identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03E48798FFC1FFD1D983FF66661BDE94.text	03E48798FFC1FFD1D983FF66661BDE94.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eulipotyphla Waddell, Okada, and Hasegawa 1999	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Eulipotyphla</p>
            <p> 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 &amp; Novacek 1993; Shoshani &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Helgen (2010) were somewhat disparate in their contents. We therefore maintain  Eulipotyphla Waddell, Okada, and Hasegawa, 1999 for this group. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E48798FFC1FFD1D983FF66661BDE94	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mora, José Manuel;Ruedas, Luis A.	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.text	03E48798FFC1FFD0D983FB4A6560DE27.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Artiodactyla Owen	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Artiodactyla and  Cetacea</p>
            <p> 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Hussain 1993; Thewissen 1994; Thewissen &amp; 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. </p>
            <p> 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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). </p>
            <p> 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). </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E48798FFC1FFD0D983FB4A6560DE27	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mora, José Manuel;Ruedas, Luis A.	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.text	03E48798FFC0FFD0D983FB13662BDCAF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chlamyphoridae Bonaparte 1850	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Chlamyphoridae</p>
            <p> 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 &amp; Pascual (1968). </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E48798FFC0FFD0D983FB13662BDCAF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mora, José Manuel;Ruedas, Luis A.	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.text	03E48798FFC0FFD3D983F9536603D8C7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Choloepodidae Gray 1871	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Choloepodidae</p>
            <p> 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 &amp; Pascual (1968, 1972), Webb (1985), and Patterson et al. (1992), that  Choloepus and  Bradypus were not each other’s sister taxa. In particular, Patterson &amp; 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). </p>
            <p> Subsequent molecular studies of xenarthrans, including the orders  Cingulata and  Pilosa by Delsuc et al. (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2012) and M̂ller-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.</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E48798FFC0FFD3D983F9536603D8C7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mora, José Manuel;Ruedas, Luis A.	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
