References

• Abd Wahab M.F., Pathmanathan D., Motokawa M., Khan F.A.A. & Omar H. 2020. Taxonomic assessment of the Malayan water shrew Chimarrogale hantu Harrison, 1958 and reclassification to the genus Crossogale // Mammalian Biology. Vol.100. P.399–409.
• Abdala F., Flores D.A. & Giannini N.P. 2001. Postweaning ontogeny of the skull of Didelphis albiventris // Journal of Mammalogy. Vol.82. P.190–200.
• Abe H. 2009. A peculiar cusp on the fourth upper premolar of the Japanese water shrew Chimarrogale platycephala // Mammal Study. Vol.34. No.1. P.37–40.
• Abramov A.V., Bannikova A.A., Lebedev V.S. & Rozhnov V.V. 2017. Revision of Chimarrogale (Lipotyphla: Soricidae) from Vietnam with comments on taxonomy and biogeography of Asiatic water shrews // Zootaxa. Vol.4232. No.2. P.216–230.
• Ando A., Shiraishi S., Higashibara N. & Uchida T.A. 1989. Relative growth of the skull in the laboratory-reared Smith’s red-backed vole, Eothenomys smithii and so-called “Kage” red-backed vole, E. kageus // Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University. Vol.33. P.297–304.
• Arai S., Mori T., Yoshida H. & Shiraishi S. 1985. A note on the Japanese water shrew, Chimarrogale himalayica platycephala, from Kyushu // Journal of the Mammalogical Society of Japan. Vol.10. P.193–203.
• Biswas J.K. & Motokawa M. 2019. Morphological analysis of static skull variation in the large Japanese field mouse, Apodemus speciosus (Rodentia: Muridae) // Mammal Study. Vol.44. No.1. P.51–63.
• Biswas J.K., Oshida T. & Motokawa M. 2020. Sexual dimorphism and variability of craniomandibular morphology in the Japanese giant flying squirrel, Petaurista leucogenys (Rodentia: Sciuridae) // Zoologischer Anzeiger. Vol.285. P.1–11.
• Burgin C.J. & He K. 2018. Family Soricidae // Wilson D.E. & Mittermeier R.A. (eds.). Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol.8. Insectivores, Sloths and Colugos. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. P.332–551.
• Cardini A. & Polly P.D. 2013. Larger mammals have longer faces because of size-related constraints on skull form // Nature Communications. Vol.4. P.e2458.
• Churchfield S. & Rychlik L. 2006. Diets and coexistence in Neomys and Sorex shrews in Białowieza Forest, eastern Poland // Journal of Zoology. Vol.269. No.3. P.381–390.
• Dayan T., Wool D. & Simberloff D. 2002. Variation and covariation of skulls and teeth: modern carnivores and the interpretation of fossil mammals // Paleobiology. Vol.28. No.4. P.508–526.
• Giannini N.P., Abdala F. & Flores D.A. 2004. Comparative postnatal ontogeny of the skull in Dromiciops gliroides (Marsupialia: Microbiotheriidae) // American Museum Novitates. Vol.3460. P.1–17.
• Gould S.J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny // Biological Reviews. Vol.41. P.587–640.
• Hammer Ø., Harper D.A.T. & Ryan P.D. 2001. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis // Palaeontologia Electronica. Vol.4. No.1. P.1–9.
• Harrison J.L. 1958. Chimarrogale hantu a new water shrew from the Malay Peninsula, with a note on the genera Chimarrogale and Crossogale (Insectivora, Soricidae) // Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Ser.13. No.1. P.282–290.
• Hutterer R. 2005. Order Soricomorpha // Wilson D.E. & Reeder D.M. (eds.). Mammals Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Third edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. P.220–311.
• Huxley J.S. & Teissier G. 1936. Terminology of relative growth // Nature. Vol.137. P.780–781.
• Jenkins P.D., Lunde D. & Moncrieff C. 2009. Descriptions of new species of Crocidura (Soricomorpha: Soricidae) from mainland Southeast Asia, with synopses of previously described species and remarks on biogeography // Bulletin of American Museum of Natural History. Vol.331. P.1–50.
