Skull and tooth variation in the genus Perameles. Part I: anatomical features

Abstract

This study of the anatomical and metrical features of the skull and teeth of bandicoots of the genus Perameles was undertaken in order to analyse age, sex, and locality variations and trends. It is hoped that the results of the study will assist in the assessment of intra-and inter-specific taxonomic, phylogenetic and ecological relationships, enable the various subgeneric taxa to be more clearly defined, and facilitate the identification of subfossil and fossil fragments and isolated teeth. The present section of the study, Part I, outlines the taxonomy of the genus Perameles and describes generally the material used in the whole study. It also includes an illustrated, anatomical description of the skull and teeth of Perameles nasuta and a discussion of the anatomical variations of these features in other members of the genus Perameles. TAXONOMY With regard to the taxonomy of the long-nosed bandicoots, most of the early studies, such as that by Waterhouse (1846), included rather superficial accounts of a number of not very clearly defined species. However, in 1888 Thomas gave comprehensive descriptions and reliable keys to most of the species still currently recognised. In this study, Thomas recognised three genera (Perameles, Peragale, and Chaeropus) in the family Peramelidae. In the most recent studies, Simpson (1945) divides this family into five genera: Perameles (which includes Peroryctes) , Echymipera, Thylacomys (syn. Macrotis, Paragalia), Chaeropus, and Thylacis (= IsoOdon); whilst Tate (1948) describes eight genera of bandicoots: Perameles, Isoodon, Macrotis, Echymipera, Peroryctes, Chaeropus, Rhynchomeles, and Microperoryctes. The genus Perameles in the present study is taken to include the long-nosed bandicoots of Australia only, i.e., the genus as defined by Tate. At the specific level, Iredale and Troughton (1934) classified the long-nosed bandicoots as follows:

Analysis of factors implicated in the recent decline of Australia's mammal fauna

“…Recent work has also led to proposed synonymies, such as within Isoodon (Pope et al. , 2001) and Perameles (Freedman, 1967; Gordon, 1995). In our list, dingoes [ Canis lupus dingo (Meyer, 1793)], wild dogs ( C. l. familiaris Linnaeus, 1758) and dingo‐wild dog hybrids were treated as a single introduced species.…”

“…The list excluded marine species, oceanic island endemics, species restricted to Australia's external territories and the 26 introduced species, but included a number of undescribed species currently recognized by mammalogists, such as new taxa within Mormopterus (Adams et al, 1988;Duncan et al, 1999), Planigale (Blacket et al, 2000), and Phascogale (Spencer et al, 2001). Recent work has also led to proposed synonymies, such as within Isoodon (Pope et al, 2001) and Perameles (Freedman, 1967;Gordon, 1995). In our list, dingoes [Canis lupus dingo (Meyer, 1793)], wild dogs (C. l. familiaris Linnaeus, 1758) and dingo-wild dog hybrids were treated as a single introduced species.…”

Postglacial reorganization of a small‐mammal paleocommunity in southern Australia reveals thresholds of change

“…For identification, cranio-dental specimens were compared with modern and subfossil specimens in the South Australian Museum and modern specimens held by the Australian Museum, as described in Macken and Reed (2013). Published descriptions of species' craniodental morphology were also used to aid species identification where available (Finlayson 1938, Freedman 1965, Smith 1971, Merrilees and Porter 1979, Watts and Aslin 1981, Archer 1984, Baynes and McDowell 2009). All taxonomic names were used following Strahan and Conder (2007).…”

Understanding morphological variation in the extant koala as a framework for identification of species boundaries in extinct koalas (Phascolarctidae; Marsupialia)

“…Among extant marsupials, analyses of both qualitative and quantitative dental variation have been investigated in species of Perameles (Peramelidae; e.g., Freedman 1967;Freedman & Joffe 1967a, 1967b, Macropus (Macropodidae; e.g., Bartholomai 1971;Easton 2006), and the Patagonian opossum Lestodelphys halli (Didelphidae; e.g., Martin 2005). Studies of variation in fossil marsupials are few owing to the relative paucity of fossil samples from single localities.…”