Cryptonanus agricolai is endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga, and has also been collected in contact zones between these biomes and the Amazon in northern Mato Grosso and southwestern Piauí states (Bezerra et al. 2009). Records of C. agricolai in the Atlantic forest were obtained from pellets of Tyto alba and might actually correspond to individuals captured in the Cerrado, the Caatinga, or both (Souza et al. 2010), as these owls can potentially forage through long distances (up to ~31 km; Hegdal and Blaskiewicz 1984). According to Bezerra et al. (2014), unpublished molecular data suggest that C. agricolai is absent from the Cerrado; however, we will refrain from adopting this view until these data become publicly available (contra Carmignotto et al. 2012). The current, known distribution of C. agricolai includes the Brazilian states of Ceará, Goiás, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Pernambuco, Piauí, Sergipe, and Tocantins (Voss et al. 2005, Bezerra et al. 2009, 2014, Carmignotto and Aires 2011, Bonvicino et al. 2012, Gómes et al. 2015, Gurgel-Filho et al. 2015, Hannibal and Neves-Godoi 2015, de la Sancha and D’Elía 2015). Alleged records from a locality in São Paulo state have been mentioned in the literature (see Martin et al. 2012), but they were made based on animals that were released (i.e., no voucher specimens are available) and identified using unreported criteria.

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Cryptonanus agricolai (see Carmignotto et al. 2016a). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBio-MMA 2016).

Thylamys karimii is endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Goiás, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, Pernambuco, Piauí, Rondônia, Sergipe, and Tocantins, and in the Distrito Federal (Carmignotto and Monfort 2006, Carvalho et al. 2009, Bruna et al. 2010, Carmignotto and Aires 2011, Bonvicino et al. 2012, Bezerra et al. 2014). The species has not been reported for Bolivia, but its presence on the Serranía de Huanchaca in the Santa Cruz department of that country might be expected (Giarla et al. 2010).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Vulnerable” to Thylamys karimii (see Carmignotto et al. 2016b). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Thylamys velutinus is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Minas Gerais, São Paulo, and in the Distrito Federal (Vieira and Palma 1996, Bonvicino and Bezerra 2003, Giarla et al. 2010, Bonvicino et al. 2014). Marginal records are known from transitional areas that harbor isolated patches of Cerrado vegetation embedded within the Atlantic Forest biome (see Caceres 2012 and references therein).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Near Threatened” to Thylamys velutinus (see Carmignotto and Astúa 2016). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Vulnerable” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Tolypeutes tricinctus is endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga (contra Wetzel et al. 2007), and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Alagoas, Bahia, Ceará, Goiás, Maranhão, Paraíba, Pernambuco, Piauí, Sergipe, and Tocantins (Sanborn 1930, Moojen 1943; Silva and Oren 1993, Santos et al. 1994, Oliveira 1995, Marinho-Filho et al. 1997, Zimbres et al. 2012, 2013, Feijó et al. 2015a). The species had been traditionally considered an endemic of the Caatinga biome, however records of the species well within the Cerrado biome and in native Cerrado habitat type have been reported (Marinho-Filho et al. 1997; see also figure 2 in Feijó et al. 2015a).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Vulnerable” to Tolypeutes tricinctus (see Miranda et al. 2014). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Endangered” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Lonchophylla bokermanni is endemic to the Cerrado, where it has been collected in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais (Dias et al. 2013, Teixeira et al. 2014, Almeida et al. 2016). Specimens collected in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil and previously identified as L. bokermanni (by Nascimento et al. 2013) actually correspond to the recently described Lonchophylla peracchii (Dias et al. 2013).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Endangered” to Lonchophylla bokermanni (see Aguiar et al. 2016; see also Teixeira et al. 2014). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Lonchophylla dekeyseri is endemic to the Cerrado (contra Leal et al. 2013), and has been collected in the Brazilian states of Goiás, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, and in the Distrito Federal (Taddei et al. 1983, Coelho and Marinho-Filho 2002, Aguiar et al. 2014, Moratelli and Dias 2015, Almeida et al. 2016). Additional specimens assigned to L. dekeyseri exist for the Bolivian state of Santa Cruz (in the Cerrado), and for the Brazilian states of Piauí (in the Cerrado-Caatinga ecotone) and Paraíba (in the Caatinga) (Woodman and Timm 2006, Leal et al. 2013). However, the taxonomic identifications of these specimens need to be reevaluated based on the morphological criteria recently proposed by Moratelli and Dias (2015), who noted the following: “We are not convinced that L. dekeyseri occurs in the Bolivian savannah and in the Cerrado–Caatinga ecotone in NE Brazil. One of the specimens supporting these records was examined a long time ago (DZSJRP 11459), and the other two (USNM 584472, 584473) are distinct from other samples of L. dekeyseri as determined in a previous discriminant function analysis. These specimens are not included in this analysis because we were not able to compare them with samples from other localities.” We provisionally regard L. dekeyseri as endemic to the Brazilian Cerrado until further studies determine the taxonomic identity of specimens collected in Bolivia, the Cerrado-Caatinga ecotone, and the Caatinga.

