SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.14 número1Roosting habits of disk-winged bats, especially Thyroptera disciferaEcological niche differentiation among Aztec fruit-eating bat subspecies (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) in Mesoamerica índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • No hay artículos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Therya

versión On-line ISSN 2007-3364

Therya vol.14 no.1 La Paz ene. 2023  Epub 31-Jul-2023

https://doi.org/10.12933/therya-23-2218 

Special contributions

Skeletal indicators of locomotor adaptations in shrews

Neal Woodman 1   2   * 

1 U.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Ecological Science Center, Laurel, MD 20708, USA. E-mail: woodmann@si.edu.

2 Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC-108, Washington, DC 20013, USA.


Abstract

The Soricidae (Mammalia: Eulypotyphla) comprises more than 450 species inhabiting a variety of habitats on five continents. As a family, shrews employ a variety of locomotor modes that incorporate ambulatory, fossorial, aquatic, and scansorial behaviors, illustrating an ability to exploit a variety of natural substrates and their associated resources. In this study, the association of skeletal morphology and three of the dominant locomotor modes in the family-ambulatory, semi-fossorial, and semi-aquatic behaviors-was investigated in up to 52 species of 12 genera representing all three subfamilies of Soricidae. From skeletal measures, 34 morphological indices were calculated, most of which have been used previously to characterize substrate use among shrews, rodents, and other mammals, and analyzed for their individual effectiveness for discriminating the three locomotory modes. To assess their effectiveness in combination, subsets of locomotor indices were analyzed using 1) mean percentile ranks, 2) the first principal component from principal components analysis, and 3) plots and classifications from discriminant function analyses. In general, the three methods effectively identified and grouped the three locomotor modes and identified smaller subsets. Additional analyses were then used to classify the locomotor behaviors of five species whose locomotor modes were unknown or ambiguous. The analyses reinforce and broaden the scope of a previously identified observation of the wide range of grades of morphological variation that may permit an equally diverse range of locomotor abilities among the Soricidae.

Keywords:  Ambulatory; anatomy; aquatic; ecomorphology; fossorial; functional morphology; Soricomorpha; substrate use; terrestrial

Resumen

La familia Soricidae (Mammalia: Eulypotyphla) comprende más de 450 especies que habitan varios hábitats en los cinco continentes. Como familia, las musarañas emplean una variedad de modos de locomoción que incorporan comportamientos ambulatorios, fosoriales, acuáticos y escansoriales (arboricolas), lo que ilustra su capacidad de explotar diferentes variedades de sustratos y sus recursos asociados. En este estudio, se investigó la asociación de la morfología esquelética y tres de los modos locomotores dominantes en la familia (ambulatorios, semifosoriales y semiacuáticos) en 52 especies de 12 géneros que representan las tres subfamilias de Soricidae. A partir de medidas esqueléticas, se calcularon 34 índices morfológicos, la mayoría de los cuales se han utilizado previamente para caracterizar el uso de sustrato entre musarañas, roedores y otros mamíferos. Se analizaron en cuanto a su eficacia individual para discriminar entre los tres modos de locomoción. Para evaluar su eficacia en combinación, se analizaron subconjuntos de índices locomotores usando 1) intervalos de percentiles medios, 2) el primer componente principal del análisis de componentes principales y 3) gráficas y clasificaciones del análisis de función discriminante. En general, los tres métodos identificaron y agruparon de manera efectiva los tres modos locomotores e identificaron subconjuntos más pequeños. Se usaron análisis adicionales para clasificar los comportamientos locomotores de cinco especies cuyos modos locomotores eran desconocidos o ambiguos. Los análisis refuerzan y amplían el alcance de una observación previamente identificada del intervalo en el grado de variación morfológica que pueden permitir una gama igualmente diversa de habilidades locomotoras entre los Soricidae.

Introduction

The locomotor behaviors of small, cryptic species of mammals have been studied directly for only a relatively few species. Instead, external and internal morphological characters are typically interpreted to provide insight into how individual species use available substrates, particularly while foraging (Shimer 1903; Reed 1951; Hildebrand 1985a, 1985b; Hutterer 1985; Price 1993; Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008; Hopkins and Davis 2009; Nations et al. 2019).

The typical external morphology of shrews (Mammalia: Eulypotyphla: Soricidae) can be generalized as a long cylindrical body, short legs, and simple feet with five digits used in a plantigrade-to-digitigrade posture, a body plan that is typical of ambulatory small mammals that make use of the ground surface as their primary locomotor substrate (Hutterer 1985; Churchfield 1990; Woodman and Morgan 2005). In contrast, the relatively short dense fur, small pinnae, and small eyes of soricids are common mammalian adaptations for fossoriality (Shimer 1903; Eisenberg 1981). Although ambulation and semi-fossoriality are the two dominant locomotor modes among soricids, members of the family exhibit a range of other locomotor behaviors that assist in exploiting additional substrates. Based on a large sample of 266 species in 20 genera (the recognized diversity of Soricidae at that time), Hutterer (1985) estimated that almost 77 % of soricid species are primarily ambulatory (terrestrial), nearly 11 % are adapted for semi-fossoriality, about 5 % are scansorial, more than 4 % are semi-aquatic, 2 % are anthrophilic, and one species is psammophilic. In a related study based on a similar sample, Churchfield (1990:100) estimated that 82 % of soricid species have a dominantly epigeal foraging mode, 11 % are hypogeal, 5 % are aquatic, and 3 % are scansorial, illustrating the seemingly close correspondence of primary locomotor mode and resource use.

Previous studies of soricid skeletal adaptations related to locomotor behavior have focused primarily on understanding morphological variation as it relates to ambulation and semi-fossoriality. Ambulatory and semi-fossorial species are distributed among all three subfamilies of the Soricidae (Hutterer 1985; Churchfield 1990), and they exhibit considerable intra-modal variation in morphological characteristics related to substrate use (Woodman and Gaffney 2014; Woodman and Stabile 2015b; Woodman and Wilken 2019). Herein, I explore skeletal variation as it relates to three of the four dominant locomotory modes identified for shrews by testing the discriminatory power of 34 common locomotor indices, mostly calculated from postcranial measurements. Although ambulatory and semi-fossorial locomotor modes occur in all three subfamilies of Soricidae, semi-aquaticmodes are confined to a smaller number of species in four genera representing two taxonomic tribes of the subfamily Soricinae: Chimarrogale, Nectogale, Neomys, and Sorex (This number increases to five genera if Crossogale is recognized as distinct from Chimarrogale: Wahab et al. 2020).

Materials and methods

The primary goal of this paper is to better understand skeletal variation among soricids in relation to a traditional, stereotyped classification of locomotor modes. This study of the association between morphology and locomotor behavior is admittedly incomplete, in part because locomotor modes of many soricids are based on inference rather than direct observation. Moreover, phylogeny is a potential primary driver of morphological variation, behavioral variation, or both, but genetic relationships among clades in the Soricidae remain poorly supported at nodes that appear to be crucial to understanding the evolution of locomotor morphology in the family (e. g., He et al. 2015, 2021) and cannot yet be controlled for.

For the purposes of this paper, the word “ambulatory” refers to terrestrial shrews that use the ground surface as their primary locomotor substrate, and lack morphological characters linked to aquatic, fossorial, or scansorial adaptations or behaviors.

In this study, I used measurements and indices from 41 species and subspecies of soricids previously reported by Woodman and Gaffney (2014), Woodman and Stabile (2015a, 2015b), and Woodman et al. (2019). To these, I added measurements from 180 individuals representing 11 additional species from the mammal collections of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL (FMNH), and the National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC (USNM; Appendix 1). All 52 species were classified a priori into one of five locomotor groupings based on reported behaviors and suites of external characteristics: ambulatory (n = 16); semi-aquatic (n = 7); semi-fossorial (n = 19); fossorial (n = 2); unknown (n = 5). Semi-fossorial and fossorial taxa tend to have large body size, short tails, small pinnae hidden by the fur, enlarged forefeet, and long, broad foreclaws (Hildebrand 1985b; Hutterer 1985). Semi-aquatic shrews tend to have large body size, long tails that may be laterally flattened or have one or more keels of stiff bristles, long hind feet, and digits and feet fringed with bristles; some have webbed hind feet (Howell 1930; Hutterer 1985). Ambulatory species exhibit the entire range of body size and lack fossorial or aquatic characters. A complete list of species and their a priori locomotor classifications is provided in Appendix 2.

