University of Kansas University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History Volume 7, No. 4, pp. 349-472, 47 figures in text, 4 tables University of Kansas PRINTED BY Look for the Union Label
The jumping mice (Genus Zapus) are widely distributed over northern North America, occurring as far north as the Arctic Circle and as far south as Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and central California. In some years these small rodents are locally common in moist places that are either grassy or weedy; the jumping mice are notable for the much enlarged hind legs and the exceptionally long tail. Members of the Genus as a whole have received no serious comprehensive taxonomic attention in the 54 years since Preble’s (1899) revisionary work. In this time 15 new names have been proposed, mostly for subspecies, and only a few attempts have been made at grouping related named kinds. In the present account it is aimed to record what is known concerning geographic distribution, taxonomically significant characters, and interrelationships of the known kinds as well as to provide means for recognizing the species and subspecies in the genus. In addition, attention is given to the probable center of origin of the subfamily Zapodinae and to the relationships and taxonomic positions of the genera Zapus, Napaeozapus, and Eozapus. The present report is based on a study of approximately 3,600 specimens that were assembled at the Museum of Natural History of the University of Kansas or that were examined at other institutions. Most of these specimens are stuffed skins with skulls separate. Skulls without skins, skins without skulls, entire skeletons, and separately preserved bacula are included as a part of the total. Almost every specimen is accompanied by an attached label, which bears place and date of capture, name of collector, external measurements, and sex. Specimens used in the study of geographic variation were arranged by season of capture and according to geographic location; then they were segregated as to sex, and, under each sex, by age. Next, individual variation was measured in comparable samples of like age, sex, season, and geographic origin. Finally, comparable materials were arranged geographically in order to determine variations of systematic significance. The only external measurements used were total length, length of tail, and length of hind foot; these measurements were recorded by the collectors on the labels attached to the skins. Height of the ear was not used since it was not recorded by many of the collectors. In order to determine which cranial structures showed the least individual variation but at the same time showed substantial geographic variation, a statistical analysis was made of the 30 measurements, of cranial structures, heretofore used in taxonomic work on Zapus. The following measurements of the skull showed the least individual variation but showed some geographic variation and therefore, were used in this study. See figs. 1-3 which show points between which measurements were taken: Occipitonasal length.—From anteriormost projection of nasal bones to posteriormost projection of supraoccipital bone. a to a´ Condylobasal length.—Least distance from a line connecting posteriormost parts of exoccipital condyles to a line connecting anteriormost projections of premaxillary bones. b to n Palatal length.—From anterior border of upper incisors to anteriormost point of postpalatal notch. b to b´ Incisive foramina, length.—From anteriormost point to posteriormost point of incisive foramina. c to c´ Incisive foramina, breadth.—Greatest distance across incisive foramina perpendicular to long axis of skull. f to f´ Zygomatic length.—From anteriormost point of zygomatic process of maxillary to posteriormost point of zygomatic process of squamosal. d to d´ Zygomatic breadth.—Greatest distance across zygomatic arches of cranium at right angles to long axis of skull. j to j´ Breadth of inferior ramus of zygomatic process of maxillary.—Greatest distance across inferior ramus of zygomatic process of maxillary taken parallel to long axis of skull. d to e Palatal breadth at M3.—Greatest distance from inside margin of alveolus of right M3 to its opposite. g to g´ Palatal breadth at P4.—Same as above except taken at P4. g to g´ Mastoid breadth.—Greatest distance across mastoid bones perpendicular to long axis of skull. h to h´ Breadth of braincase.—Greatest distance across braincase taken perpendicular to long axis of skull. i to i´ Interorbital breadth.—Least distance across top of skull between orbits. k to k´ Length of maxillary tooth-row.—From anterior border of P4 to posterior border of M3. l to l´ Breadth of base zygomatic process of squamosal.—Greatest distance across base of zygomatic process of squamosal taken parallel to long axis of skull. m to m´ Figs. 1-3. Three views of the skull to show points between which measurements of the skull were taken. Based on Z. t. montanus, adult, female, No. 22165 KU, Cascade Divide, 6400 ft., Crater Lake Nat'l Park, Klamath County, Oregon. × 4. The baculum has a characteristic size and shape according to the species, and the following significant measurements of the structure were taken: Greatest length.