taxonID	type	description	language	source
03E48798FFC1FFD1D983FF66661BDE94.taxon	discussion	Insectivora was a name used extensively for a very diverse group of mammals (e. g., Simpson, 1945), and largely derived from Cuvier (1816 [refer to Roux, 1976 for considering 1816 the publication date, rather than 1817]); elephant shrews at the time were considered members of Sorex, and as such included within Cuvier’s “ Musaraignes ” [= Soricidae]; e. g., “ Sorex ” proboscideus Shaw 1800). Wagner (1855) expanded Insectivora to include a broad representation of “ primitive ” insectivorous mammals, a concept followed by Peters (1863), who divided Insectivora into families with a large cecum (Dermoptera [“ Galeopitheci ”], Scandentia [“ Tupayae ”], and Macroscelidea [“ Macroscelides ”], a group of taxa subsequently included in the suborder Menotyphla by Haeckel [1866]), in contrast to Insectivora with a simple gastrointestinal tract and lacking a cecum (Tenrecidae [“ Centetina ”, including Solenodon]; Erinaceidae [“ Erinacei ”]; Talpidae [“ Talpina ”, including Chrysochloridae, the type species of which was described by Linnaeus as Talpa asiatica]; and Soricidae [“ Sorices ”]). These latter were grouped by Haeckel (1866) at the subordinal level as Lipotyphla. Names for extant taxa used at the suprafamilial level by Simpson (1945; Tenrecoidea; Chrysochloroidea; Erinaceoidea; Macroscelidoidea; Soricoidea) generally were included in morphologically based assessments or phylogenies as “ Lipotyphla ” (e. g., Novacek 1992; MacPhee & Novacek 1993; Shoshani & McKenna 1998), but represent groups now considered unnatural as a singular coherent order (Springer et al. 1997, 2003; Stanhope et al. 1998). Some molecular assessments divided Lipotyphla into the unrelated orders Soricomorpha and Erinaceomorpha (e. g., Arnason et al. 2002). However, the diphyly of Soricomorpha and Erinaceomorpha was demonstrated to be a result of a mitochondrial artefact that disappeared when mitochondrial and nuclear data were combined (e. g., Stanhope et al. 1998; Springer et al. 2003; Arnason et al. 2008; dos Reis et al. 2012), with Soricidae and Erinaceidae resolving as sister taxa (e. g., Brace et al. 2016). As a result, contemporary phylogenies (e. g., Bininda-Emonds et al. 2007; Upham et al. 2019) and textbooks (Vaughan et al. 2015; Feldhamer et al. 2020) alike use Eulipotyphla including the extant families Erinaceidae, Solenodontidae, Soricidae, and Talpidae. Asher & Helgen (2010) nevertheless advocated for the name Lipotyphla as having priority for this group. However, as we indicated above, the Lipotyphla of Haeckel (1866) and that of Asher & Helgen (2010) were somewhat disparate in their contents. We therefore maintain Eulipotyphla Waddell, Okada, and Hasegawa, 1999 for this group.	en	Mora, José Manuel, Ruedas, Luis A. (2023): Updated list of the mammals of Costa Rica, with notes on recent taxonomic changes. Zootaxa 5357 (4): 451-501, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5357.4.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5357.4.1
03E48798FFC1FFD0D983FB4A6560DE27.taxon	discussion	Cetacea no longer applies to an ordinal level taxon: all members of Cetacea currently are included within the order Artiodactyla. Montgelard et al. (1997) proposed the name “ Cetartiodactyla ” to reflect the growing body of data showing Cetacea nested within Artiodactyla. However, use of the name Cetartiodactyla has been controversial because Cetacea and Artiodactyla are not sister-taxa: molecular data distinctly show cetaceans embedded within Artiodactyla (Prothero et al. 2021). Exceptionally rapid and disparate evolution of the cetacean skull has obscured an accurate assessment of their phylogenetic relationships with other groups of mammals (Goswami et al. 2022). As a result, the initial — and apparently incongruous — assignment of Cetacea to Artiodactyla generally is ascribed to molecular data from amino acid and nucleotide sequence data (Goodman et al. 1985; Irwin et al. 1990; Graur & Higgins 1994), pinpointing Hippopotamidae as the sister taxon of Cetacea (Gatesy et al. 1996). Paleontological evidence subsequently corroborated this relationship (Gingerich et al. 1990, 2001; Thewissen & Hussain 1993; Thewissen 1994; Thewissen & Madar; 1999; Thewissen et al. 2001). Molecular data have provided increasing support and definition for these relationships (Upham et al. 2019; McGowen et al. 2020). However, the name and taxonomic rank of the group remains controversial. A variety of propositions have been put forward to address this controversy. We noted Cetartiodactyla above, a name that has been recommended for disuse by Asher & Helgen (2010) and Prothero et al. (2022) for the ordinal group. An intraordinal alternative was proposed by Waddell et al. (1999): Whippomorpha (“ wh ales ” plus “ hippo s ”), as the clade within Artiodactyla that includes Hippopotamidae and Cetacea. The same grouping subsequently was given the name Cetancodonta by Arnason et al. (2000, 2002, 2008). As pointed out by Asher & Helgen (2010) based on the principle of priority espoused by Simpson (1945; also see Art. 23 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature), and regardless of the awkward construction of the name, Whippomorpha has temporal priority over Cetancodonta. However, as a “ clade ”, it is a descriptive appellation for a monophyletic subordinate group, and does not resolve the taxonomic level at which subordinate or superordinate groups may lie; in other words: the taxonomic level of “ clade ” is nebulous in this instance, besides defining a common ancestry, or circumscribing “ delimitable monophyletic units ” (Huxley 1957); in the present instance: Hippopotamidae and Cetacea. There are any number of such units in any region of the tree of life one may wish to examine, and a proliferation of names for such clades would serve little useful purpose; Prothero et al. (2022: 96) correctly pointed out that “ If one wishes to convey the fact that whales are artiodactyls, one can say informally “ whales and other artiodactyls ” or “ whales and terrestrial artiodactyls ””. More recently, Whippomorpha has been adopted as a subordinal level group (Lewison 2011).	en	Mora, José Manuel, Ruedas, Luis A. (2023): Updated list of the mammals of Costa Rica, with notes on recent taxonomic changes. Zootaxa 5357 (4): 451-501, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5357.4.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5357.4.1
03E48798FFC1FFD0D983FB4A6560DE27.taxon	description	Linnaeus described whales, dolphins, and their ilk, as the order Cete (Linnaeus 1758: 75; also used by Gray 1843; Bonaparte 1851; nec Cete sensu Thewissen 1994), but the currently accepted name (for the same group defined by Linnaeus) is Cetacea Brisson 1762: 3 [first summary mention], 215 [unnumbered title page], 217 [diagnosis]. This name became accepted and since has come into widespread use (e. g., Gray 1821 [as a “ Class ”: “ Cetaceae ”, containing the order Herbivoraae (including Manatidae and Dugongidae, and Order Carnivorae, with families Monodontidae, Physeteridae, and Balanadae]; Lesson 1827 [as “ Cétacées ”]; Gray 1846 [as Cetacea, but with the same familial arrangement as in Gray 1821]; Brandt 1873; Lydekker 1887; Trouessart 1898; etc.): all used Cetacea as an ordinal level taxon. The Committee on Taxonomy of The Society for Marine Mammalogy maintains a list of marine mammals and subspecies (https: // marinemammalscience. org / science-and-publications / list-marinemammal-species-subspecies /; accessed 20 December 2022) listing Cetacea as an infraorder within Artiodactyla, with Mysticeti and Odontoceti (no rank) and their currently accepted familial level taxa contained therein. Cetacea also has been used at the family level: Doherty (1864: 138) used “ Cetacidae ” [sic] for “ whales, etc. ”. Doherty (1864) even went so far as to link Cetacidae, in the “ Pachydermal Order ” with “ Pachydermidae ” (hippopotamus), albeit containing as well Tapiridae and Proboscidae (tapirs and elephants). While Doherty’s philosophical taxonomic framework was somewhat heterodox, it was not unique and may have had its origins in similar philosophical propositions of Swainson (1835).	en	Mora, José Manuel, Ruedas, Luis A. (2023): Updated list of the mammals of Costa Rica, with notes on recent taxonomic changes. Zootaxa 5357 (4): 451-501, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5357.4.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5357.4.1