Skeletal measurements. To assess relative locomotor adaptations, I followed procedures explained in detail by Woodman and Gaffney (2014; see also Woodman and Stabile 2015b; Woodman and Wilken 2019). Total length and tail length are the standard external measurements recorded from skin tags, and head-and-body length was calculated by subtracting tail length from total length. Forty measurements (Table 1) were obtained from the manus, pes, and long bones of the appendicular skeletons. The scapula, humerus, ulna, radius, femur, and tibiofibula were digitally photographed, and the bones of the manus and pes were digitally x-rayed using a Kevex X-Ray Source 4.1.3 (Kevex, Palo Alto, CA) with Varian Image Viewing and Acquisition 2.0 software (VIVA, Waltham, MA) in the Division of Fishes, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC. The resulting digital images from both sources were imported into Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended 10.0.1 (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA) and variables (Supplementary Table S1) measured using the Custom Measuring Scale in the Analysis menu following Woodman and Gaffney (2014; see also Woodman and Morgan 2005; Woodman and Stephens 2010; Sargis et al. 2013a, 2013b; Woodman and Stabile 2015b; Woodman and Wilken 2019).

Locomotor indices. Skeletal measurements were used to calculate 34 osteological indices previously employed to characterize locomotor mode and identify potential adaptations for substrate use among soricids (Woodman and Gaffney 2014; Woodman and Stabile 2015a, b; Woodman and Wilken 2019; Woodman et al. 2019), rodents (Price 1993; Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008; Elissamburu and De Santis 2011; Nations et al. 2019), and other mammals (Sargis 2002; Hopkins and Davis 2009). To overcome the problem of missing elements, and thereby, missing data, indices (Table 2) were calculated from mean values of variables for each species (Supplementary material Table S1). Abbreviations of measurements used to calculate indices are explained in Table 1.

Table 1 Measurements used for calculating locomotor indices (see Woodman and Morgan 2005; Woodman and Stephens 2010; Woodman and Gaffney 2014; Woodman and Stabile 2015a, 2015b; Woodman and Wilken 2019; Woodman et al. 2019). See Supplementary material Table S1 for mean measurements.  

1. HAR: axis of rotation of the humerus. 21. UPC: width of proximal crest of the ulna.
2. HL: length of the humerus. 22. 3CL: length of claw of manus ray III.
3. HDPC: length of deltopectoral crest of the humerus. 23. 3CW: width of claw of manus ray III.
4. HDW: distal width (epicondylar breadth) of the humerus. 24. 3DPL: length of distal phalanx of manus ray III.
5. HLD: least mediolateral diameter of humerus. 25. 3DPW: width of distal phalanx of manus ray III.
6. HTT: length from head of humerus to distal edge of teres tubercle. 26. 3ML: length of metacarpal of manus ray III.
7. HTTR: breadth of teres tubercle, input lever for rotation of the humerus (measured at a right angle to HAR). 27. 3MPL: length of middle phalanx of manus ray III.
8. RDW: distal width of radius. 28. 3MPW: width of middle phalanx of manus ray III.
9. RL: length of radius. 29. 3PPL: length of proximal phalanx of manus ray III.
10. FDW: distal width (epicondylar breadth) of the femur. 30. 3PPW: width of proximal phalanx of manus ray III.
11. FL: length of the femur. 31. 3hCL: length of claw of pes ray III.
12. FLD: least mediolateral diameter of the femur. 32. 3hCW: width of claw of pes ray III.
13. SL: greatest length of scapula. 33. 3hDPL: length of distal phalanx of pes ray III.
14. TDA: width of the distal articular surface of the tibiofibula. 34. 3hDPW: width of distal phalanx of pes ray III.
15. TDW: distal width of the tibiofibula. 35. 3hML: length of metatarsal of pes ray III.
16. TL: length of the tibiofibula. 36. 3hMW: width of metacarpal of pes ray III.
17. UFL: functional length (output lever arm) of the ulna. 37. 3hMPL: length of middle phalanx of pes ray III.
18. UL: total length of the ulna. 38. 3hMPW: width of middle phalanx of pes ray III.
19. ULD: least mediolateral diameter of the ulna. 39. 3hPPL: length of proximal phalanx of pes ray III.
20. UOP: length of olecranon process (input lever arm) of the ulna. 40. 3hPPW: width of proximal phalanx of pes ray III.

1. Intermembral index (IM = [HL+RL]/[FL+TL]) compares the lengths of the forelimbs and hind limbs (Sargis 2002).

2. Humerofemoral index (HFI = HL/FL) represents the length of the humerus as a proportion of the length of the femur (Sargis 2002).

3. Metapodial index (FOOT = ML/hML) indicates the relative sizes of the forefeet and hind feet by comparing the length of metacarpal III to that of metatarsal III.

4. Distal phalanx length index (CLAW = DPL/hDPL) compares the relative size of distal phalanx III of the manus to distal phalanx III of the pes.

5. Claw length index (CLI = CL/hCL) gauges the relative size of claw III of the manus to claw III of the pes.

6. Scapulohumeral index (SHI = SL/HL) indicates relative lengths of the scapula and humerus.

7. Brachial index (BI = RL/HL) shows the relative proportions of the proximal (humerus) and distal (radius) elements of the forelimb.

8. Shoulder moment index (SMI = HDPC/HL) is equivalent to the delto-pectoral crest length index (Sargis 2002). It measures the length of the deltopectoral crest of the humerus relative to the length of the humerus, thereby gauging the size and mechanical advantage of the deltoid and pectoral muscle groups, which are important in the movement, rotation, and counter-rotation of the humerus (Reed 1951).

9. Humeral robustness index (HRI = HLD/HL) indicates the robustness of the humerus and its ability to resist bending and shearing stresses.

10. Humeral rotation lever index (HTI = HTTR/HAR) shows the relative length of the teres tubercle measured at right angles to the longitudinal axis of rotation of the humerus. The teres tubercle is an elongate process unique to the humerus of talpids, soricids, tachyglossids, and a few early mammals (Reed 1951; Hildebrand 1985b). It serves as the insertion for the latissimus dorsi and teres major muscles and as a lever for rotating the humerus (Reed 1951).

11. Teres tubercle position index (TTP = HTT/HAR) represents the relative position of the teres tubercle along the axis of rotation of the humerus (HAR). In more robust, more fossorially adapted humeri with larger muscle attachment surfaces, the teres tubercle is often more distally positioned (Woodman and Gaffney 2014; Woodman and Stabile 2015).

12. Humeral epicondylar index (HEB = HDW/HL) measures the width of the distal humerus relative to the length of the humerus and represents the area available for the origins of muscles involved in flexing, pronating, and supinating the forearm.

13. Radial distal width index (RDW = RDW/RL) measures the relative width of the proximal end of the radius, providing a gauge of its robustness and its resistance to stress.

14. Olecranon length index (OLI = UOP/UFL) is one of several variations on the index of fossorial ability of Hildebrand (1985a). The ulna acts as a lever that pivots at the trochlear notch, and OLI gauges the force exerted by the triceps brachii muscle on the olecranon process that is transmitted to the functional arm of the ulna. Semi-fossorial and fossorial mammals generally have a longer olecranon process to accommodate a larger triceps brachii, resulting in larger OLI (Reed 1951; Vizcaino and Milne 2002; Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008; Woodman and Gaffney 2014).

15. Triceps metacarpal outforce index (TMO = UOP/[UFL+ML]), a variant of Hildebrand’s (1985a) index of fossorial ability (OLI), gives the length of the olecranon process as a proportion of the functional arm provided by the ulna and metacarpal III together. This index measures the amount of force input on the olecranon process that is transmitted to the tip of the metacarpal of ray III (Price 1993).

16. Triceps claw outforce index (TCO = UOP/[UFL+ML+PPL+MPL+CL]) expresses the length of the olecranon process relative to the combined functional lengths of the ulna and the four bones comprising ray III of the manus. An extension of Hildebrand’s (1985b) index of fossorial ability (OLI) and Price’s (1993) triceps metacarpal outforce index (TMO), TCO represents the proportion of force input on the olecranon process by the triceps muscle that is transmitted to the tip of the claw of ray III, which is the initial point of contact with the soil.

17. Olecranon crest index (OCI = UPC/UFL) is a measure of the relative length of the olecranon crest on the olecranon process. It serves as the insertion for much of the triceps brachii. OCI is an approximate gauge of muscle size, and, therefore, another measure of the relative input force on the ulna (Woodman and Gaffney 2014).

18. Ulnar robustness index (URI = ULD/UFL) measures the robustness of the ulna and its ability to resist bending and shearing stresses.

19. Manual distal phalanx index [%DPL = DPL/(ML+PPL+MPL)] is the length of distal phalanx III of the manus relative to the combined length of the proximal three bones of ray III.

20. Manual claw index [%CL = CL/(ML+PPL+MPL)] is the length of claw III of the manus relative to the combined length of the proximal three bones of ray III.

21. Manual claw support index (%CLS = DPL/CL) represents the proportion of claw III of the manus that is supported by the underlying distal phalanx III.

