Heterochrony in Rodents

  • John C. Hafner
  • Mark S. Hafner
Part of the Topics in Geobiology book series (TGBI, volume 7)


The mammalian order Rodentia is by far the largest order of mammals (approximately 1700 species), and rodents show ranges in body size, body plan, and ecological diversity that far exceed those seen in any other group of mammals, including bats and cetaceans. Living rodents inhabit all continents except Antarctica, and they are found in nearly every terrestrial habitat throughout their geographic range. Rodents usually play integral roles in the terrestrial ecosystems they inhabit, and they are often the most abundant and diverse of all vertebrates in a terrestrial community.


Hunt Lution Dition Eocene Tempo 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alberch, P., 1980, Ontogenesis and morphological diversification, Am. Zool. 20: 653–667.Google Scholar
  2. Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., and Wake, D. B., 1979, Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny, Paleobiology 5: 296–317.Google Scholar
  3. Atchley, W. R., 1987, Developmental quantitative genetics and the evolution of ontogenies, Evolution 41: 316–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartholomew, G. A., Jr., and Caswell, H. H., Jr., 1951, Locomotion in kangaroo rats and its adaptive significance, J. Mammal. 32: 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brookfield, J. F. Y., 1982, Adaptation and functional explanation in biology, Evol. Theor. 5: 281–290.Google Scholar
  6. Butterworth, B. B., 1960, A comparative study of sexual behavior and reproduction in the kangaroo rats Dipodomys deserti Stephens and D. merriama Mearns, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  7. Butterworth, B. B., 1961, A comparative study of growth and development of the kangaroo rats, Dipodomys deserti Stephens and Dipodomys merriami Mearns, Growth 25: 127–139.Google Scholar
  8. Chew, R. M., and Butterworth, B. B., 1959, Growth and development of Merriam’s kangaroo rat, Dipodomys merriami, Growth 23: 75–95.Google Scholar
  9. Creighton, G. K., and Strauss, R. E., 1986, Comparative patterns of growth and development in cricetine rodents and the evolution of ontogeny, Evolution 40: 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darlington, P. J., 1957, Zoogeography: The Geographical Distribution of Animals, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  11. De Beer, G. R., 1930, Embryology and Evolution, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. De Beer, G. R., 1958, Embryos and Ancestors, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. DuBrul, E. L., and Laskin, D. M., 1961, Preadaptive potentialities of the mammalian skull: An experiment in growth and form, Am. J. Anat. 109: 117–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egoscue, H. J., Bittmenn, J. G., and Petrovich, J. A., 1970, Some fecundity and longevity records for captive small mammals, J. Mammal. 51: 622–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenberg, J. F., 1975, The behavior patterns of desert rodents, in: Rodents in Desert Environments (I. Prakash and P. K. Ghosh, eds.), pp. 189–224, Junk, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eisenberg, J. F., 1981, The Mammalian Radiations, An Analysis of Trends in Evolution, Adaptation, and Behavior, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Eisenberg, J. F., and Isaac, D. E., 1963, The reproduction of heteromyid rodents in captivity, J. Mammal. 44: 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fink, W. L., 1982, The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny, Paleobiology 8: 254–264.Google Scholar
  19. Fleming, T. H., 1977, Growth and development of two species of tropical heteromyid rodents, Am. Midl. Nat. 98: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldschmidt, R., 1940, The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  21. Gould, S. J., 1977, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  22. Gould, S. J., 1980, The Panda’s Thumb, Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R. C., 1979, The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205:581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gould, S. J., and Vrba, E. S., 1982, Exaptation—A missing term in the science of form, Paleobiology 8: 4–15.Google Scholar
  25. Hafner, J. C., 1978, Evolutionary relationships of kangaroo mice, genus Microdipodops, J. Mammal. 59: 354–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hafner, J. C., 1988, Macroevolutionary diversification in heteromyid rodents: Heterochrony and adaptation in phylogeny, in: Biology of the Family Heteromyidae (H. H. Genoways and J. H. Brown, eds.), American Society of Mammalogists (in press).Google Scholar
  27. Hafner, J. C., and Hafner, M. S., 1983, Evolutionary relationships of heteromyid rodents, Great Basin Nat. Mem. 7: 3–29.Google Scholar
  28. Hafner, M. S., and Hafner, J. C., 1984, Brain size, adaptation and heterochrony in geomyoid rodents, Evolution 38: 1088–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hall, E. R., 1941, Revision of the rodent genus Microdipodops, Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. Ser. 27: 233–277.Google Scholar
  30. Hall, E. R., 1946, Mammals of Nevada, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  31. Hall, E. R., and Linsdale, J. M., 1929, Notes on the life history of the kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops), J. Mammal. 10: 298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hatt, R. T., 1932, The vertebral columns of richochetal rodents, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 63: 599–738.Google Scholar