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Endangered” to Lonchophylla dekeyseri (see Aguiar and Bernard 2016). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Endangered” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Lonchophylla inexpectata is endemic to the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Pernambuco and Bahia (Moratelli and Dias 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 has not yet evaluated the extinction risk of Lonchophylla inexpectata. The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016). Confirmed specimens of L. inexpectata are currently known from only three localities. Although an exhaustive revision of specimens housed in zoological collections might reveal a higher number of localities for the species, a provisional conservation status denoting some risk of extinction seems a sensible action considering the extremely low number of confirmed localities, particularly considering trends of habitat loss in the Caatinga (Albuquerque et al. 2012).

Xeronycteris vieirai is endemic to the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Minas Gerais, Paraíba, and Pernambuco (Gregorin and Ditchfield 2005, Nogueira et al. 2007, 2014a, 2015, Astúa and Guerra 2008).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Xeronycteris vieirai (see Solari 2015). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Vulnerable” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016). Eleven years after its description (Gregorin and Ditchfield 2005), X. vieirai is known from only eight specimens and seven localities from the Caatinga (Gregorin and Ditchfield 2005, Nogueira et al. 2007, 2014a, 2015, Astúa and Guerra 2008), a biome with large disturbed areas as well as areas undergoing desertification (Albuquerque et al. 2012). Considering habitat loss, the specialized diet and the endemic nature of X. vieirai, Gregorin and Ditchfield (2005) noted that the species might be one of most threatened species of mammals in Brazil. We agree with this view, and strongly encourage NGOs and governmental agencies in charge of producing influential “red lists of threatened species” to revaluate the conservation status they have assigned to Xeronycteris vieirai; a realistic category for the species should reflect at the very least a moderate risk of extinction, particularly considering trends of habitat loss in the Caatinga (Albuquerque et al. 2012).

Micronycteris sanborni is endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Ceará, Minas Gerais, Paraíba, Piauí, Pernambuco, and Tocantins (Simmons 1996, Gregorin et al. 2008, Cunha et al. 2009, Feijó et al. 2010, 2015b, Nogueira et al. 2015, Silva et al. 2015). An alleged record of the species for the Amazon biome has been recently published (López-Baucells et al. 2013), but no voucher specimen supports this claim and the individual that forms the basis of this record lacked the pure white ventral pelage coloration that seems to be characteristic of M. sanborni (see Simmons 1996, Feijó et al. 2015b). Applying Hitchens’ razor, we dismiss the alleged record for the Amazon biome (contra López-Baucells et al. 2013), a view we share with other authors (see Nogueira et al. 2014b, Feijó et al. 2015b). In addition, as noted by Feijó et al. (2015b), alleged records from the state of Mato Grosso do Sul need to be confirmed. One of the two specimens that formed the basis of these records (see Santos et al. 2010) lacks the pure white ventral pelage coloration typical of confirmed vouchers of M. sanborni (see above) – and according to Siles et al. (2013) it might actually correspond to M. yatesi. No information about the morphology of the other specimen has been published (see Cunha et al. 2009).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Micronycteris sanborni (see Tavares and Aguirre 2008). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Chiroderma vizottoi is endemic to the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Ceará and Piauí (Gregorin et al. 2008, Taddei and Lim 2010, Silva et al. 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 has not yet evaluated the status of Chiroderma vizottoi. The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Callithrix penicillata is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Goiás, Maranhão, Minas Gerais, Piauí, São Paulo, and in the Distrito Federal (de Vivo 1991, Miranda and Faria 2001, Rylands et al. 2009, Coimbra-Filho et al. 2006, Bruna et al. 2010, Vilela and Del-Claro 2011, Garbino 2015b). However, according to Rylands et al. (2009 p. 36) the records from Maranhão, which were reported by de Vivo (1991) based on skins deposited at the Museu Nacional (Rio de Janeiro), likely correspond to introductions of the species in areas far away from the native range of the species. Similarly, translocations of individuals out of their native range have been considered as a possible causal explanation for the existence of a hybrid zone between C. penicillata and C. geoffroyi in the Atlantic Forest (Fuzessy et al. 2014). Rylands et al. (2009) also commented that habitat transformation (with loss of forest) and introductions (resulting from misguided release of confiscated animals) have led C. penicillata to occupy, and perhaps replace other species of Callithrix, at localities south and east of its native range.