22. Metacarpal width index (MW3 = MW/ML) measures the robustness of metacarpal III of the manus in relation to its length.

23. Phalangeal index (PI = (PPL+MPL)/ML) shows the lengths of the proximal and middle phalanges relative to the metacarpal. This index reflects the degree to which the hand is prehensile and used for grasping (higher index value) versus walking on the ground (lower index value), and it has been used mainly for distinguishing arboreal and scansorial species from ambulatory species. PI varies considerably among rays of an individual, so ray III is typically used for comparisons among species (Lemelin 1999; Kirk et al. 2008). No arboreal or scansorial shrews were included in the present study.

24. Manus proportions index (MANUS = PPL/ML) measures the size of the proximal phalanx relative to the metacarpal of manual ray III (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008), and it is the same as Kirk et al.’s (2008) proximal phalangeal index. There appears to be a large phylogenetic component to this index across mammalian orders (Kirk et al. 2008), but not within rodent families (Nations et al. 2019), and it is useful for distinguishing arboreally adapted species (larger indices) from ambulatory species (smaller indices).

25. Crural index (CI = TL/FL) measures the relative lengths of proximal (femur) and distal (tibiofibula) long bones of the hind limb.

26. Pes length index (PES = hML/FL) represents the length of metatarsal III relative to femur length and is used to indicate the relative size of the hind foot.

27. Femoral robustness index (FRI = FLD/FL) quantifies the robustness of the femur and its ability to resist bending and shearing stresses.

28. Femoral epicondylar index (FEB = FDW/FL) approximates the area available for the origins of the gastrocnemius and soleus muscles involved in extension of the knee and plantar-flexion of the pes in rodents (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). In shrews and talpids, this region is the origin for the plantaris, which flexes the toes, the gastrocnemius, which extends the pes, and the extensor digitorum longus, which extends and adducts the digits and dorsoflexes the foot. It is also the insertion for the caudofemoralis, which retracts the femur, and the adductor longis, which adducts the femur (Reed 1951).

29. Distal tibiofibular articulation index (DTA = TDA/TDW) measures the width of the articular region for the astragalus between the lateral and medial malleolus relative to the distal width of the tibia (Woodman and Gaffney 2014; Woodman and Stabile 2015).

30. Pedal distal phalanx index [%hDPL = hDPL/(hML+hPPL+hMPL)] is the length of the distal phalanx of ray III of the pes relative to the combined length of the proximal three bones of that ray.

31. Pedal claw index [%hCL = hCL/(hML+hPPL+hMPL)] is the length of the claw of ray III of the pes relative to the combined length of the proximal three bones of that ray.

32. Pedal claw support index (%hCLS = hDPL/hCL) is the proportion of the claw of ray III of the pes supported by the distal phalanx.

33. Tail length index (%TAIL = tail length/head-and-body length) measures the length of the tail relative to head-and-body length. This index was effective for distinguishing between arboreal and terrestrial species of murid rodents (Nations et al. 2019).

34. Relative robustness index (RR = HLD/FLD) measures the least breadth of the humerus relative to the least breadth of the femur.

Table 2 Locomotor indices. See Materials and methods for abbreviations. 

ID Mode IM HFI FOOT CLAW CLI SHI BI SMI HRI HTI TTP HEB RDW OLI TMO TCO OCI URI %DPL %CL %CLS MW3 PI MANUS CI PES FRI FEB DTA %hDPL %hCL %hCLS %TAIL RR No. of indices
Chimarrogale himalayaca SA 56 92 88 94 45 8 9 42 34 15 24 65 10 93 61 11 17 62 82 19
Nectogale elegans SA 68 92 50 89 85 108 109 42 12 13 37 48 15 24 17 26 5 64 8 48 182 88 12 35 51 10 16 61 51 93 30
Neomys fodiens SA 64 86 56 86 85 103 103 44 9 17 42 41 12 21 15 10 23 5 14 27 53 9 89 55 171 71 9 26 46 11 21 53 71 89 34
Sorex albibarbis SA 68 94 51 85 84 93 105 39 9 13 37 35 11 19 14 10 26 5 14 27 54 9 89 56 184 75 10 28 42 10 19 53 89 86 34
Sorex bendirii SA 68 91 53 87 88 99 106 40 10 17 42 38 12 23 17 12 28 6 17 33 51 9 85 53 178 67 10 28 52 12 23 52 82 89 34
Sorex navigator SA 67 92 51 90 90 95 108 38 9 16 39 37 12 21 15 11 25 5 17 31 54 9 91 57 185 77 10 29 49 11 21 54 96 80 34
Sorex palustris SA 68 93 55 88 90 96 102 39 8 13 37 34 12 22 15 11 26 5 15 30 50 9 84 52 177 71 10 29 52 11 21 51 79 55 34
Sorex cinereus Am 67 90 54 79 86 94 105 38 8 13 35 32 10 20 14 10 23 5 14 27 52 8 90 55 177 64 9 25 55 11 20 57 72 82 34
Sorex hoyi Am 67 90 62 89 102 91 102 40 8 15 38 33 11 20 15 10 25 5 15 30 49 8 94 55 169 57 7 26 53 11 20 56 57 94 34
Sorex sonomae Am 68 90 59 99 99 97 108 39 10 14 39 37 11 20 15 10 26 6 17 35 49 10 93 55 175 64 9 27 51 12 24 50 73 96 34
Suncus hututsi Am 69 74 81 10 19 53 10 86 55 11 19 59 53 13
Cryptotis parvus Am 71 86 67 94 105 100 103 42 9 17 40 36 13 18 13 9 24 6 16 35 44 9 91 54 145 46 8 23 41 13 26 49 28 91 34
Cryptotis tropicalis Am 71 87 66 81 105 101 102 45 10 18 42 34 13 17 13 9 24 6 13 30 43 10 98 60 148 48 8 21 43 13 23 55 33 108 34
Cryptotis merriami Am 73 92 68 99 96 94 93 44 9 17 38 35 12 20 15 11 27 7 15 29 52 10 98 62 143 44 10 22 43 12 23 50 41 89 34
Cryptotis merus Am 88 71 93 98 94 46 9 12 37 36 13 30 45 10 92 57 139 45 9 22 41 12 25 48 39 84 26
Cryptotis nigrescens Am 73 92 73 89 96 94 87 43 9 18 39 35 13 20 14 10 29 7 16 31 51 12 94 59 136 43 9 22 46 14 26 55 43 88 34
Blarinella quadricaudata Am 74 92 71 106 108 100 108 43 10 21 46 39 13 22 16 11 24 6 20 39 51 11 103 60 159 50 10 25 48 15 29 52 52 94 34
Crocidura olivieri Am 85 90 50 9 8 37 27 10 21 58 85 11
Crocidura religiosa Am 91 89 52 7 6 36 28 9 21 64 72 11
Crocidura suaveolens Am 70 87 93 99 47 8 11 35 31 10 18 22 6 146 8 21 32 65 84 19
Myosorex cafer Am 88 71 100 114 92 46 10 15 36 32 19 36 51 11 91 55 48 8 21 15 26 58 45 101 24
Myosorex geata Am 91 72 93 116 94 47 9 16 39 35 21 42 50 13 90 54 46 10 23 19 31 62 55 84 24
Myosorex kihaulei Am 90 70 97 117 94 46 9 16 40 35 23 46 49 12 88 53 47 10 23 19 32 59 47 87 24
Blarina brevicauda talpoides SF 72 88 74 114 130 106 92 45 12 23 45 43 17 32 23 16 35 8 23 43 53 14 89 54 136 41 10 26 52 17 28 60 28 105 34
B. brevicauda jerryrchoatei SF 73 88 73 108 125 110 92 45 13 24 46 44 17 29 21 14 36 7 23 41 55 14 88 56 133 45 10 25 56 17 27 63 27 110 34
Blarina carolinensis SF 71 86 65 112 126 109 95 48 12 21 45 45 14 28 21 15 30 7 24 45 53 13 98 61 137 41 9 25 34 16 27 59 26 109 34
Blarina hylophaga SF 24 45 53 14 93 58 17 29 58 27 10
Blarina peninsulae SF 70 117 136 107 94 49 12 19 45 44 15 29 21 14 32 8 23 44 51 13 92 57 44 15 26 60 27 27
Blarina shermani SF 67 106 121 21 44 48 13 99 59 16 28 55 27 13
B. brevicauda jknoxjonesi SF 23 46 50 13 89 55 15 25 61 26 10
Cryptotis mexicanus SF 110 44 11 25 49 46 26 48 55 15 89 57 39 13
Cryptotis phillipsii SF 42 11 23 42 42 46 6
Cryptotis eckerlini SF 85 61 140 144 113 104 50 12 29 49 55 16 42 29 17 48 11 34 63 55 19 105 61 45 10 28 19 33 56 38 107 31
Cryptotis matsoni SF 80 60 120 139 121 49 13 33 53 55 34 59 56 94 51 46 10 27 20 31 65 31 105 23
Cryptotis cavatorculus SF 69 134 153 97 50 12 32 48 52 15 28 21 14 34 7 37 60 61 19 93 60 22 31 69 24
Cryptotis celaque SF 88 68 123 142 112 107 45 13 31 49 51 14 26 20 13 33 8 33 58 57 17 84 55 44 9 28 20 31 66 36 119 31
Cryptotis mam SF 72 88 64 133 134 113 106 46 13 32 51 52 16 25 19 12 33 7 35 62 56 17 97 60 153 45 9 26 44 20 36 56 38 129 34
Cryptotis magnimanus SF 43 13 30 50 54 31 6
Cryptotis mccarthyi SF 64 117 124 43 13 30 46 51 35 62 57 19 91 59 22 37 60 30 18
Congosorex phillipsorum SF 90 76 113 107 104 50 11 20 39 42 23 39 59 13 87 55 46 10 24 18 32 56 58 103 24
Myosorex blarina SF 72 89 77 107 128 100 96 50 9 19 41 39 15 24 18 12 31 8 28 57 49 15 84 50 142 40 10 24 46 23 39 59 41 81 34
Myosorex varius SF 70 86 69 109 126 99 103 48 10 18 43 35 13 19 14 10 30 5 27 52 52 14 88 52 149 44 9 22 45 20 34 60 40 99 34
Myosorex zinki SF 82 75 120 152 108 47 13 18 42 47 29 61 48 16 86 51 42 11 25 21 34 60 39 99 24
Cryptotis lacertosus SF 75 92 67 125 131 123 102 44 15 33 51 58 17 28 21 14 40 9 36 63 58 20 97 58 147 41 10 28 48 23 38 60 34 140 34
Cryptotis oreoryctes SF 67 84 62 127 138 116 104 44 13 34 51 54 15 29 22 14 37 7 36 64 57 17 92 58 155 44 9 27 49 21 34 62 38 120 34
Surdisorex norae F 70 81 71 143 166 120 103 62 17 35 51 60 17 31 23 14 40 9 46 78 60 20 84 50 135 42 11 25 44 27 38 69 38 125 34
Surdisorex polulus F 84 79 162 174 113 62 17 39 55 58 45 76 59 20 83 49 42 10 24 25 39 64 40 135 24
Cryptotis gracilis UN 91 63 93 105 106 46 11 21 46 44 21 41 50 12 91 58 175 53 10 27 43 16 28 57 55 95 26
Cryptotis endersi UN 90 117 145 96 42 9 20 41 42 45 48 9 27 12 21 56 52 87 18
Cryptotis meridensis UN 69 90 86 111 97 103 44 10 18 45 40 14 21 15 11 26 6 19 37 50 11 78 47 165 9 25 44 65 38 102 30
Cryptotis monteverdensis UN 43 10 18 46 43 58 6
Cryptotis thomasi UN 90 70 99 113 101 44 11 24 44 19 40 49 12 83 52 45 10 24 15 28 55 29 100 23
Number of species 27 42 43 45 45 45 31 50 50 50 50 49 31 31 30 29 31 31 46 46 48 46 46 47 29 38 42 42 30 46 46 47 53 42