—From posteriormost border of base to anteriormost point on tip. Greatest breadth at base.—Greatest distance across base taken parallel to long axis of bone. Greatest breadth at tip.—Greatest distance across tip taken parallel to long axis of bone. In the descriptions of color the capitalized color terms refer to those in Ridgway (1912). Any color term that does not have the initial letter capitalized does not refer to any one standard. In the description of the subspecies the two sexes are treated as one because no significant secondary sexual variation was found. Only fully adult specimens of age groups 3 to 5, as defined on pages 377 and 388, have been considered. Unless otherwise indicated, specimens are in the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. Those in other collections are identified by the following abbreviations:
The species are arranged from least to most progressive, and the subspecies are arranged alphabetically. The synonymy for each subspecies includes first a citation to the earliest available name then one citation to each name combination that has been applied to the subspecies and, finally, any other especially important references. Marginal records of occurrence for each subspecies are shown on the maps by means of hollow circles and these localities are listed in clockwise order beginning with the northernmost locality. If more than one of these localities lies on the line of latitude that is northernmost for a given subspecies the western-most of these is recorded first. Marginal localities have been cited in a separate paragraph at the end of the section on specimens examined in the account of a subspecies. Localities that are not marginal are shown on the maps by solid black circles. Localities that could not be represented on the distribution map because of undue crowding or overlapping of symbols are italicized in the lists of specimens examined and in the lists of marginal records. The localities of capture of specimens examined are recorded alphabetically by state or province, and then by county in each state or province. Within a county the specimens are recorded geographically from north to south. The word “County” is written out in full when the name of the county is written on the label of each specimen listed for that county, but the abbreviation “Co.” is used when one specimen or more here assigned to a given county lacks the name of the county on the label. The following account has been made possible only by the kindness and cooperation of those persons in charge of the collections listed above. For the privilege of using the specimens in their care I am deeply grateful, as I am also to Prof. A. Byron Leonard for assistance with figures 35-37, to Dr. Rufus Thompson for figures 16-21, and to Mr. Victor Hogg who made all of the other illustrations. My wife, Dorothy Krutzsch, helped untiringly in assembling data, in typing the manuscript, and gave me continued encouragement. Finally, I am grateful to Professor E. Raymond Hall for guidance in the study and critical assistance in the preparation of the manuscript and to Professors Rollin H. Baker, Robert W. Wilson, and Robert E. Beer for valued suggestions. The fossil record of the genus Zapus is scanty. All of the known fossils of it are lower jaws of Pleistocene Age. The Recent species Z. hudsonius was recorded by Cope (1871:86) in the Port Kennedy Cave fauna (pre-Wisconsinian) of Pennsylvania. Gidley and Gazin (1938:67) reported a single mandibular ramus bearing m1-m3 recovered from the Cumberland Cave (pre-Wisconsinian) of Maryland. The teeth are not typical of modern Zapus in that m1 and m2 are shorter crowned and m1 has a longer anterior lobe. Gidley and Gazin, nevertheless, considered their material insufficient for establishing a new species. Two extinct species have been described: Zapus burti Hibbard (1941:215) from the Crooked Creek formation (= Meade formation of the State Geological Survey of Kansas) mid-Pleistocene of Kansas and Zapus rinkeri Hibbard (1951:351) from the Rexroad formation (= Blanco formation of the State Geological Survey of Kansas) of Blancan Age of Kansas. Both species resemble Zapus hudsonius, but differ from it in broader crowned more brachydont cheek-teeth. Z. rinkeri differs from Z. burti and Z. hudsonius by a more robust ramus, broader molars, and three instead of two internal re-entrant valleys posterior to the anterior loop on m1. The three species Z. rinkeri, Z. burti, and Z. hudsonius are in a structurally, as well as a geologically, progressive series. The trend in dentition is from broad, brachydont cheek-teeth to narrow, semi-hypsodont cheek-teeth. The subfamily Zapodinae is known from Pliocene and Pleistocene deposits of North America and now occurs over much of northern North America and in Szechuan and Kansu, China. The living species occur among grasses and low herbs in damp or marshy places both in forested areas and in plains areas. The early Pliocene Macrognathomys nanus Hall (1930:305), originally described as a Cricetid, is actually a Zapodid as shown by the structure of the mandibular ramus, shape