CAJ | 학술논문

目前甘肃鼢鼠Myospalax cansus、高原鼢鼠 M.baileyi、秦岭鼢鼠M.rufescens的分类地位一直存有争议,多涉及到与中华鼢鼠M.fontanierii的分类关系.本文分别从成体甘肃鼢鼠、高原鼢鼠、秦岭鼢鼠、中华鼢鼠标本的胡须、头部、背部、腹部、前肢取毛样,经清洗和处理后,在倒置显微镜下观察,用目镜测微尺分别测量和计算其5个部位毛发的毛髓质指数.结果表明:甘肃鼢鼠与中华鼢鼠除胡须髓质指数无显著性差异外,其它部位及各部位综合均有显著差异.高原鼢鼠与秦岭鼢鼠除前肢毛髓质指数无显著性差异外,其它部位及各部位综合均有显著差异;与中华鼢鼠除前肢毛髓质指数无显著差异,其它部位及各部位综合均有显著差异.秦岭鼢鼠除与甘肃鼢鼠的腹部及与中华鼢鼠、高原鼢鼠的前肢毛髓质指数无显著差异外,与其它鼢鼠其余部位及各部位综合均有显著性差异.综合考虑,本研究结果支持甘肃鼢鼠、高原鼢鼠、秦岭鼢鼠各自独立为种的观点.
목전감숙분서Myospalax cansus、고원분서 M.baileyi、진령분서M.rufescens적분류지위일직존유쟁의,다섭급도여중화분서M.fontanierii적분류관계.본문분별종성체감숙분서、고원분서、진령분서、중화분서표본적호수、두부、배부、복부、전지취모양,경청세화처리후,재도치현미경하관찰,용목경측미척분별측량화계산기5개부위모발적모수질지수.결과표명:감숙분서여중화분서제호수수질지수무현저성차이외,기타부위급각부위종합균유현저차이.고원분서여진령분서제전지모수질지수무현저성차이외,기타부위급각부위종합균유현저차이;여중화분서제전지모수질지수무현저차이,기타부위급각부위종합균유현저차이.진령분서제여감숙분서적복부급여중화분서、고원분서적전지모수질지수무현저차이외,여기타분서기여부위급각부위종합균유현저성차이.종합고필,본연구결과지지감숙분서、고원분서、진령분서각자독립위충적관점.
The taxonomic statuses of Gansu zokor ( Myospalax cansus), Plateau zokor ( M. baileyi) and Qinling zokor ( M. rufescens)have been debated for many years, and often relate to Chinese zokor ( M. fontanierii). In the study, guide hairs from around the mouth, head, back, abdomen and forelimb of each species were chosen from the specimens of adult M. fontanierii, M. cansus, M.baileyi and M. rufescens respectively. After treated serially, with the eyepiece micrometer in the inverted microscope, we made measurements of the widths of hairs and medullas, and then calculated the medullary indexes of straight guard hairs from around the mouth, head, back, abdomen and forelimb of each species. The results indicate that: viewing at each of the five parts, there were no significant differences in the medullary indexes of whiskers between M. cansus and M. fontanierii, in those of forelimbs between M. baileyi and M. rufescens & between M. baileyi and M. fontanierii, in those of abdomen between M. rufescens and M. cansus, and in those of forelimbs between M. rufescens and M. fontanierii & between M. rufescens and M. bailyi. Expect for the above-mentioned parts in which the medullary indexes were of no significant differences, significant differences were found in the other parts and the mixture of the five parts between M. cansus and M. fontanierii, between M. baileyi and M. rufescens, between M. baileyi and M.fontanierii, between M. rufescens and M. cansus, between M. rufescens and M. fontanierii. The standpoints that M. cansus, M.baileyi and M. rufescens were listed as valid species respectively are supported by this study.