Analyses of locomotor indices. The effectiveness of the 34 indices for distinguishing locomotor mode was initially evaluated by calculating standard univariate statistics (mean, SD, range) in Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington) for each locomotor group and plotting as box-and-whisker plots (Supplementary material Figure 1). To provide overviews of interspecific variation and to determine relative grades of locomotor modes among taxa, analyses of percentile ranks and multivariate analyses were employed to combine multiple indices. Percentile ranks were calculated for each taxon for each of 23 locomotor indices (IM, HFI, FOOT, CLAW, CLI, SMI, HRI, HTI, TTP, HEB, TCO, OCI, URI, %DPL, %CL, MW3, CI, PES, FEB, %hDPL, %hCL, RR, %TAIL) using the percentile rank calculator at Statisticshelper.com (https://statisticshelper.com/percentile-rank-calculator/). A mean percentile rank was then calculated for each taxon from all indices for which it could be scored. Mean percentile ranks provide a convenient means of comparing all 52 taxa on a possible scale from 0 to 100. This permits broader taxonomic coverage, but the lack of data for some taxa means that morphological comparisons are not even across all taxa.

Figure 1 Plot of the indices PES and %TAIL showing separation between semi-aquatic and ambulatory species. The three species of unknown locomotor mode (C. gracilis, C. endersi, C. thomasi) plot with ambulatory and semi-fossorial taxa. 

The largest complete dataset (i. e., no missing data) that I could compile included 17 indices (CLI, CLAW, %CL, %DPL, SHI, HEB, HTI, %hCL, FOOT, TTP, SMI, %hDPL, MW3, HRI, PI, MANUS, %TAIL) from six semi-aquatic, 12 ambulatory, 13 semi-fossorial, and two fossorial species. To test the ability of this dataset to discriminate locomotor modes, I carried out both principal components analyses (PCAs) and discriminant function analyses (DFAs) in Past4.03 (Hammer et al. 2001).

To investigate the possible locomotory modes of four species (Cryptotis gracilis, C. endersi, C. meridensis, C. thomasi) for which locomotory mode was uncertain, I carried out PCA and DFA on a subset of 10 indices (CLAW, CLI, SHI, SMI, HRI, HTI, TTP, %CLS, FEB, %TAIL) from these species and 33 species of known locomotory mode. All four unknown species lacked sufficient data to be included in the 17-variable model (Table S1).

Results

Effectiveness of individual indices. Most of the indices tested individually show identifiable patterns of variation among locomotor modes in soricids, most typically either ascending or descending in mean values from semi-aquatic to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial. Only a few indices, however, exhibit ranges of variation that are sufficiently constrained to be useful for clearly distinguishing one or more modes.

Individual locomotor indices that appear to be the most reliable for distinguishing semi-aquatic species are PES (n = 37 species), FOOT (n = 46), CLI (n = 44), CI (n = 28), %TAIL (n = 52), and %hCL (n = 45). All but PES have ranges that overlap in value with one or more ambulatory species (Figure 1). The indices CLAW, OCI, MW3, %DPL, %CL, HTI, and CLI are useful for differentiating semi-aquatic and semi-fossorial species.

The ranges of individual locomotor indices of ambulatory species most commonly group with those of semi-aquatic species and often overlap the ranges of some semi-fossorial species. The most reliable indices for distinguishing ambulatory species from semi-aquatic species are PES, FOOT, CLI, FEB (n = 41), and %TAIL. The most efficient indices for distinguishing ambulatory species from semi-fossorial species are CLAW (n = 43), OCI (n = 30), and RDW (n = 30), followed by MW3 (n = 45), %DPL (n = 44), %CL (n = 45), HRI (n = 49), HTI (n = 49), SHI (n = 44), CLI, HEB (n = 48), TTP (n = 49), OLI (n = 30), TMO (n = 29), and TCO (n = 28).

The combination of semi-fossorial and fossorial species can be distinguished most effectively from the other two locomotory modes by OCI and CLAW, followed by MW3, %DPL, CLI, TMO, TCO, HTI, HRI, TTP, RDW, and %CL. The most useful indices for differentiating semi-fossorial from fossorial shrews are %DPL, %CL, %hDPL (n = 45), CLI, SMI (n = 49), HRI, and HTI, followed by CLAW, HEB, PI (n = 45), MANUS (n = 46), and %hCL.

1. Intermembral index (IM), which compares the lengths of the forelimbs and hind limbs, typically increases in rodents from semi-aquatic species to ambulatory, to semi-fossorial, and to fossorial species (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). The index shows a similar pattern with soricids (Supplementary material Figure 1a), indicating a tendency for semi-aquatic species to have relatively longer hind limbs (and/or shorter fore limbs) and for more fossorial forms to have relatively shorter hind limbs. Overlap among most locomotor groups, however, limits the usefulness of this index for determining locomotory mode for any one species.

2. Humerofemoral index (HFI) represents the length of the humerus as a proportion of the length of the femur. Among soricids, this index decreases from semi-aquatic species to ambulatory, to semi-fossorial, and to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1b), indicating that semi-aquatic species have a longer humerus relative to the femur, whereas more fossorial species have a shorter humerus. This pattern seems counterintuitive in light of the pattern displayed by the IM, but the longer hind limb in semi-aquatic shrews is a result of their relatively longer tibiofibula (see #25, crural index). Overlap among most locomotor groups makes this index most useful for distinguishing semi-aquatic species from semi-fossorial and fossorial species.