• Jones G.S. & Mumford R.E. 1971. Chimarrogale from Taiwan // Journal of Mammalogy. Vol.52. No.1. P.228–232.
• Kilmer J.T. & Rodríguez R.L. 2017. Ordinary least squares regression is indicated for studies of allometry // Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Vol.30. P.4–12.
• Lande R. 1977. On comparing coefficients of variation // Systematic Zoology. Vol.26. P.214–217.
• Lin L.K. & Shiraishi S. 1992. Skull growth and variation in the Formosan wood mouse, Apodemus semotus // Journal of Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University. Vol.37. P.51–69.
• Meiri S., Dayan T. & Simberloff D. 2005. Variability and correlations in carnivore crania and dentition // Functional Ecology. Vol.19. P.337–343.
• Miller E.H., Mahoney S.P., Kennedy M.L. & Kennedy P.K. 2009. Variation, sexual dimorphism, and allometry in molar size of the black bear // Journal of Mammalogy. Vol.90. P.491–503.
• Motokawa M., Lin L.K. & Motokawa J. 2003. Morphological comparison of Ryukyu mouse Mus caroli (Rodentia: Muridae) populations from Okinawajima and Taiwan // Zoological Studies. Vol.42. No.2. P.258–267.
• Motokawa M., Harada M., Apin L., Yasuma S., Yuan S.L. & Lin L.K. 2006. Taxonomic study of the water shrews Chimarrogale himalayica and C. platycephala // Acta Theriologica. Vol.51. No.2. P.215–223.
• Pankakoski E., Väisänen R.A. & Nurmi K. 1987. Variability of muskrat skulls: measurement error, environmental modification and size allometry // Systematic Zoology. Vol.36. P.35–51.
• Polly P.D. 2008. Variability in mammalian dentitions: size related bias in the coefficient of variation // Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Vol.64. No.1. P.83–99.
• Prevosti F.J. & Lamas L. 2006. Variation of cranial and dental measurements and dental correlations in the pampean fox (Dusicyon gymnocercus) // Journal of Zoology. Vol.270. P.636–649.
• Reiss M.J. 1989. The Allometry of Growth and Reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 182 p.
• Rychlik L. 1997. Differences in foraging behavior between water shrews: Neomys anomalus and Neomys fodiens // Acta Theriologica. Vol.42. P.351–386.
• Rychlik L. & Jancewicz E. 2002. Prey size, prey nutrition, and food handling by shrews of different body sizes // Behavioral Ecology. Vol.13. P.216–223.
• Rychlik L., Ramalhinho F. & Polly P.D. 2006. Response to environmental factors and competition: Skull, mandible and tooth shapes in Polish water shrews (Neomys, Soricidae, Mammalia) // Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research. Vol.44. No.4. P.339–351.
• Sánchez-Villagra M.R., Segura V., Geiger M., Heck L., Veitschegger K. & Flores D. 2017. On the lack of a universal pattern associated with mammalian domestication: differences in skull growth trajectories across phylogeny // Royal Society Open Science. Vol.4. P.e170876.
• Sather J.H. 1956. Skull dimensions of the Great Plains muskrat, Ondatra zibethicus cinnamominus // Journal of Mammalogy. Vol.37. P.501–505.
• Suzuki S., Abe M. & Motokawa M. 2011. Allometric comparison of skulls from two closely related weasels, Mustela itatsi and M. sibirica // Zoological Science. Vol.28. P.676–688.
• Suzuki S., Abe M. & Motokawa M. 2012. Integrative study on static skull variation in the Japanese weasel (Carnivora: Mustelidae) // Journal of Zoology. Vol.288. P.57–65.
• Szuma E. 2000. Variation and correlation patterns in the dentition of the red fox from Poland // Annales Zoologici Fennici. Vol.37. P.113–127.
• Yuan S.L., Jiang X.L., Li Z.J., He K. & Harada M. 2013. A mitochondrial phylogeny and biogeographical scenario for Asiatic water shrews of the genus Chimarrogale: implications for taxonomy and low-latitude migration routes // PLoS ONE. Vol.8. No.10. P.e77156.

Download PDF