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Callithrix penicillata (see Rylands and Mendes 2008). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Cebus libidinosus is endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Ceará, Goiás, Maranhão, Minas Gerais, Paraíba, Piauí, Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Norte, São Paulo, Tocantins, and Distrito Federal (Pontes et al. 2006, Vilela 2007, Canale et al. 2009, Bruna et al. 2010, Lynch-Alfaro et al. 2012a, 2014, Feijó and Langguth 2013, Fragaszy et al. 2013, Gomes et al. 2015, Mendes et al. 2015, Nova et al. 2015).

We regard libidinosus as a member of the genus Cebus, subgenus Sapajus, and advocate for the use of the name Sapajus at the subgenus-level (contra Lynch-Alfaro et al. 2012a, 2012b, 2014). The division between the gracile (untufted) and robust (tufted) groups of capuchin monkeys has been known for over a century (see Elliot 1913, Hershkovitz 1949, 1955), and the names Cebus and Sapajus have been applied to them at the subgenus-level, respectively (e.g., Silva-Junior 2001, Ferreira et al. 2009, Casado et al. 2010). Lynch-Alfaro et al. (2012a) recommended elevating Sapajus to the genus-level based on their estimated age for the split between the gracile and robust lineages of Cebus (95% highest posterior density = 4.21–7.86 Ma). This estimate resulted from the analysis of sequence data from two mitochondrial genes. Subsequently, Lynch-Alfaro et al. (2012b) summarized known morphological and behavioral differences between gracile and robust lineages, restated the gene-tree argument of Lynch-Alfaro et al. (2012a), and advocated for elevating Sapajus at the genus level; ‘expert opinions’ have been invoked to promote this view (Lynch-Alfaro et al. 2014). Although several NGOs, ecologists, and ethologists started to adopt this proposal, dissent exists (e.g., Rosenberger 2012, Feijó and Langguth 2013, this study). Clearly, the differences and phylogenetic split between the two lineages of capuchin monkeys should be recognized with Linnean nomenclature; however, the most suitable action to do so, at least provisionally, is to use Sapajus and Cebus as subgenera of Cebus. At least three reasons support this view, as follows (see also Voss et al. 2014, Garbino 2015a):

(1) Elevating Sapajus to the genus level is unnecessary, as it does not accomplish anything than using the name at the subgenus level could not.

(2) At least for now, using the age since the split between Sapajus and Cebus as an argument to elevate Sapajus at the genus level is flawed for two reasons. First, because the age of that split, as estimated by Lynch-Alfaro et al. (2012a), was inferred based on data from a single locus, it should be considered a preliminary one (i.e., a working hypothesis). Secondly, the artifactual current taxonomy of platyrrhine monkeys (see Rosenberger and Matthews 2008, Rosenberger 2012, Garbino 2015a and references therein) prevents sensible comparisons of age of splits among pairs of platyrrhine sister genera. This is a consequence of the wide, dogmatic acceptance of genera that have been proposed on the basis of criteria that are typically used to recognize species (at best) in most other groups of mammals. A recent example of this phenomenon is provided by the recent proposal to validate the name Leontocebus as a genus, to contain the nigricollis group of Saguinus, using as an argument the fact that it is sympatric with other tamarin lineage (Rylands et al. 2016) – note that this same unacceptable criterion (i.e., sympatry) and divergence-time have been used by Byrne et al. (2016) to propose the recognition of Cheracebus as a “genus” and without even considering the more sensible option of regarding Cheracebus as a subgenus of Callicebus; we herein propose to use Cheracebus

at the subgenus level only. Clearly, the currently inflated taxonomy of New World primates should be fixed, and several proposed genera should be lumped into fewer ones. This process has already begun (e.g., Garbino 2015a, this study), but it is far from completion.

(3) Continuing to recognize the long established, monophyletic genus Cebus, and subgenera Sapajus and Cebus within it, allows for more efficient communication among scientists. First, the use of the genus-(subgenus)-species format (i.e. using the subgenus name, when pertinent) readily confers phylogenetic information. In this case, the genus name Cebus informs about the sister-taxon relationship between the subgenera Sapajus and Cebus – supported by a number of synapomorphies (see Lynch-Alfaro et al. 2012b) – whereas the subgenera names, Sapajus and Cebus, recognize the differences between the two lineages that underwent different evolutionary histories. Furthermore, association of the genus name Cebus with the species epithets of both linages of capuchin monkeys have existed for decades, and unnecessarily disrupting this association (by elevating Sapajus to the genus level) might pose difficulties in scientific communication, for example for literature searches or for merging data from public repositories (e.g., GenBank, Global Biodiversity Information Facility).

We take the opportunity to emphasize the importance of using the subgenus rank to preserve nomenclatural stability, similar to what have been recently done for other groups of mammals (Giarla et al. 2010, Voss et al. 2014, Díaz-Nieto et al. 2016, Teta et al. 2016). This aspect is especially important for New World primates, whose generic and alpha-level taxonomy should be rectified in the upcoming decades.

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Cebus (Sapajus) libidinosus (see Rylands and Kierulff 2015). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Callicebus barbarabrownae is endemic to the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia and Sergipe (Hershkovitz 1990b, Marinho-Filho and Veríssimo 1997, Printes et al. 2011 and 2013, Marques et al. 2013, Corsini and Moura 2014).

We regard barbarabrownae as a member of the genus Callicebus, subgenus Callicebus. The arguments presented by Byrne et al. (2016) to propose splitting Callicebus (as traditionally understood) into different genera are flawed for the same reasons we have already discussed under the account of Cebus libidinosus (see above).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Critically Endangered” to Callicebus barbarabrownae (see Veiga et al. 2008). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Critically Endangered” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Lycalopex vetulus is endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Ceará, Goiás, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Piauí, São Paulo, and in the Distrito Federal (Costa and Courtenay 2003, Courtenay et al. 2006, Dalponte 2009, Bocchiglieri et al. 2010, Ribeiro et al. 2010, Olifiers and Delciellos 2013; see also Supplementary Material of Bubadué et al. 2016). The species has also been observed in the Brazilian state of Tocantins (Carmignotto and Aires 2011).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Lycalopex vetulus (see Dalponte and Courtenay 2008). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Vulnerable” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Galea spixii is endemic to the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Alagoas, Bahia, Ceará, Minas Gerais, Pará, Pernambuco, São Paulo (Bezerra 2008, Norgueira et al. 2015, Dunnum 2015 and references therein).

Some authors have regarded Galea spixii and G. flavidens as different species (Ellerman 1941, Bonvicino et al. 2005, Weksler and Bonvicino 2008a, Dunnum 2015); however the latter species has never been incorporated into a phylogenetic study based on molecular data (e.g., Dunnum and Salazar-Bravo 2010), and a modern morphological study that included all extant species in the genus did not find differences to distinguish G. flavidens from G. spixii (Bezerra 2008; but see Bonvicino et al. 2008). We follow Bezerra (2008) in treating Galea flavidens as a junior synonym of Galea spixii. The same author also found that populations currently referred to as Galea spixii actually might be composed by multiple valid species (Bezerra 2008).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Galea spixii (see Catzeflis et al. 2016a). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Kerodon acrobata is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded only in the Brazilian states of Goiás and Tocantins (Moojen et al. 1997, Bezerra et al. 2010, Zappes et al. 2014).

The red list of the IUCN ver 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Kerodon acrobata (see Roach 2016). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Vulnerable” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Kerodon rupestris is endemic to the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Alagoas, Bahia, Ceará, Minas Gerais, Paraiba, and Pernambuco (Moojen et al. 1997, Lessa et al. 2005, Dunnum 2015 and references therein). Indications of the species presence in the Cerrado (e.g., Marinho-Filho et al. 2002, Carmignotto et al. 2012) do not seem to be supported by voucher specimens.

The red list of the IUCN ver 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Kerodon rupestris (see Catzeflis et al. 2016b). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Vulnerable” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Gyldenstolpia planaltensis is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, and in the Distrito Federal (Bezerra et al. 2011, Pardiñas and Bezerra 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 has not yet attempted to evaluate the extinction risk of Gyldenstolpia planaltensis. The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Endangered” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Juscelinomys candango is endemic to the Cerrado, and is only known from its type locality in the Brazilian Distrito Federal (Moojen 1965, Emmons 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Extinct” to Juscelinomys candango (see Leite and Patterson 2008). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Critically Endangered (Likely Extinct)” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Juscelinomys huanchacae is endemic to the Cerrado, and is only known from the Bolivian department of Santa Cruz (Emmons 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Juscelinomys huanchacae (see Dunnum et al. 2008). Since the known records are restricted to Bolivian cerrado, the species was not considered to be included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Oxymycterus delator is endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Ceará, Goiás, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Paraná, Piauí, São Paulo, and Tocantins, and in the Distrito Federal; and in the Paraguayan departments of Canindeyú and Paraguarí (Emmons 1999, Hoffmann et al. 2002, Andrade et al. 2004, Bonvicino et al. 2005, 2008, 2012, 2014, Bruna et al. 2010, Ribeiro et al. 2010, Carmignotto and Aires 2011, Owen 2013, Gurgel-Filho et al. 2015, Oliveira and Gonçalves 2015, Stumpp et al. 2016). It has been indicated that the species occurs also in the Chaco biome (Carmignotto et al. 2012), but we are not aware of reported specimens that support this notion. D’Elía et al. (2008) noted that in Paraguay the species is restricted to the Oriental Region (east of the Paraguay River), where areas with Chaco’s physiognomy are absent and, instead, isolated patches of Cerrado can be found (Owen 2013).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Oxymycterus delator (see Patterson et al. 2008). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Thalpomys cerradensis is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Goiás, Mato Grosso, Tocantins, and in the Distrito Federal (Hershkovitz 1990a, Andrade et al. 2004, Gonçalves et al. 2006, Ribeiro et al. 2010, Carmignotto and Aires 2011, Bonvicino et al. 2012, Pardiñas and Teta 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Thalpomys cerradensis (see Marinho-Filho et al. 2016a). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Vulnerable” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Thalpomys lasiotis is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Minas Gerais, Rondônia, and São Paulo, and in the Distrito Federal (Hershkovitz 1990a, Ribeiro et al. 2010, 2011, Rocha et al. 2011a, Pardiñas and Teta 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Thalpomys lasiotis (see Marinho-Filho et al. 2016b). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Endangered” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Cerradomys marinhus is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia and Minas Gerais (Carmignotto and Aires 2011, Percequillo 2015, Tavares et al. 2016).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Cerradomys marinhus (see Bonvicino and Percequillo 2008). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Euryoryzomys lamia is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Minas Gerais and Goiás (Prado and Percequillo 2013).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Endangered” to Euryoryzomys lamia (see Percequillo and Weksler 2008). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Endangered” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Microakodontomys transitorius is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian Distrito Federal (Hershkovitz 1993, Bonvicino et al. 2014, Paresque and Hanson 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Endangered” to Microakodontomys transitorius (see Marinho-Filho and Vieira 2010). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Endangered” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Oecomys cleberi is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian Distrito Federal (Locks 1981, Rocha et al. 2012, Carleton and Musser 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Oecomys cleberi (see Costa et al. 2008). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Oligoryzomys moojeni is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Goiás and Tocantins (Miranda et al. 2009, Weksler and Bonvicino 2005, Carmignotto and Aires 2011, Di-Nizo et al. 2015, Gomes et al. 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Oligoryzomys moojeni (see Weksler and Bonvicino 2008b). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Oligoryzomys rupestris is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Goiás, and Minas Gerais (Weksler and Bonvicino 2005, Pereira and Geise 2009, Di-Nizo et al. 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Oligoryzomys rupestris (see Weksler and Bonvicino 2008c). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Endangered” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Oligoryzomys stramineus is endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Ceará, Goiás, Minas Gerais, Paraíba, Pernambuco and Piauí (Bonvicino and Weksler 1998, Weksler and Bonvicino 2005, 2015, Geise et al. 2010, Fernandes et al. 2012).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Oligoryzomys stramineus (see Weksler and Bonvicino 2008d). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Calassomys apicalis is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded only in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais (Pardiñas et al. 2014).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 has not yet attempted to evaluate the extinction risk of Calassomys apicalis. The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Calomys expulsus is endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga (contra Gurgel-Filho et al. 2015). All but one known records attributable to this species are located within these biomes; the exceptional record comes from a site likely harboring transitional conditions, in terms of physiognomy and climate, between those of the Caatinga and Atlantic Forest, in the Brazilian state of Pernambuco (see Gurgel-Filho et al. 2015, who referred to this species as C. mattevii, which we consider a junior synonym of C. expulsus; see “Taxonomy”, below). Specimens attributed to C. expulsus have been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Goiás, Minas Gerais, Pernambuco, Piauí, Sergipe, and in the Distrito Federal (Bonvicino and Almeida 2000, Bonvicino et al. 2003, Almeida et al. 2007, Haag et al. 2007, Bonvicino et al. 2012, Bezerra et al. 2014, Gurgel-Filho et al. 2015 and references therein, Nogueira et al. 2015). According to Gurgel-Filho et al. (2015), unpublished results of a phylogenetic study recovered samples of “C. mattevii” (=C. expulsus) in a clade in which samples from the states of Ceará and Tocantins – for which we presume no karyotype were available – were also included.

We provisionally consider the recently described Calomys mattevii as a junior synonym of Calomys expulsus. Gurgel-Filho et al. (2015) asserted that two specimens karyotyped by Geise et al. (1996), collected in Lagoa Santa (the type locality of Calomys expulsus), Minas Gerais, with 2n=36/FN=66, correspond to C. expulsus; however, Gurgel-Filho et al. (2015) did not examine these specimens. These authors alleged that the karyotype 2n=66/FN=68, widely attributed by authors to C. expulsus (e.g., Bonvicino and Almeida 2000, Mattevi et al. 2005, Haag et al. 2007, Bezerra et al. 2014, Salazar-Bravo 2015), would have to correspond to a different species (other than C. expulsus), which they described as C. mattevii. Although it is plausible that the specimens reported by Geise et al. (1996) were indeed C. expulsus, this cannot be assumed as certain because multiple species of Calomys might occur in Lagoa Santa (not only C. expulsus). In fact, Lagoa Santa is also the type locality of C. tener (see Winge 1887, Salazar-Bravo 2015), and the identity of the specimens from Lagoa Santa that were the basis of Geise et al.’s (1996) report has also been attributed to C. cerqueirai (Bonvicino et al. 2010; see also Colombi and Fagundes 2015, Salazar-Bravo 2015 and citations therein). Examination of the specimens from which Geise et al. (1996) obtained the reported karyotypes, and comparisons of their morphologies with respect to type material of C. expulsus, would be necessary to evaluate whether Gurgel-Filho et al.’s (2015) conjecture is correct. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the specimens karyotyped by Geise et al. (1996) were ever deposited in a zoological collection, and whether their morphology matches that of C. expulsus – see similar concern expressed by Bonvicino and Almeida (2000, p. 347). Moreover, the karyotype reported by Geise et al. (1996) was not ever part of a formal peer-reviewed publication; it was rather reported as an abstract from a presentation at a scientific meeting – the 42th National Congress of Genetics of the Sociedade Brasileira de Genética – that have permeated into the literature. In addition, to support their conjecture and decision to describe C. mattevii, Gurgel-Filho et al. (2015) disregarded the use of morphological data as relevant to assess the taxonomic status of C. mattevii. However, we argue that it is possible to use morphometrics to discriminate among some species of Calomys; albeit not an easy task, and might not always lead to evidence that allow unambiguous discrimination among the studied species, several authors have accomplished it in the past (e.g., Bonvicino and Almeida 2000, Bonvicino et al. 2003, Cordeiro-Estrela et al. 2006).

In summary, given the aforementioned uncertainties in the description of Calomys mattevii, we provisionally consider it a junior synonym of C. expulsus. Collecting, karyotyping, and sequencing Calomys from the type locality of C. expulsus (see above), and using this material in comparative analyses that should include typical, or at least topotypical, material of other members of the large-size group of the genus (i.e., C. callidus, C. callosus, C. cerqueirai, and C. tocantinsi) is a necessary step to evaluate the taxonomic status of C. mattevii. On the meantime, we consider that karyotype 2n=66/FN=68 corresponds to C. expulsus, following Bonvicino and Almeida (2000), who asserted that the morphology of their karyotyped specimens is congruent with morphological characters and measurements of the holotype of C. expulsus as reported by Winge (1887) and Hershkovitz (1962), respectively.

