绒鼠类系统学研究(啮齿目:仓鼠科:田鼠亚科)

在系统综述的基础上对绒鼠属Eothenomys的分类进行了探讨，认为Eothenomys属的典型特征应力；下颌骨臼齿咀嚼面左右两侧的三角形齿环均不呈交错排列，而是两两相对，彼此相融合；二倍染色体数2m=56，全部常染色体均为端部着丝粒（T），东方绒鼠亚属Antheliomys5种中，至少玉龙绒鼠E.proditor不属于此属不能排除恢复Antheliomys属级分类地位的可能性，同意将Caryomys独立为绒Ping属；将Craseomys shanseius Thomas,1908(=E.shanseius)订正为棕背Ping的山西亚种C.r.shanseius。台湾绒鼠Eothenomys kanoi Tokuda,1937的染色体特征与Clethrionomys属相似，不应收入绒鼠属，其分类地位待定。Clethrionomys属和Eothenomys属化石种均最早出现于早更新世，目前还不能断定此二属究竟谁起源于谁，也许它们共同起源于第三者。

A SUMMARY OF EOTHENOMI(RODENTIA: CRICETIDAE:MICROTINAE)

Base on systematic summary of Eothenomi, this study focuses on the range, division of subgenera, systematics of species and subspecies of Eothenomys. According to recent research, the diagnosis of genus Eothenomys are: the opposite triangles of lower molar are confluent, but not closed and separate; the karyotype is 2n=56 and all the autosome are telocentric (T). Among the five species of subgenus Antheliomys, E. proditor does not belong to this genus at least. It is likely to reinstate the status of the genus Antheliomys. The Caryomys should be separately genus, and the relative species of Aschizomys and Phaulomys should belong to genera Alticola and Clethrionomys respectively. The Craseomys shanseius Thomas, 1908 (=E. shanseius), whose morphology and karyotype are both coincided with those of Clethrionomys rufocanus, should be corrected as C. r. shanseius. While the karyotype of Eothenomys kanoi Tokuda, 1937 is similar to genus Clethrionomys. So it should not belong to Eothenomys and its systematic status is to be identified. The earliest fossil species of Clethrionomys and Eothenomys were both found in early Pleistocene. In China, the fossil species of C. sebaldi and E. melanogaster were in the same stratum of the Longgupo period of early Pleistocene. Therefore, it can not be concluded that the one was of the other origin. Maybe they were both of the third origin. The problems of systematics, origin and evolution of Eothenomi are all to be explored in the future.