3. Metapodial index (FOOT) indicates the relative sizes of the forefeet and hind feet by comparing the lengths of metacarpal III and metatarsal III. Soricids exhibit an increase in the index from semi-aquatic species to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1c), indicating that semi-aquatic species have a relatively longer hind foot (metatarsal III) than other species, particularly the most fossorial species. This index is useful for distinguishing semi-aquatic (low values) and the most fossorial species (high values) from most other species.

4. Distal phalanx length index (CLAW) compares the relative lengths of manual distal phalanx III and pedal distal phalanx III. It increases with increasing fossoriality in rodents (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008), indicating a relatively longer foreclaw than hind claw in more fossorial groups. Among soricids, CLAW clearly distinguishes most semi-fossorial and fossorial species from each other and from other locomotor modes (Supplementary material Figure 1d).

5. Claw length index (CLI) gauges the relative lengths of manual claw III and pedal claw III. CLI increases from semi-aquatic species to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial species with only minor overlap among locomotor modes (Supplementary material Figure 1e). It clearly distinguishes semi-fossorial and fossorial species from each other and from other locomotor modes, and it also distinguishes semi-aquatic species from most ambulatory species. In this study, only ambulatory Suncus hututsi (CLI = 81) and Sorex cinereus (86) overlapped with semi-aquatic species, and only semi-fossorial Congosorex phillipsorum (107) overlapped with the ambulatory species.

6. Scapulohumeral index (SHI) shows the relative lengths of the scapula and humerus (Supplementary material Figure 1f). This index is typically greater (relatively shorter humerus) for more semi-fossorial and fossorial soricids and lower for ambulatory and aquatic species (Woodman and Gaffney 2014), but its ability to distinguish individual locomotor modes is limited.

7. Brachial index (BI) shows the relative lengths of the humerus and radius. Mean values of this index decrease (relatively shorter radius) among rodents from semi-aquatic to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). The pattern is less apparent among soricids, and ranges of the four modes overlap too extensively for this to be a useful index (Supplementary material Figure 1g).

8. Shoulder moment index (SMI) measures the length of the deltopectoral crest relative to humerus length. In rodents, the index increases from ambulatory to semi-fossorial to semi-aquatic to fossorial species (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). In contrast, in soricids there is a tendency to increase from semi-aquatic to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1h). Extensive overlap among groups makes the index useful only for distinguishing some semi-aquatic and some of the most fossorial species.

9. Humeral robustness index (HRI) indicates the relative thickness of the humerus, which increases (more robust humerus) from ambulatory to semi-fossorial to semi-aquatic to fossorial species among rodents (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). Among soricids, mean values increase from ambulatory to semi-aquatic to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1i). Indices for ambulatory and semi-aquatic species overlap extensively, but most semi-fossorial and fossorial species are distinct. Two exceptions are semi-fossorial Myosorex blarina (HRI = 9), which has a lower index than expected, and Nectogale elegans (12), which has a higher index than is typical for a semi-aquatic species.

10. Humeral rotation lever index (HTI) shows the relative length of the teres tubercle of the humerus. HTI exhibits little difference between semi-aquatic and ambulatory soricids (Supplementary material Figure 1j), but increases substantially with increased semi-fossoriality and fossoriality (Woodman and Gaffney 2014; Woodman and Stabile 2015). Exceptions are Myosorex varius (HTI = 18) and M. zinki (18), which have lower index values than is typical for semi-fossorial soricids, and Blarinella quadricaudata (21), which has a higher index than expected for an ambulatory species.

11. Teres tubercle position index (TTP) measures the position of the teres tubercle along the humerus. TTP exhibits little difference between semi-aquatic and ambulatory soricids, but increases substantially with increased semi-fossoriality and fossoriality (Supplementary material Figure 1k). Exceptions are include Congosorex phillipsorum (TTP = 39) and Myosorex blarina (41), which have lower index values than expected for semi-fossorial shrews, and ambulatory Blarinella quadricaudata (46), with a higher index than expected.

12. Humeral epicondylar index (HEB) is the width of the distal humerus relative to its length. The index typically increases (greater relative width) in mammals with increasing fossoriality (Hildebrand 1985b), and among rodents HEB increases (broader distal humerus) from ambulatory to semi-fossorial to semi-aquatic to fossorial species (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). Among soricids, mean values increase from ambulatory to semi-aquatic to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1l). There is extensive overlap in index values among ambulatory, semi-aquatic, and semi-fossorial groups, making this index useful for distinguishing only the more fossorial species.

13. Radial distal width index (RDW) measures the relative width of the proximal end of the radius. Ambulatory and semiaquatic soricids tend to have lower RDW (narrower proximal radius), whereas semi-fossorial and fossorial species tend to have larger RDW (Supplementary material Figure 1m). There is extensive overlap, however, between terrestrial and semiaquatic species and between semi-fossorial and fossorial species.

14. Olecranon length index (OLI) represents the relative length of the olecranon process of the ulna. Semi-fossorial and fossorial mammals generally have a longer olecranon process to accommodate a larger triceps brachii, resulting in larger OLI (Reed 1951; Vizcaino and Milne 2002; Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008; Woodman and Gaffney 2014). Among rodents, OLI increases from ambulatory to semi-fossorial to semi-aquatic to fossorial species (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). Among soricids, mean values for this index increase from ambulatory to semi-aquatic to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1n). Overlap among groups, however, limits the usefulness of this index for identifying locomotor modes for individual species.

15. Triceps metacarpal outforce index (TMO), like OLI, measures the relative length of the olecranon process. As for OLI, mean values among soricids increase from ambulatory to semi-aquatic to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1o), but there is greater separation between semi-aquatic and semi-fossorial species. The one outlier causing overlap between these two groups is semi-fossorial Myosorex varius (TMO = 14), which has a lower index than is typical.

16. Triceps claw outforce index (TCO), like OLI and TMO, expresses the relative length of the olecranon process, and it exhibits a pattern similar to those shown by these two indices. Mean values increase from ambulatory to semi-aquatic to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1p). Overlap between semi-aquatic and semi-fossorial species is again a result of a lower-than-expected index for semi-fossorial Myosorex varius (TMO = 10).

17. Olecranon crest index (OCI) measure of the relative length of the olecranon crest on the olecranon process. Among soricids, there is little difference in TCO between ambulatory and semi-aquatic species, but semi-fossorial and fossorial species exhibit a noticeable increase in the length of the olecranon crest and, therefore, in the index (Supplementary material Figure 1q).

18. Ulnar robustness index (URI) measures the robustness of the ulna. Among rodents, URI increases from ambulatory to semi-fossorial to semi-aquatic to fossorial species (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). In soricids, this index exhibits a clear pattern of increasing mean values from semi-aquatic to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1r). Overlap among groups, however, limits the usefulness of this index for identifying locomotor modes for most individual species. The semi-fossorial Myosorex varius (URI = 5), in particular, has a much lower URI than would be predicted.

19. Manual distal phalanx index (%DPL) gauges the length of the manual distal phalanx III. There is little difference in this index between ambulatory and semi-aquatic species, but there are clear distinctions among those two locomotor groups combined, and the semi-fossorial and fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1s). The overlap in ranges between ambulatory and semi-fossorial groups results from a lower-than-expected %DPL (and shorter distal phalanx) of semi-fossorial Blarina shermani (%DPL = 21) and greater-than-expected index of ambulatory Myosorex kihaulei (23).

20. Manual claw index (%CL) is the relative length of manual claw III. Among soricids, %CL shows increases in mean length from semi-aquatic to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1t). Overlap between the ranges for semi-aquatic and ambulatory species precludes its use for distinguishing individual species having those locomotor modes. In contrast, the ranges for semi-fossorial and fossorial species are distinct from each other and mostly from the other two modes. Exceptions are greater indices than expected for ambulatory Myosorex geata (%CL = 42) and M. kihaulei (46) and lower indices than expected for semi-fossorial Congosorex phillipsorum (39) and Blarina brevicauda jerryrchoatei (41).

21. Manual claw support index (%CLS) represents the proportion of manual claw III supported by underlying distal phalanx III. Mean values of this index increase from ambulatory to semifossorial to semi-aquatic to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1u), but the great range of variation among semi-aquatic species and the consequent overlap with other locomotor groups prevents this index from being useful for identifying locomotor modes for individual species.

22. Metacarpal width index (MW3) represents the relative robustness of manual metacarpal III. There is a clear pattern of increase in this index, indicating relatively more robust bones of the manus, from semi-aquatic to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1v). Overlaps in values between semi-aquatic and ambulatory species and between semi-fossorial and fossorial species limit the usefulness of this index for distinguishing individual modes, but there is clear separation of most species with adaptations for digging.

23. Phalangeal index (PI) shows the relative lengths of the proximal and middle phalanges of manual ray III. Among the soricid species tested, mean indices increased from fossorial to semi-aquatic species to semi-fossorial species to ambulatory species (Supplementary material Figure 1w). The ranges in values of semi-aquatic, semi-fossorial, and ambulatory species overlap extensively. Fossorial species, however, have extremely low PI.

24. Manus proportions index (MANUS) measures the relative length of the proximal phalanx of manual ray III. Among rodents, mean MANUS increases from fossorial to semi-aquatic to semi-fossorial to ambulatory to arboreal and gliding species (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008; Nations et al. 2019). In the Soricidae tested, values for MANUS overlap extensively among semi-aquatic, ambulatory, and semi-fossorial modes (Supplementary material Figure 1x). Fossorial species (i. e., Surdisorex) exhibit particularly low MANUS values and are distinct from all other species except semi-aquatic Nectogale elegans (MANUS = 48) and semi-fossorial Myosorex blarina (50).

25. Crural index (CI) measures the relative lengths of the femur and tibiofibula. Among rodents, this index decreases (longer femur, shorter tibiofibula) with increasing fossoriality, but increases in semi-aquatic species (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). Although shrews have a relatively longer tibiofibula to begin with, they show a similar pattern, with mean values increasing from fossorial to semi-fossorial to ambulatory to semi-aquatic species (Supplementary material Figure 1y). Overlap in range among fossorial, semi-fossorial, and ambulatory modes is relatively large, making locomotor mode difficult to determine for most individual species. Semi-aquatic species are mostly distinct, overlapping only with Sorex sonomae (CI = 175) and S. cinereus (177), which have large indices for ambulatory species.

26. Pes length index (PES) represents the relative length of the hind foot. Among rodents, this index increases (relatively longer foot) from fossorial to semi-fossorial to ambulatory to semi-aquatic species (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). Soricids exhibit a similar pattern, and PES is particularly good for distinguishing semi-aquatic species (Supplementary material Figure 1z).

27. Femoral robustness index (FRI) quantifies the breadth of the femur shaft. Among rodents, this index increases (more robust femur) from ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial to semi-aquatic species (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). Among rodents, mean values for FRI increase from ambulatory to semi-fossorial to semi-aquatic to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1 α). In both groups, there is considerable overlap among locomotor groups, making it difficult to distinguish locomotor mode for a particular species.

28. Femoral epicondylar index (FEB) is the relative distal breadth of the femur. Among rodents, mean FEB is lowest (relatively smaller muscle attachment area) in ambulatory species and is sequentially larger in semi-fossorial, fossorial, and semi-aquatic species (Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2008). FEB exhibits a slightly different pattern in soricids, increasing from ambulatory to fossorial to semi-fossorial to semi-aquatic species (Supplementary material Figure 1β). There is extensive overlap among groups, but some ambulatory species and some semi-aquatic species are distinguishable.

29. Distal tibiofibular articulation index (DTA) measures the relative width of the articular region for the astragalus. The ranges of this index overlap extensively among groups, rendering this index essentially useless (Supplementary material Figure 1γ).

30. Pedal distal phalanx index (%hDPL) is the relative length of the pedal distal phalanx III. This index shows a clear pattern of increasing (relatively longer distal phalanx) from semi-aquatic to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial species. Although this index clearly separates semi-fossorial and fossorial locomotor modes. there is considerable overlap between the ranges of semi-aquatic and ambulatory modes (Supplementary material Figure 1δ).

31. Pedal claw index (%hCL) is the relative length of the claw of pedal ray III. Like the pedal distal phalanx index (%hDPL), %hCL shows a clear pattern of increasing (longer claw) mean values from semi-aquatic to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1ε). Although there is greater overlap among the ranges of the four locomotory modes, there is greater separation of some semi-aquatic species from ambulatory species.

32. Pedal claw support index (%hCLS) is the proportion of the claw of pedal ray III supported by the distal phalanx. Values of this index for ambulatory and semi-aquatic species overlap nearly completely but show higher values (relatively greater support) in semi-fossorial and fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1ζ).

33. Tail length index (%TAIL) measures the relative length of the tail. Among shrews, there is a clear pattern of increase in the mean index (greater relative tail length) from fossorial and semi-fossorial species to ambulatory species to semi-aquatic species. There is considerable overlap in ranges among groups, but most semi-aquatic species have longer tails than those in other locomotor modes (Supplementary material Figure 1 η). The longer tail of semi-aquatic species may be used to provide added thrust and to prevent yaw rotation while swimming (Fish 1982, 2000). Overlap in the ranges of tail lengths between ambulatory and semi-aquatic shrews is mostly a result of the relatively short tail of semi-aquatic Nectogale elegans (%TAIL = 51) and the relatively long tails of ambulatory Sorex cinereus (72) and S. sonomae (73). As expected (Shimer 1903), semi-fossorial and fossorial species have the shortest tails, with the exception of semi-fossorial Congosorex phillipsorum, which has an unexpectedly long tail (58).

34. Relative robustness index (RR) compares the breadths of the humerus and femur. This index exhibits a progressive increase in mean values (increasing robustness of the humerus) from semi-aquatic to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial species (Supplementary material Figure 1θ). There is considerable overlap among ranges of values, making it difficult to distinguish locomotor mode for a particular species.

Mean percentile ranks. A univariate plot of the mean percentile ranks calculated for each of the 52 soricid taxa is shown in Figure 2a. The four locomotor modes mostly form distinct groupings, although there is overlap among some of the modes. As in previous studies of locomotor mode in soricids (Woodman and Gaffney 2014; Woodman and Stabile 2015b; Woodman and Wilken 2019), there is a clear trend of increase in mean percentile rank from ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial taxa. Semi-aquatic species all have relatively low mean ranks, and their range overlaps that of the lower ranked ambulatory species (Sorex cinereus, Suncus hututsi, Sorex hoyi). There is also overlap of one semi-fossorial species (Cryptotis phillipsii) with the highest-ranked ambulatory species. In the latter case, the overlap may result from a lack of data, as C. phillipsii is represented by only six indices (Table 3). Among the five species of unknown locomotor mode, four species (Cryptotis endersi, C. gracilis, C. meridensis, C. monteverdensis) plot with the higher-ranked ambulatory species. The fifth species (C. thomasi) plots between the ambulatory species (and Cryptotis phillipsii) and the bulk of the semi-fossorial species, but is more closely allied to the latter.

PCA of locomotor indices. In the PCA of 17 locomotor indices, the first three principal components had high eigenvalues and together accounted for >94 % if the variation in the model. Fourteen indices contributed positively to the first principal component (PC1), which alone represented nearly 79 % of the variation. PC1 was most strongly influenced by four variables: CLI, CLAW, %CL, and negatively weighted %TAIL (Table 4). The second principal component (PC2) represented %TAIL and constituted about 12 % of variation. The third principal component (PC3), accounting for <4 % of the variation, was most influenced by PI, SHI, and negatively weighted FOOT.

In a plot of factor scores on PC1 (Figure 2b), a priori locomotory groups are mostly separated along PC1, with semi-aquatic species having the lowest scores, and ambulatory, semi-fossorial, and fossorial groups having increasingly greater scores, respectively. Ambulatory species exhibit two distinct clusters along this axis. The ambulatory group with the lower scores includes species of Sorex and Cryptotis, and the group with the larger scores includes Cryptotis parvus, Blarinella quadricaudata, and species of Myosorex. There are also two clusters of semi-fossorial species. The group with the lower scores includes species of Myosorex and Blarina, and that with the larger scores is comprised of Myosorex zinki and species of Cryptotis. The bimodal patterns within the ambulatory and semi-fossorial groups indicate that species in different genera have somewhat different suites of characters associated with a particular locomotor mode (Woodman and Wilken 2019).

One exception to the general pattern is ambulatory Sorex cinereus, which plotted with semi-aquatic species. Its low score on PC1 resulted from its low CLI and %CL (relatively short foreclaw) and high %TAIL (relatively long tail). Another exception is semi-fossorial Congosorex phillipsorum, which plotted with the ambulatory species. Its low score also resulted from its low CLI, %CL, and %DPL (short foreclaw and distal phalanx relative to other semi-fossorial species) and high %TAIL (long tail). The unique combination of ambulatory and semi-fossorial traits in C. phillipsorum previously was discussed in detail in Woodman and Stabile (2015b).

In a plot of factor scores on PC1 and PC2 (Figure 2c), the second factor axis separates fossorial species and most semi-aquatic species from ambulatory and semi-fossorial species. It also separates subgroupings of semi-fossorial shrews with semi-fossorial Cryptotis and Myosorex zinki plotting along the positive portion of PC2, whereas Blarina and other semi-fossorial Myosorex plot along the negative part of the axis.

The third factor axis (not shown) provides no discrimination among the a priori locomotor groupings. Within the ambulatory group, however, the low scores of the three species of Myosorex separate them from ambulatory taxa in other genera. Within the semi-fossorial group, PC3 separates three subgroupings that consist of three species of Myosorex (low scores); most taxa of Blarina, Congosorex phillipsorum, and Cryptotis celaque (intermediate scores); and Blarina carolinensis and four species of Cryptotis.

Figure 2 Scaling of locomotory modes: (a) Plot of mean percentile ranks calculated from up to 23 locomotor indices from 52 taxa of soricids, including species of unknown locomotor mode (Table 3). (b) Univariate plot of scores on PC1 (78.8% of variance) from PCA of 17 locomotor indices from 33 taxa (Table 4). (c) Bivariate plot of scores on PC1 and PC2 (12.2%) from a PCA of 17 locomotor indices from 33 taxa (Table 4). Species of unknown locomotor mode were not included in the PCA because of missing data. Key to all symbols is in Figure 2c. 

DFA of locomotor indices. Plots of scores from the DFA of 17 locomotor indices show clear separation of the four locomotor groups along combinations of the first three canonical variates (Table 5; Figure 3). Fossorial species are strongly separated along CV1, and the other three locomotor groups are separated from each other along CV2 (Figure 3a). Semi-aquatic and semi-fossorial species overlap along CV3, but are separated from both ambulatory and fossorial species (Figure 3b).

The post hoc classification matrix indicates that 100 % of taxa were correctly classified into their a priori locomotor groups by the DFA (Table 5). In the jack-knifed classification, five species were misclassified as belonging to a locomotor mode other than their a priori mode. Ambulatory Sorex cinereus and Cryptotis tropicalis were both misclassified as being semi-aquatic; ambulatory Myosorex cafer was misclassified as semi-fossorial; and semi-fossorial Myosorex blarina and M. varius were misclassified as being ambulatory.

PCA of species having unknown locomotor mode. In the PCA carried out in an attempt to classify four species whose locomotor mode was unknown, eight of 10 locomotor indices contributed positively to the first principal component (PC1). PC1 accounted for more than 77 % of the variation in the model (Table 6), and it was most strongly influenced by three variables: CLI, CLAW, and negatively weighted %TAIL. As in the 17-variable model, a priori locomotory groups are mostly separated along this axis, from semi-aquatic species with the lowest scores to ambulatory to semi-fossorial to fossorial groups having increasingly higher scores (Figure 4). As in the 17-variable model, semi-fossorial species plotted in two primary clusters with the same compositions as in that model. In contrast, ambulatory species were more cohesive. Ambulatory Sorex cinereus, which plotted with semi-aquatic species, and semi-fossorial Congosorex phillipsorum, which plotted with ambulatory species, again proved to be exceptions to the general pattern.

Table 3 Percentile ranks for locomotor indices. See Materials and Methods for abbreviations. Taxa are ordered by increasing mean percentile rank within each a priori locomotor mode. 

ID Mode IM HFI FOOT CLAW CLI SMI HRI HTI TTP HEB TCO OCI URI %DPL %CL MW3 CI PES FEB %hDPL %hCL RR %TAIL Sum of indices Number of indices Mean rank
Sorex albibarbis SA 40 3 7 9 5 10 38 19 19 32 33 45 28 14 11 20 7 8 20 5 9 19 4 405 23 18
Sorex palustris SA 40 5 15 19 21 10 13 19 19 19 52 45 28 23 23 20 22 14 8 20 23 3 12 473 23 21
Sorex navigator SA 20 20 7 28 21 4 38 31 33 40 52 28 28 34 27 20 4 6 8 20 23 5 2 499 23 22
Chimarrogale himalayaca SA - - 20 30 16 58 13 6 54 19 - - - 23 5 34 - - - 20 5 10 313 14 22
Nectogale elegans SA 40 20 2 26 9 23 77 19 19 77 - 45 28 - - 7 11 3 3 5 2 41 37 494 20 25
Neomys fodiens SA 4 80 20 14 9 48 38 40 54 51 33 10 28 14 11 20 33 14 43 20 23 35 16 658 23 29
Sorex bendirii SA 40 30 10 16 16 15 54 40 54 43 63 52 52 34 30 20 15 17 20 32 30 35 10 728 23 32
Sorex cinereus Am 20 48 12 5 12 4 13 19 4 11 33 10 28 14 11 7 22 22 60 20 14 11 10 410 23 18
Suncus hututsi Am - - 63 2 2 - - - - - - - - 2 2 34 - - - 20 9 31 165 9 18
Sorex hoyi Am 20 48 32 26 33 15 13 25 23 13 33 28 28 23 23 7 37 25 43 20 14 46 25 600 23 26
Crocidura religiosa Am - 30 - - - 96 2 2 8 4 - - - - - - - - 100 - - 20 262 8 33
Sorex sonomae Am 40 48 22 49 30 10 54 21 33 40 33 45 52 34 34 34 30 22 33 32 32 51 14 793 23 34
Crocidura suaveolens Am 56 70 - - - 75 13 8 4 6 - 3 52 - - - 67 - 100 - - 18 472 12 39
Cryptotis merus Am - 65 80 37 28 69 38 10 19 36 - - - 7 23 34 81 67 88 32 36 16 61 827 19 44
Cryptotis parvus Am 68 80 51 40 40 23 38 40 38 36 7 21 52 27 34 20 70 53 78 36 45 38 88 1023 23 44
Cryptotis tropicalis Am 68 70 44 7 40 58 54 52 54 19 7 21 52 7 23 34 59 39 100 36 30 78 76 1028 23 45
Crocidura olivieri Am - 85 - - - 94 38 4 19 2 - - - - - - - - 100 - - 24 366 8 46
Cryptotis merriami Am 92 20 56 49 26 48 38 40 23 32 52 48 76 23 14 34 74 78 88 32 30 35 51 1059 23 46
Myosorex cafer Am - 65 80 51 51 69 54 25 8 11 - - - 41 36 41 - 39 100 50 45 62 45 873 18 49
Cryptotis nigrescens Am 92 20 88 26 26 33 38 52 33 32 33 55 76 27 27 50 93 81 88 39 45 27 47 1128 23 49
Myosorex geata Am - 30 83 37 53 75 38 31 33 32 - - - 50 52 64 - 53 78 73 73 16 29 900 18 50
Blarinella quadricaudata Am 96 20 80 56 44 33 54 67 77 47 52 21 52 43 43 41 44 31 60 50 64 46 35 1156 23 50
Myosorex kihaulei Am - 48 71 42 56 69 38 31 38 32 - - - 64 68 50 - 42 78 73 77 24 41 942 18 52
Cryptotis phillipsii SF - - - - - 23 65 71 54 57 - - - - - - - - - - - 43 313 6 52
Blarina shermani SF - - 51 56 58 - - - - - - - - 50 59 64 - - - 57 59 96 550 9 61
Congosorex phillipsorum SF - 48 95 67 42 94 65 79 33 57 - - - 64 43 64 - 53 70 66 77 68 24 1109 18 62
Myosorex varius SF 56 80 63 63 67 79 54 52 56 32 33 62 28 73 73 73 56 78 88 82 86 57 55 1446 23 63
Blarina brevicauda jknoxjonesi SF - - - - - - - - - - - - - 64 68 64 - - - 50 36 100 382 6 64
Myosorex blarina SF 80 50 98 58 70 94 38 56 42 47 63 66 90 75 75 77 78 100 70 95 100 8 51 1581 23 69
Cryptotis mexicanus SF - - - - - 48 65 77 85 72 - - - 70 70 77 - - - - - 61 625 9 69
Blarina peninsulae SF - - 71 77 79 83 77 56 67 68 89 69 90 64 59 64 - - - 50 45 96 1204 17 71
Blarina carolinensis SF 68 80 41 65 67 79 77 67 67 70 93 62 76 68 64 64 85 97 60 57 50 81 100 1638 23 71
Blarina hylophaga SF - - - - - - - - - - - - - 68 64 73 - - - 65 64 96 430 6 72
Blarina brevicauda talpoides SF 80 65 90 70 72 58 77 71 67 62 96 83 90 64 55 73 93 97 43 65 59 73 88 1691 23 74
Blarina brevicauda jerryrchoatei SF 92 65 88 60 63 58 94 75 77 68 89 86 76 64 50 73 100 67 60 65 50 84 96 1700 23 74
Cryptotis celaque SF - 65 56 84 86 58 94 85 85 81 67 76 90 80 58 86 78 20 82 73 86 72 1562 21 74
Cryptotis oreoryctes SF 20 90 32 88 81 48 94 96 96 89 89 90 76 93 95 86 48 78 33 86 86 89 71 1754 23 76
Cryptotis mam SF 80 65 39 91 77 69 94 90 96 85 63 76 76 89 89 86 52 67 43 82 89 95 71 1764 23 77
Cryptotis matsoni SF - 100 24 81 84 83 94 94 98 94 - - - 84 80 - - 53 33 82 73 73 80 1310 17 77
Cryptotis mccarthyi SF - - 39 77 60 33 94 83 77 81 - - - 89 89 93 - - - 91 91 82 1079 14 77
Myosorex zinki SF - 93 93 81 93 75 94 52 54 74 - - - 77 84 80 - 89 60 86 86 57 61 1389 18 77
Cryptotis magnimanus SF - - - - - 33 94 83 88 89 - - - - - - - - - - - 80 467 6 78
Cryptotis eckerlini SF - 85 27 95 88 94 77 79 85 94 100 100 100 84 93 93 - 67 20 73 80 76 71 1681 21 80
Cryptotis lacertosus SF 100 20 51 86 74 48 96 94 96 98 89 97 97 93 93 100 63 97 20 95 95 100 75 1877 23 82
Cryptotis cavatorculus SF - - 63 93 95 94 77 90 79 85 89 79 76 95 82 93 - - - 91 73 1354 16 85
Surdisorex norae F 56 98 80 98 98 100 100 98 96 100 89 97 97 100 100 100 96 89 60 100 95 92 71 2110 23 92
Surdisorex polulus F - 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 - - - 98 98 100 - 89 70 98 100 97 55 1693 18 94
Cryptotis endersi UN - 48 - 77 91 23 38 79 42 57 - - - - - - - 39 33 32 23 24 35 641 14 46
Cryptotis gracilis UN - 30 34 37 40 69 65 67 77 68 - - - 50 50 50 30 28 33 57 59 49 29 922 19 49
Cryptotis meridensis UN 44 48 - 14 47 48 54 52 67 49 52 45 52 41 39 41 41 60 - - 65 71 930 19 49
Cryptotis monteverdensis UN - - - - - 33 54 52 77 62 - - - - - - - - - - - 39 317 6 53
Cryptotis thomasi UN - 48 71 49 49 48 65 75 58 - - - - 41 45 50 - 67 70 50 59 59 84 988 17 58