of the incisors, and occlusal pattern of the cheek-teeth. If Macrognathomys can be considered a member of the subfamily Zapodinae (possibly it is a sicistine) then it represents the oldest known member of this subfamily. Judging from the published illustrations, Macrognathomys seems to be structurally ancestral to the Mid Pliocene Pliozapus solus Wilson; the labial re-entrant folds are wider and shorter and on m2 and m3 fewer. The difference in stage of wear of the teeth in Macrognathomys and Pliozapus is a handicap in comparing the two genera but they are distinct. Wilson (1936:32) points out that Pliozapus clearly falls in the Zapodinae and stands in an ancestral position with respect to the structurally progressive series Eozapus, Zapus, and Napaeozapus. Nevertheless, Pliozapus cannot be considered as directly ancestral to Eozapus because of the progressive features in the dentition of Pliozapus. Wilson (1937:52) remarked that if Pliozapus is ancestral to Zapus and Napaeozapus, considerable evolution must have taken place in the height of crown and in the development of the complexity of the tooth pattern. In contrast to Wilson’s opinion, Stehlin and Schaub (1951:313) placed Pliozapus and Eozapus in the subfamily Sicistinae because certain elements in the occlusal pattern of the cheek-teeth are similar. I disagree with those authors and hold with Wilson; I consider Pliozapus and Eozapus in the subfamily Zapodinae. In dental pattern Pliozapus, as Wilson (1936:32) pointed out, resembles the Recent Eurasiatic sicistid, Sicista more than do Zapus or Napaeozapus. Nevertheless, from Sicista Wilson distinguishes Pliozapus and relates it to the subfamily Zapodinae by: "more oblique direction of protoconid-hypoconid ridge, anterior termination of this ridge at buccal portion of protoconid rather than between protoconid and metaconid as in Sicista; cusps more compressed into lophs; cheek-teeth somewhat broader; greater development of metastylid; greater development of hypoconulid ridge, … absence of anteroconid…." Eozapus is more closely related to Pliozapus than to either Zapus or Napaeozapus (Wilson, 1936:32) but all four genera are in the subfamily Zapodinae. Stehlin and Schaub (op. cit.:158 and 311) relate Eozapus to the subfamily Sicistinae on the basis of similarity in the occlusal pattern of the cheek-teeth of Eozapus and various sicistines. Stehlin and Schaub do not consider other structures such as the elongate hind limbs, the shape of malleus and incus, and the shape of the baculum, in which there is close resemblance to the Zapodinae. It is these structural similarities as well as those, pointed out by Wilson (loc. cit.), in dentition that leads me to place Eozapus in the subfamily Zapodinae. The early Pleistocene Zapus rinkeri Hibbard shows that the Zapus stage of development had already been achieved perhaps as early as the late Pliocene. Hibbard (1951:352) thought that Zapus rinkeri was not structurally intermediate between Pliozapus and any Recent species of Zapus; although the teeth of Z. rinkeri have the broader, shallower, re-entrant folds of Pliozapus, these teeth are higher crowned and have an occlusal pattern resembling that of the Recent species of Zapus. The middle Pleistocene species, Zapus burti Hibbard, progressed essentially to the structural level of the Recent Zapus hudsonius, but the molars were more brachydont, broader crowned, and their enamel folds less crowded. Pleistocene material of pre-Wisconsin age obtained from cave deposits in Pennsylvania and Maryland is most nearly like Zapus hudsonius. One such cave deposit in Maryland contained an example of the Recent genus Napaeozapus, indicating that its history dates from at least middle Pleistocene time. The Asiatic Recent Genus, Eozapus, has not progressed much beyond the Pliocene stage in zapidine evolution if Pliozapus be taken as a standard; the North American Recent Genus Zapus essentially achieved its present form by early Pleistocene times, and the Recent Genus Napaeozapus achieved its more progressive structure by middle Pleistocene times. Perhaps Pliozapus and Eozapus represent one phyletic line and Zapus and Napaeozapus a second line, both of which lines evolved from a pre-zapidine stock in the Miocene. As mentioned earlier, Wilson (1936) thinks that Pliozapus is not directly ancestral to Eozapus. Possibly these two genera diverged at an early date; nevertheless, they are closely related primitive forms. Zapus and Napaeozapus closely resemble each other and both are structurally advanced; Napaeozapus seems to have differentiated at a more rapid rate. According to Simpson (1947), the occurrence of the same group of mammals on two different land masses is to be taken as prima facie evidence that migration has occurred. Keeping in mind then the present geographic distribution, unspecialized condition of the dentition of Eozapus, and its resemblance to the extinct Pliozapus known from North America but not from Asia, it may be that Eozapus descended from primitive stock of a North American jumping mouse that was forced to the periphery (across the Asiatic North American land bridge) by the more specialized zapidine stock. Subsequently