03E48798FFC0FFD0D983FB13662BDCAF.taxon	discussion	In an extensive analysis that included all xenarthran species, Gibb et al. (2016) proposed dividing armadillos (order Cingulata) into two different families, Dasypodidae, including only Dasypus species, and Chlamyphoridae, including all other armadillos: Euphractinae, Chlamyphorinae, and Tolypeutinae. Gibb et al. (2016) suggested that this arrangement better reflects the hypothesized ancient divergence between the two putative families, estimated at ca. 44.9 + 3.5 Ma. The nomenclature of Gibb et al. (2016) rests on the priority of “ Chlamyphorinae Bonaparte, 1850 ”. We note that the name coined by Bonaparte was “ Chlamydophorina ” [we were unable to secure a copy of Bonaparte 1850; this assertion rests on Bonaparte 1851 and fide Simpson 1945], based on an unjustified emendation of Chlamyphorus. Because of the latter, Chlamyphorus and Chlamyphodorus are objective synonyms. As a result, and as noted by Gibb et al. (2016), the authority for Chlamyphoridae thus would be Bonaparte, 1850, rather than Yepes 1928: 11, pursuant to the latter’s use of the name Chlamyphorinae (temporally coincident with the use of the same name by Weber, 1928). “ Chlamyphorini ” was included within Dasypodidae: Euphractinae by Patterson & Pascual (1968).	en	Mora, José Manuel, Ruedas, Luis A. (2023): Updated list of the mammals of Costa Rica, with notes on recent taxonomic changes. Zootaxa 5357 (4): 451-501, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5357.4.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5357.4.1
03E48798FFC0FFD3D983F9536603D8C7.taxon	discussion	The two – toed sloths are based on “ Bradypus ” [= Choloepus] didactylus Linnaeus 1758: 35, a taxon the range of which he erroneously ascribed to “ Zeylona ”, i. e., the modern island of Sri Lanka. Simpson (1945) grouped the genera Bradypus and Choloepus Illiger, 1811 together in the family Bradypodidae, within Pilosa (at the infraordinal level), as did Hoffstetter (1958) and Romer (1966). Bradypus tridactylus Linnaeus 1758: 34 remained in Bradypodidae when familial rearrangements began to affect the taxonomy of “ Bradypus ” didactylus following the suggestion by Guth (1961), Patterson & Pascual (1968, 1972), Webb (1985), and Patterson et al. (1992), that Choloepus and Bradypus were not each other’s sister taxa. In particular, Patterson & Pascual (1968) suggested that Choloepus was more closely related to Megalonychidae, whereas Bradypus was more closely related to Megatheriidae. Gaudin (1995) provided a robust morphological test of the hypothesis of a monophyletic Bradypodidae using 85 discrete osteological characters of the auditory region in 21 extant and extinct sloth genera, and confirmed that Bradypus and Choloepus were distantly related (e. g., Gaudin 1995: 678; see also Fig. 1 in Raj Pant et al. 2014). Subsequent molecular studies of xenarthrans, including the orders Cingulata and Pilosa by Delsuc et al. (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2012) and M ̂ ller-Krull et al. (2007), refined our contemporary understanding of the relationships among modern genera in the group. More recent mitogenomic data have provided not only resolution but a timeline of evolution for xenarthrans (Gibb et al. 2016), but also confirmation of the distant relationship between Bradypus and Choloepus, and taxonomic localization of Bradypus in Bradypodidae and Choloepus in Megalonychidae. However, that latter study was based on extant taxa only. Incorporation of mitogenomes from extinct taxa of xenarthrans (Delsuc et al. 2019) showed that Choloepus were the sister taxon to † Mylodontidae in a suprafamilial clade (Mylodontoidea) sister to another suprafamilial clade (Megatheroidea) that successively included † Megatheriidae, and Bradypodidae as sister to a clade including † Megalonychidae and † Nothrotheriidae (see Fig. 2 of Delsuc et al. 2019). As a result, here, we follow Delsuc et al. (2019) in adopting Choloepodidae for Choloepus species.	en	Mora, José Manuel, Ruedas, Luis A. (2023): Updated list of the mammals of Costa Rica, with notes on recent taxonomic changes. Zootaxa 5357 (4): 451-501, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5357.4.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5357.4.1