The red list of the IUCN ver 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Calomys expulsus (see Bonvicino and Geise 2008a). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Calomys tocantinsi is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Mato Grosso and Tocantins (Bonvicino et al. 2003, 2010, Cordeiro-Estrela et al. 2006, Rocha et al. 2011a).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Calomys tocantinsi (see Bonvicino and Marinho-Filho 2008a). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Rhipidomys cariri is endemic to the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Ceará, and Pernambuco (Tribe 2005, 2015, Geise et al. 2010, Fernandes-Ferreira et al. 2015, Gurgel-Filho et al. 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Rhipidomys cariri (see Patton et al. 2008a). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Vulnerable” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Wiedomys cerradensis is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Ceará, Goiás, and Tocantins (Gonçalves et al. 2005, Bezerra et al. 2013, Bonvicino 2015, Gurgel-Filho et al. 2015). Gurgel-Filho et al. (2015) indicated that the species also occurs in the Brazilian states of Piauí, Maranhão, Paraíba, and Pernambuco, but did not provide evidence supporting this assertion.

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Wiedomys cerradensis (see Bonvicino and Marinho-Filho 2008b). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Wiedomys pyrrhorhinos is endemic to the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Alagoas, Bahia, Minas Gerais, Paraíba, and Pernambuco (Maia and Langguth 1987, Pereira and Geise 2009, Souza et al. 2011a, Bonvicino 2015, Nogueira et al. 2015). Bonvicino (2015) indicated that the species is also present in the state of Sergipe, but this assertion is based on an abstract presented at the XXIV Jornadas Argentinas de Mastozoología. Citation of this abstract is as follows:

Souza ALG, Pessôa LM, Menezes AN, Bezerra AMR, Bonvicino CR (2011) O rio São Francisco como provável barreira geográfica para as duas espécies do gênero Wiedomys (Rodentia). Revista del Museo de La Plata, Zoología 18(172): 163R. [abstract presented in the XXIV Jornadas Argentinas de Mastozoología, La Plata, Argentina, November 8–11, 2011].

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Wiedomys pyrrhorhinos (see Marinho-Filho and Langguth 2016). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Carterodon sulcidens is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Goiás, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, and in the Distrito Federal (Ribeiro et al. 2010, Bezerra et al. 2011, Bezerra and Bonvicino 2015a and references therein).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Data Deficient” to Carterodon sulcidens (see Lacher 2016). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Phyllomys brasiliensis is endemic to the Cerrado, and has been recorded in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais (Emmons et al. 2002, Leite 2003, Leite and Loss 2015).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Endangered” to Phyllomys brasiliensis (see Loss and Leite 2016). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Endangered” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Thrichomys apereoides is endemic to the Cerrado (contra Oliveira and Langguth 2004, Paglia et al. 2012), and has been recorded in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais (Nogueira et al. 2015, Pessôa et al. 2015, Stumpp et al. 2016; but see “Taxonomy”, below).

Based on karyological data, Bonvicino et al. (2002) changed the traditional notion that the genus Thrichomys was monotypic (T. apereoides). Subsequently, two other studies gave support to the polytypic nature of Thrichomys, one based on karyological data and morphometric analyses (Pessôa et al. 2004), and the other on karyological data and phylogenetic (maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood) and phenetic (neighbor joining) analyses of cytochrome-b sequences (Braggio and Bonvicino 2004). A synthetic view of progress made since then has been recently published (by Pessôa et al. 2015a), and restricted species names to populations from type localities and nearby areas. In absence of a comprehensive systematic review for the genus Thrichomys, we provisionally adhere to that synthesis, according to which T. apereoides is restricted to a few localities in the state of Minas Gerais. Nevertheless, records potentially attributable to this species exist for localities corresponding to the Cerrado biome in the Brazilian states of Goiás and Tocantins (Bezerra et al. 2013, Gomes et al. 2015). Clearly, a systematic review including karyotyped and sequenced samples from throughout the distribution of all currently recognized species and their type localities is needed to establish species boundaries and distributions.

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Thrichomys apereoides (see Roach and Naylor 2016b). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Thrichomys inermis is endemic to the Caatinga (contra Carmignotto et al. 2012, Paglia et al. 2012), and has been recorded in the Brazilian state of Bahia (Pereira and Geise 2009, Pessôa et al. 2015a). Alleged records of the species for the Brazilian state of Tocantins, from what seems to correspond to the Cerrado biome, reported in abstracts of meeting presentations have permeated through the literature – e.g., cited by Oliveira and Bonvicino (2006), Bonvicino et al. (2008), Pessôa et al. (2015a) – but, to the best of our knowledge, tangible evidence of the species being present in states and biomes other than Bahia and the Caatinga, respectively, is still lacking. The aforementioned abstracts are as follows:

Carvalho AH, Fagundes V (2005) Área de ocorrência de três táxons do gênero Thrichomys (Echimyidae, Rodentia) baseados em identificação cariotípica. In: Fagundes V, Costa LP, Leite YLR, Mendes SL (Eds), Livros de resumos, III Congresso Brasileiro de Mastozoologia. Espírito Santo, Aracruz, p. 102.