or perhaps during the migration of the pre-Eozapus stock the zapidine stock may have dispersed transcontinentally, occupying most of northern North America. The unprogressive Macrognathomys and Pliozapus line which remained in North America may have become extinct. Any such period of dispersal and climatic equilibrium ended when glaciers came to cover most of the northern part of the continent and the mammals living there were forced southward by the ice or remained in ice-free refugia within the glaciated area. Later, with melting and retreat of the ice, the jumping mice could have again spread enough to occupy the northern part of the continent. Such glaciation isolated segments of the population and aided their evolution into distinct species. If it be assumed, as Matthew (1915) did and as Hooper (1952:200) later on the generic level did, that the region of origin and center of dispersal for a given group of animals is characterized by the presence of the most progressive forms, then southeastern Canada and the northeastern United States make up the area of origin and center of dispersal in relatively late time of the subfamily Zapodinae. This area is inhabited by Zapus hudsonius and Napaeozapus, the most progressive members of the subfamily. As I visualize it, the evolution of the Zapodinae occurred in two stages: the first stage involved the movement of the primitive pre-Eozapus stock to Asia and the second stage involved the dispersal, isolation, and specialization in North America of the more progressive basic zapidine stock into the present genera Zapus and Napaeozapus. The genus Zapus is one of three living genera in the subfamily Zapodinae. These genera Zapus and Napaeozapus from North America and Eozapus from China have been variously considered as subgenera of the genus Zapus (Preble, 1899) or as three separate genera (Ellerman, 1940). Figs. 4-15. Three views of the skull and a lateral view of the left lower jaw of each of the Recent genera of the subfamily Zapodinae. × 1.5. Figs. 4-7. Eozapus s. vicinus, adult, male, No. 240762 USNM, Lanchow, Kansu, China. Figs. 8-11. Zapus h. pallidus, adult, male, No. 240762 KU, 51/2 mi. N, 13/4 mi. E Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Figs. 12-15. Napaeozapus i. insignis, adult, male, No. 41109 KU, Shutsburg Rd., at Roaring Creek, 600 ft., Franklin County, Massachusetts. Figs. 16-21. Occlusal views of upper and lower right cheek-teeth, of the three Recent genera of the subfamily Zapodinae. × 121/2. Figs. 16 and 19. Eozapus s. vicinus, adult (age group 3), male, No. 240762 USNM, Lanchow, Kansu, China. Figs. 17 and 20. Zapus h. alascensis, adult (age group 2), female, No. 29073 KU, E side Chilkat River, 9 mi. W and 4 mi. N Haines, Alaska. Figs. 18 and 21. Napaeozapus i. insignis, adult (age group 3), male, No. 41109 KU, Shutsburg Rd., at Roaring Creek, 600 ft., Franklin County, Massachusetts. Note especially the variation in complexity of occlusal pattern, width of re-entrant folds, and degree of tubercularity. The remarkable similarity of the body form, post-cranial skeleton, mandibular rami, and general structure of the cranium of Zapus, Napaeozapus, and Eozapus indicate their relationship (see figs. 4-15); however, dissimilarity between the groups in the dentition (tooth number and occlusal pattern), bacula, and ear ossicles provides basis for considering them distinct genera. As pointed out earlier, Zapus and Napaeozapus appear to be more closely related and progressive and the Asiatic Eozapus somewhat removed and less progressive. Teeth.—According to the complexity in dental pattern and in number and size of the cheek-teeth, these genera can be arranged in a structurally progressive series with Eozapus showing the least complexity and Napaeozapus the most (see figs. 16-21). There are three distinct molar patterns; one is simple (Eozapus) and the others (Zapus and Napaeozapus) are more complex. The complexity is greatest in Napaeozapus, which is characterized by numerous additional flexures in the enamel and dentine. The simplicity of the molars of Eozapus is evident in the tuberculate rather than flat-crowned occlusal surface; the wide, simple, re-entrant bays; the small (or sometimes absent) anteroconid; and the essentially quadritubercular nature of the teeth. The molars of Zapus and Napaeozapus are flat crowned; however, Zapus has wider and fewer re-entrant bays, a smaller anteroconid, and less complexity in the occlusal pattern. The characteristics of the molar teeth would tend to indicate a close relationship between Zapus and Napaeozapus and to place Eozapus as primitive. The absence of P4 in Napaeozapus would lead one to suspect that this genus has evolved at a more rapid rate than the historically older Zapus and Eozapus which still retain this structure. The small size of P4, even in the primitive Eozapus, indicates that it has long been of little use to the mouse. An even greater reduction of P4 in the more complex dentition of Zapus argues for complete loss of this tooth as the next step in specialization, such as is seen in the more progressive Napaeozapus. The following parallel columns show selected differences between the occlusal patterns of the cheek-teeth of the three genera: Baculum.