  33. Hayden, P., and Gambino, J. J., 1966, Growth and development of the little pocket mouse, Perognathus longimembris, Growth 30: 187–197.Google Scholar
  34. Hill, J. E., 1937, Morphology of the pocket gopher mammalian genus Thomomys, Univ. Calif. Puhl. Zool. 42: 81–172.Google Scholar
  35. Howell, A. B., 1932, The saltatorial rodent Dipodomys: The functional and comparative anatomy of its muscular and osseous systems, Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 67: 377–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keast, A., 1972, Comparisons of contemporary mammal faunas of southern continents, in: Evolution, Mammals, and Southern Continents (A. Keast, F. C. Erk, and B. Gloss, eds.), State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  37. Kirmiz, J. P., 1962, Adaptation of Desert Environment, Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
  38. Kotier, B. P., 1985, Owl predation on desert rodents which differ in morphology and behavior, J. Mammal. 66: 824–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lackey, J. A., 1967, Growth and development of Dipodomys stephensi, J. Mammal. 48: 624–632.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lay, D. M., 1988, Anatomy of the heteromyid ear, in: Biology of the Family Heteromyidae (H. H. Genoways and J. H. Brown, eds.), American Society of Mammalogists (in press).Google Scholar
  41. Long, C. A., 1976, Evolution of mammalian cheek pouches and a possibly discontinuous origin of a higher taxon (Geomyoidea), Am. Nat. 110: 1093–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Løvtrup, S., 1981a, Introduction to evolutionary epigenetics, in: Evolution Today (G. G. E. Scudder and J. L. Reveal, eds.), pp. 139–144, Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  43. Løvtrup, S., 1981b, The epigenetic utilization of the genomic message, in: Evolution Today (G. G. E. Scudder and J. L. Reveal, eds.), pp. 145–161, Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  44. Mares, M. A., 1983, Desert rodent adaptation and community structure, Great Basin Nat. Mem. 7: 30–43.Google Scholar
  45. Maynard Smith, J., Burian, R., Kauffman, S., Alberch, P., Campbell, J., Goodwin, B., Lande, R., Raup, D., and Wolpert, L., 1985, Developmental constraints and evolution, Q. Rev. Biol. 60: 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayr, E., 1983, How to carry out the adaptationist program?, Am. Nat. 12: 324–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McKinney, M. L., 1984, Allometry and heterochrony in an Eocene echinoid lineage: Morphological change as a by-product of size selection, Paleobiology 10: 407–419.Google Scholar
  48. McNamara, K. J., 1986, A guide to a nomenclature of heterochrony, J. Paleontol. 60: 4–13.Google Scholar
  49. Merriam, C. H., 1891, Description of a new genus and species dwarf kangaroo rat from Nevada (Microdipodops magacephalus), N. Am. Fauna 5: 115–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nowak, R. M., and Paradiso, J. L., 1983, Walker’s Mammals of the World, 4th ed., Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  51. O’Farrell, M. J., and Blaustein, A. R., 1974, Microdipodops magacephalus, Mamm. Species 46: 1–3.Google Scholar
  52. Rachootin, S. P., and Thomson, K. S., 1981, Epigenetics, paleontology, and evolution, in: Evolution Today (G. G. E. Scudder and J. L. Reveal, eds.), pp. 181–193, Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  53. Romer, A. S., 1966, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  54. Rutledge, J. J., Eisen, E. J., and Legates, J. E., 1975, Correlated response in skeletal traits and replicate variation in selected lines of mice, Theor. Appl. Genet. 46:26–31.Google Scholar
  55. Ryan, J. M., 1986, Comparative morphology and evolution of cheek pouches in rodents, J. Morphol. 190: 27–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simpson, G. G., 1944, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  57. Simpson, G. G., 1953, The Major Features of Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  58. Van De Graaff, K. M., 1973, Comparative development osteology in three species of desert rodents, Peromyscus eremicus, Perognathus intermedius, and Dipodomys merriami, J. Mammal. 54: 729–741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Waddington, C. H., 1957, The Strategy of the Genes, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  60. Waddington, C. H., 1962, New Patterns in Genetics and Development, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  61. Webster, D. B., and Webster, M., 1975, Auditory systems of Heteromyidae: Functional morphology and evolution of the middle ear, J. Morphol. 146: 343–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wood, A. E., 1935, Evolution and relationship of the heteromyid rodents with new forms from the territory of western Northern America, Ann. Carnegie Mus. 24: 73–262.Google Scholar
  63. Wootton, J. T., 1987, The effects of body mass, phylogeny, habitat, and trophic level on mammalian age at first reproduction, Evolution 41: 732–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zakrzewski, R. J., 1981, Kangaroo rats from the Borchers Local Fauna, Blancan, Meade County, Kansas, Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 84: 78–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Hafner
    • 1
  • Mark S. Hafner
    • 2
  1. 1.Moore Laboratory of Zoology and Department of BiologyOccidental CollegeLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Museum of Natural Science and Department of Zoology and PhysiologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations