil: Guia de identificação com base em caracteres morfológicos externos e cranianos, by Michel Barros Faria, Rayque de Oliveira Lanes and Cibele Rodrigues Bonvicino. Amélie Press, São Caetano do Sul. 2019. 84 pp. ISBN (Brazil) 978–85–5308

“…The increase of one species per year between both referred studies is noteworthy, moreover the book of Faria and colleagues actually encompasses a much higher number of taxonomic changes, including taxa that were either recently described (Monodelphis arlindoi, M. pinocchio, M. saci, M. touan, M. vossi, and Philander pebas), revalidated (Gracilinanus peruanus, Marmosa macrotarsus, M. waterhousei, M. budini, M. rutteri, Marmosops caucae, Metachirus myosuros, and P. quica), or represent the first published record for Brazil (M. handleyi). On the other hand, taxa were also excluded owing to either being considered junior synonyms (M. maraxina, M. rubida, M. sorex, M. umbristriata, M. theresa, P. frenatus Faria and colleagues did not include the records of Cryptonanus unduaviensis, Marmosops pakaraimae and Monodelphis sanctarosae for Brazil (Silva et al, 2017;Brandão et al, 2019). This is probably due to a conservative criterion, which I consider to be a wise decision since these records still need further morphological and/or genetic evidence.…”

“…The goal particularly draw my attention for two reasons: 1) taxonomy is facing a decline in the number of specialists and funding worldwide (Britz et al, 2020), which is particularly troublesome since our knowledge on didelphid diversity is far from stable -as attested by the many taxonomic changes herein mentioned, and 2) the number of zoological/botanical studies required to obtain environmental licenses for construction of hydroelectric dams, highways, railroads, electric transmission lines, among others, has grown considerably in Brazil in recent decades (Silveira et al, 2010). Despite the ecological impacts caused by these anthropic advances, these studies also generate an increase of specimens deposited in Brazilian zoological collections (Silva et al, 2015;Brandão et al, 2019). In several recently published accounts, data on marsupials come from these newly collected specimens (e.g., Semedo et al, 2015;Barbosa et al, 2016;Brandão et al, 2015Brandão et al, , 2019.…”

“…Despite the ecological impacts caused by these anthropic advances, these studies also generate an increase of specimens deposited in Brazilian zoological collections (Silva et al, 2015;Brandão et al, 2019). In several recently published accounts, data on marsupials come from these newly collected specimens (e.g., Semedo et al, 2015;Barbosa et al, 2016;Brandão et al, 2015Brandão et al, , 2019. Nonetheless, there is a considerable disparity regarding the early identification of specimens in the field when compared to their true taxonomic identity, which should be based on the respective vouchers housed in scientific collections.…”