Carvalho AH, Lopes MOG, Svartman M (2008) Cariótipo de Thrichomys inermis (Rodentia, Echimyidae) do Tocantins. XXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia, Curitiba.

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Thrichomys inermis (see Bonvicino and Geise 2008b). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Trinomys albispinus is endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga (contra Carmignotto et al. 2012, Paglia et al. 2012), and has been recorded in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Minas Gerais, and Sergipe (Souza et al. 2006, Pessôa et al. 2015b).

The recently published synopsis of the genus Trinomys by Pessôa et al. (2015b) followed the views of Reis and Pessôa (1995) and Souza et al. (2006) in treating Trinomys minor as a subspecies of T. albispinus (i.e., T. a. minor). Reis and Pessôa (1995) did not discuss the biogeographic context they presumably considered to designate minor as a subspecies of T. albispinus (then allocated in the genus Proechimys) instead of a valid species. Souza et al. (2006) considered minor as a subspecies of T. albispinus due to the fact that karyotypes that they and Leal-Mesquita et al. (1992) attributed to albispinus and minor, respectively, shared the same diploid and autosomal fundamental numbers (2n=60, FN_a=116), morphology of the sex chromosomes, and size of the first and second pairs of autosomes. Pessôa et al. (2015b) textually described a topology presumably resulting from phylogenetic analyses based on cytochrome-b sequences by Souza (2011 [an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation]) in which samples attributed to minor were nested within a haplogroup formed by samples attributed to T. albispinus sertonius (= T. a. albispinus [sensu Pessôa et al. 2015b and references therein]). We currently lack access to both the sequence data and the analyses that formed the basis of Pessôa et al.’s (2015b) views. Regardless, we argue that T. minor and T. albispinus represent different, valid species, for the following reasons: (1) the two species occur in a geographic context in which no clear barrier to dispersal separate them (see map in Pessôa et al. 2015b: 1004), and records of both species exists at only 30 km away from each other (see Souza et al. 2006); (2) the two species present well marked morphological differences (Reis and Pessôa 1995, Pessôa and Strauss 1999, Souza et al. 2006), and specimens with intermedium morphological characteristics have not been reported. These aspects strongly suggest that minor and albispinus do not constitute different subspecies of a single species, but rather that they are valid biological species, able to maintain their morphological differences in close geographic proximity and in absence of barriers to dispersal (i.e., virtually in sympatry) – even if they share the same karyotype and shallow genetic divergences. According to Pessôa et al. (2015b), Iack-Ximenes (2005 [an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation]) also recommends treating T. minor as a species rather than as a subspecies of T. albispinus. A number of potential causes could explain the yet-to-be-confirmed topology described in the species account by Pessôa et al. (2015b), including incomplete lineage sorting and other more technical aspects of the analyses and/or data (e.g., saturation of sequences, biases in nucleotide composition). Addressing these possibilities is pending from future publication of the sequence data used in those analyses and from future efforts to obtain nuclear sequence data from populations of T. minor and T. albispinus.

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Least Concern” to Trinomys albispinus (see Bonvicino et al. 2016). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Trinomys minor is endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga (not Carmignotto et al. 2012, Paglia et al. 2012), and has been recorded in the Brazilian state of Bahia (Pessôa et al. 2015b).

See the Taxonomy section of Trinomys albispinus (above).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 has not yet attempted to evaluate the extinction risk of Trinomys minor, and although the IUCN acknowledged that the Iack-Ximenes’s (2005) unpublished Ph.D. dissertation concluded that minor merited species-level recognition, it treated minor as a subspecies of T. albispinus (see Bonvicino et al. 2016). The species was not included in the official list of threatened species of Brazil (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).

Trinomys yonenagae is endemic to the Caatinga, and has been recorded in the Brazilian state of Bahia (Rocha 1995, Pessôa et al. 2015b, Tavares et al. 2016).

The red list of the IUCN ver. 3.1 assigned the category “Endangered” to Trinomys yonenagae (see Roach and Naylor 2016a). The species appears in the official list of threatened species of Brazil with the category “Endangered” (ICMBIO-MMA 2016).