—The baculum (os penis) of Eozapus is known to me only from Vinogradov’s (1925) figures of the dorsal and lateral aspects. The proximal end (base) is laterally expanded, and the shaft tapers gradually toward the distal end where it expands abruptly into the spade-shaped tip. In lateral aspect the bone is relatively thick; it is curved downward slightly from the proximal end to the base of the tip where it curves upward to a rounded point. The baculum of Zapus differs from that of Eozapus as follows: base less expanded horizontally; shaft slenderer; distal end less spade-shaped except in Z. trinotatus. The tip is less expanded in Z. princeps and is still less so in Z. hudsonius. In Napaeozapus the tip is lanceolate, the base is narrow, and in lateral view the shaft is slender and curved (see figs. 22-31).
Figs. 22-31. Dorsal and lateral views of the bacula of the Recent genera (and species of the genus Zapus) of the subfamily Zapodinae. × 10. Figs. 22 and 27. Eozapus setchuanus (after Vinogradov, 1925:585). Figs. 23 and 28. Zapus t. trinotatus, adult, No. 94596 MVZ, 11/4 mi. ENE Amboy, 350 ft., Clark County, Washington. Figs. 24 and 29. Zapus p. princeps, adult, No. 20870 KU, 3 mi. S Ward, Boulder County, Colorado. Figs. 25 and 30. Zapus h. pallidus, adult, No. 22954 KU, 4 mi. N, 13/4 mi. E Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Figs. 26 and 31. Napaeozapus i. insignis, adult, No. 41110 KU, Shutsburg Rd., at Roaring Creek, 600 ft., Franklin County, Massachusetts. Ear ossicles.—The auditory ossicles are of three types which differ only slightly. These ossicles possibly are more conservative than some other structures because the ossicles are not so much affected by the molding influence of the environment. Instances of variation in the auditory region in mammals in general are small, even at the family level; therefore, these differences in the subfamily Zapodinae are offered as additional support for recognizing Eozapus, Zapus, and Napaeozapus as distinct genera. The distinctive features are chiefly in the malleus and incus; the stapes, however, differs slightly and, therefore, it too is described (see figs. 32-34). In Eozapus the head of the malleus is narrow, oblong, and rounded dorsally and attaches to the body by a long, slender, abruptly recurved neck. The body is weakly pointed ventrally and rounded dorsally. A beaklike manubrium malleus composed of anterior projecting external and internal spines extends from the body to the tympanum. The incus has a dorsally rounded body with an anterior downward snoutlike projection with which the malleus articulates. The short limb of the incus is broad basally and narrows somewhat distally. The long limb is narrow and its articulating lenticular process is a flat circular structure. The limbs of the stapes are wide-spread and heavy. The neck is short and wide with a large circular articulating surface. In Zapus the head of the malleus is angular with an anterior projecting point and is flattened in dorsal aspect. The neck is slender, elongate, and gently curved away from the long limb of the incus. The body is pointed dorsally and rounded ventrally, the reverse of the condition in Eozapus. There is a beaklike manubrium malleus composed of internal and external anteriorly projecting spines extending from the body to the tympanum as in Eozapus. The incus has a rounded body with a long angular limb articulating via a small lenticular process with the stapes. The short limb is narrow but does not taper distally as in Eozapus. The limbs of the stapes are relatively narrow, weak, and gently curved. The neck is longer and more slender than that of Eozapus. In Napaeozapus the head and neck of the malleus resemble those of Zapus but are less robust. The body is more rounded dorsally, having the curved dorsal surface directed anteriorly rather than posteriorly (as in Zapus) and the lateral surface is nearly flat instead of curved as in the other genera. The manubrium resembles that of Eozapus and Zapus. The body of the incus is flattened dorsally but otherwise rounded. The long limb of the incus is angular and longer than that of Zapus. The short limb of the incus is broad at the base and tapers distally. The limbs of the stapes are narrow, weak, and abruptly curved. The neck is more slender and elongate than in Zapus. In summary: Only the head and body of the malleus and the short and long limbs and body of the incus are sufficiently consistent within a given group to be of taxonomic importance. The similarity in the morphology of these ossicles indicates a close relationship between all three genera. Zapus and Napaeozapus resemble one another more than either resembles Eozapus. The differences recorded are constant between the described groups and, therefore, are considered to be of taxonomic significance. The differences give basis for dividing the subfamily Zapodinae into the three genera Eozapus, Zapus, and Napaeozapus. Figs. 32-34. Lateral views of the left ear ossicles (articulated) of the Recent genera of the subfamily Zapodinae. × 20. Fig. 32. Eozapus s. vicinus, adult, male, No. 240762 USNM, Lanchow, Kansu, China. Fig. 33. Zapus p. princeps, adult, male, No. 32858 KU, Medicine Wheel Ranch, 28 mi. E Lovell, Big Horn County, Wyoming. Fig. 34. Napaeozapus i. insignis, adult, male, No. 9544 KU, 3 mi. W Base Station, Coos County, New Hampshire. Distribution of and Speciation in the Genus Zapus Many of the described kinds of the genus Zapus were initially named as distinct species (see Preble, 1899). Subsequently (see Hall, 1931), some of the nominal species were reduced to the rank of subspecies. Only three species in the genus Zapus are recognized in the following account. The concept of species adopted here is, in Mayr’s (1942:120) words, this: “Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.” The three species are Z. trinotatus, Z. princeps, and Z. hudsonius. No hybridization is known where two occur together or where their ranges are adjacent. Each of these species has several geographically contiguous subspecies. The three species of Zapus are closely related but are not equally progressive. If eastern North America is considered to be the region of origin and center of dispersal of Zapus (see pp. 368-369) the geographically distant species would be expected to be the least progressive, and such seems to be the case. Zapus trinotatus is geographically farthest removed and structurally least progressive. Zapus hudsonius occurs at the center of dispersal and is the most progressive structurally whereas Z. princeps is geographically and structurally intermediate. Structural progressiveness is postulated for the species that has the simplest (in this instance specialized) baculum and smallest fourth upper premolar. The phyletic branches of the genus Zapus possibly developed from geographic segments of a population radiating from the centrally located progressive group. On continental areas where a species with a wide and continuous range gives rise to several daughter species, geographic isolation is thought to be important in bringing about the formation of species. The unspecialized populations conceivably occupied an area west of the present Rocky Mountains and south of latitude 50°. From later Miocene times on, climatic and geological differentiation occurred in this area, and with the growth of geological barriers and differentiation of habitat these unspecialized populations may have been separated into two ecological groups, one inhabiting the more arid area between the present Rocky Mountains and the present Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada and the other group inhabiting the Pacific coastal region. Isolation of each of these groups probably was not complete. How far differentiation might have proceeded with incomplete isolation can only be guessed, but at least incipient differences probably were present and possibly the animals approached in character those found in these areas today in that the ecology of the region was much the same as now. In the region between the Rocky Mountains and the present Cascade Range and the Sierra Nevada, the flora (in late Pliocene) became semidesert, which presumably made most of this region uninhabitable for jumping mice. The aridity probably induced local concentration into boreal montane islands, thus possibly displacing the populations of the two species that were in contact. In Pleistocene times continental glaciation must have interrupted the contacts between the coastal, intermontane (the area between the present Rocky Mountains and the present Cascade Range and the Sierra Nevada), and northern and eastern groups of Zapus or mammals of any genus that occurred over all of this vast region. The advance of the ice southward would have increased opportunity for evolution by interposing barriers that isolated some populations. The populations possibly were re-established in interglacial periods and then were isolated again by another descent of glacial ice. If a population occupied the unglaciated coastal region of Oregon and Washington it may have been separated from other populations to the north and east by an ice cap which covered most of the Cascade Range. The population occupying the intermountain region probably was isolated from the population to the north and west. The formation of glaciers presumably reduced the size of areas available to the populations occupying eastern North America, Alaska, and Canada with the result that they persisted only in areas south of the ice or in ice-free refugia (central and western Alaska) within the glaciated area. According to Axelrod (1948), the flora in the eastern United States during the Pleistocene furnished most of the stock for the revegetation of southern and subarctic Canada east of the Rocky Mountains. Eastern populations of Z. hudsonius (or its progenitors) probably followed the spread of this vegetation and, thus, extended their range into Canada where they crossbred with populations advancing south and east from the refugia in Alaska. Western montane floras, which extended north along the Rocky Mountains and the Cascade and Coast ranges, probably paved the path for a northward migration of populations of the intermountain Z. princeps (or its progenitors). Populations of Z. princeps moved eastward from the present Rocky Mountains, inhabiting the high plains of southern Canada and the north-central United States. In general, Zapus hudsonius occupies the region to the north and to the east of that inhabited by Zapus princeps; however, the ranges of the two meet and overlap in central and northern British Columbia and in the high plains area of southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, eastern Manitoba, eastern Montana, North Dakota, and northern South Dakota. In these places of overlap, owing to range expansion following the retreat of the ice, there is no sign of interbreeding, indicating that the populations have attained specific rank. Populations of both Z. hudsonius and Z. princeps occur together at Indianpoint Lake, British Columbia. Specimens taken there are readily sorted into two groups; none is intermediate. The difference in size between these species there is especially marked; Z. p. saltator there is a large derivative of Z. princeps and Z. h. tenellus is a medium-sized Z. hudsonius. Z. princeps minor and Z. hudsonius intermedius have been taken at several neighboring localities in North Dakota. Although these geographic races are more nearly of the same size (minor is a small subspecies of princeps and intermedius is a moderately large subspecies of hudsonius) they do not interbreed. Specimens of Z. p. minor and Z. h. intermedius have been obtained from an ecologically homogeneous area in the vicinity of Fort Totten and Devils Lake, North Dakota. Values obtained from several measurements of the skull and baculum allow for ready recognition of the two species. The populations from North Dakota are, however, not so widely divergent as are those populations from the area of contact in British Columbia. Perhaps the difference in the degree of distinction between the species at the two areas of contact is indicative of the length and completeness of geographic isolation between neighboring populations. The ranges of Z. trinotatus and Z. hudsonius are not at present in contact, but the two species differ more strongly than do hudsonius and princeps or princeps and trinotatus. Therefore, trinotatus and hudsonius are here considered to be two distinct species. As pointed out earlier in this discussion, the separation between the progenitors of Z. trinotatus and Z. princeps probably occurred when the present Cascade Range and the Sierra Nevada were being formed. From this time until Pleistocene glaciation an incomplete geographic isolation was in effect between the populations of the Pacific coast and the intermountain populations. Perhaps in the region north of the present Cascade Range there was moderate interbreeding between these populations and the transcontinental form. There may have been a similar zone of interbreeding along the crest of the present Cascades where the intermountain and coastal populations conceivably could have met. At least incipient characters probably were present when in Pleistocene time, continental glaciation further isolated the two populations. Since the retreat of the last ice (Wisconsin) the unprogressive coastal Z. trinotatus has expanded its range only slightly, reaching as far as southwestern British Columbia. It seems that ecological difference rather than the barrier formed by the higher elevations is responsible for the limited expansion of range. The population of princeps has extended its range northward to the southern part of the Yukon Territory but does not occur in coastal southern British Columbia because that area already was occupied by Zapus trinotatus. The ranges of the two species meet and overlap in southwestern British Columbia. The species occur sympatrically in Manning Park where, according to Carl et al. (1952:77), they occupy the same range in the region of Allison Pass, Pinewoods, and Timberline Valley. These workers remark that no intergradation was apparent between individuals of the two species obtained in the same trap line. I have examined material of both species from Allison Pass. There the species differ in color, in the shape of the skull, and in the size and shape of the baculum. Material from Timberline Valley, an area in which Carl et al. (loc. cit.) reported both species, here is assigned to Z. princeps. Where bacula have been preserved the identity of the species is instantly possible. In summary: First, a population of jumping mice, possibly a monotypic genus, occurred over most of North America; then this population partly divided into Pacific northwest, intermountain (from the east slopes of the present Rocky Mountains to the east slopes of the present Cascade Range and the Sierra Nevada), and transcontinental (eastern and northern) groups with the least progressive groups peripheral; a further reduction or possibly a complete isolation of these populations followed owing to Pleistocene glaciation (especially in the Wisconsin period); and, finally, the present day contacts were established between these populations which by now have differentiated into species. Conceivably, Z. burti (Blancan age) and Z. rinkeri (mid Pleistocene) may represent stages in the development of Z. hudsonius. |