. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology. . A I— Fig. 6 Lingual view of left P3 to M3 of Microgale dryas (top), M. thomasi (middle) and M. gracilis (bottom). Scale 1 mm. samples, it is impractical to speculate about possible relation- ships. Eisenberg & Gould (1970) divided Microgale into four behavioural classes on the basis of external morphology. However this classification was challenged by MacPhee (1987) because of redefinition of within-species variation and lack of field study data to support the theory. Specimens of three other species of Microgale: M. cowani, M.
. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology. . A I— Fig. 6 Lingual view of left P3 to M3 of Microgale dryas (top), M. thomasi (middle) and M. gracilis (bottom). Scale 1 mm. samples, it is impractical to speculate about possible relation- ships. Eisenberg & Gould (1970) divided Microgale into four behavioural classes on the basis of external morphology. However this classification was challenged by MacPhee (1987) because of redefinition of within-species variation and lack of field study data to support the theory. Specimens of three other species of Microgale: M. cowani, M. principula Thomas, 1926 and M. talazaci were collected from the same locality as M. dryas. This sympatric association of several different species is apparently common in Microgale (see MacPhee, 1987; Nicoll & Rathbun, 1990). Regrettably, some Fig. 7 Occlusal view of left P3 to M3 of Microgale dryas (top), M. thomasi (middle) and M. gracilis (bottom). Scale 1 mm. of the species recorded for this locality by Nicoll & Rathbun were based on incorrect preliminary field identifications. Although found in the same habitat, it seems likely that these four species are occupying different ecological niches. Eisen- berg & Gould (1970) hypothesised that M. principula was a climbing form on the basis of its long tail, which is naked on its distal dorsal surface, and long hindfeet. Although MacPhee (1987), pointed out that there was no evidence of the long tail being prehensile, and studies that might confirm such locomotor behaviour are lacking, these morphological differences do suggest adaptations to a specialised life-style. Studies were made on M. talazaci (Eisenberg & Gould, 1970), which show that it is scansorial and shows some burrowing behaviour; its much greater size suggests that it may take larger prey than the smaller species. Since there is no field data for M. dryas, no speculation about its ecology or behaviour is attempted here. A species of rice-tenrec, O
Size: 2533px × 987px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookcollection, bookpublisherlondonbutterworths