Among the species of uncertain locomotor mode, Cryptotis gracilis and C. meridensis plotted within the distribution of ambulatory species; C. thomasi occurred between the ambulatory species (and Congosorex phillipsorum) and semi-fossorial species; and C. endersi plotted with the Blarina grouping of semi-fossorial species rather than with the Cryptotis grouping of semi-fossorial species (Figure 4, Table 6).

Figure 3 Plots of scores a) on CV1 and CV2 and b) on CV2 and CV3 from a DFA of 17 locomotor indices from 33 species (Table 5). 

DFA of species of unknown locomotor mode. Plots of scores from the DFA of 10 locomotor indices exhibit similar patterns as those from the 17-variable model, although the separations among locomotor groups are generally not as clear (Table 7; Figure 5). Fossorial species are again strongly separated along CV1, whereas the other three locomotor groups are separated from each other along a combination of CV1 and CV2 (Figure 5a). Semi-aquatic and semi-fossorial species overlap along CV3, but are separated from both ambulatory and fossorial species (Figure 5b).

The post hoc classification matrix had a correct classification rate of nearly 97 % (Table 7). The only misclassification was ambulatory Sorex sonomae, which was misclassified as semi-aquatic. Among the species of uncertain locomotor mode, Cryptotis gracilis was classified as semi-aquatic, C. meridensis and C. thomasi as ambulatory, and C. endersi as semi-fossorial (Figure 5; Table 7). In multivariate space, C. gracilis actually plots by itself away from the a priori locomotor groups, although it is physically closest to semi-aquatic species. Similarly, C. endersi plots in its own multivariate space between the ambulatory and semi-fossorial groups of species, but it is physically closest to the semi-fossorial group.

Table 4 Variable loadings and taxon scores from a PCA of 17 locomotor indices from 33 taxa of soricids (Figure 2b, 2c). 

Variable loadings
Variable PC 1 PC 2 PC 3
CLI 0.575 0.03 -0.359
CLAW 0.459 0.27 0.188
%CL 0.353 0.203 -0.103
%DPL 0.212 0.17 0.001
SHI 0.182 0.084 0.382
HEB 0.18 0.158 0.297
HTI 0.163 0.095 0.239
%hCL 0.135 0.014 -0.121
FOOT 0.12 -0.253 -0.359
TTP 0.108 0.068 0.204
SMI 0.106 0.011 -0.168
%hDPL 0.104 0.027 -0.112
MW3 0.086 0.036 0.026
HRI 0.054 0.028 0.038
PI -0.009 -0.098 0.422
MANUS -0.018 -0.055 0.301
%TAIL -0.347 0.855 -0.192
Eigenvalue 1682.6 260.054 80.536
% variance 78.801 12.179 3.772
Taxon scores on PC1
Taxon Mode PC 1
Sorex albibarbis SA -58.812
Sorex navigator SA -51.795
Chimarrogale himalayaca SA -50.854
Sorex palustris SA -47.955
Sorex bendirii SA -46.349
Neomys fodiens SA -45.918
Sorex cinereus Am -54.719
Sorex hoyi Am -33.033
Sorex sonomae Am -31.319
Cryptotis nigrescens Am -26.47
Cryptotis merus Am -24.479
Cryptotis merriami Am -23.749
Cryptotis tropicalis Am -22.373
Cryptotis parvus Am -12.229
Myosorex geata Am -10.973
Myosorex cafer Am -10.832
Blarinella quadricaudata Am -8.0403
Myosorex kihaulei Am -4.0992
Congosorex phillipsorum SF -3.981
Myosorex varius SF 14.246
B. brevicauda jerryrchoatei SF 16.908
Myosorex blarina SF 19.219
Blarina carolinensis SF 19.619
B. brevicauda talpoides SF 21.945
Blarina peninsulae SF 26.478
Cryptotis celaque SF 42.205
Myosorex zinki SF 42.961
Cryptotis mam SF 44.161
Cryptotis lacertosus SF 44.912
Cryptotis oreoryctes SF 45.322
Cryptotis eckerlini SF 52.677
Surdisorex norae F 82.629
Surdisorex polulus F 94.698

Discussion

As noted previously, there is considerable variation among soricids in skeletal characteristics that are typically associated with locomotion (Woodman and Gaffney 2014; Woodman and Stabile 2015b; Woodman and Wilken 2019). Such variation suggests that individual species’ abilities to use various substrates are more nuanced and diverse (e. g., Mendes-Soares and Rychlik 2009; Tapisso et al. 2013). Rather than representing discrete categories permitted by classification, locomotor modes exhibit diverse ranges in morphology that are not always easily defined or distinguished. This observation suggests that not all morphological traits associated with a particular locomotor mode-or the indices used to gauge them-are necessarily adaptive. Instead, phylogeny may control or at least contribute to some traits. Hence, a morphological trait that varies among species or groups of species within a particular locomotor mode may not be employed, or may not be employed to the same extent or purpose, in each species.

Morphological diversity may also reflect the reality that individuals are not entirely restricted in their use of substrate or in their locomotor behavior by either the possession or lack of specialized traits. Morphological traits that are related to particular modes of locomotion may simply reflect enhanced abilities that permit a species to specialize to a greater extent in certain behaviors that, given a shrew’s high metabolism, are most likely related to foraging strategies. This likely accounts for the close correspondence between the numbers of species that appear specialized for ambulatory, semi-fossorial, and semi-aquatic locomotor behaviors (Hutterer 1985) and those that specialize on foraging for epigeal, hypogeal, and aquatic prey (Churchfield 1990). Despite this, ambulatory species can be vigorous scratch-diggers despite the lighter bone structure of their arms and their relatively short foreclaws (Chamberlain 1929). Ambulatory Cryptotis parvus, Sorex cinereus, and S. hoyi, and the semi-aquatic S. palustris are reported to excavate subterranean tunnels of varying lengths, depths, and degrees of complexity (Cahn 1937; Davis and Joeris 1945; Sorenson 1962; Tuttle 1964; Beneski and Stinson 1987). Similarly, non-aquatic shrews, such as ambulatory Sorex araneus, S. cinereus, S. fumeus, and S. minutus, have been documented to be capable swimmers (Dagg and Windsor 1972; Hanski 1986). Based on the diversity of species and numbers of individuals that have been found in the digestive tracts of various freshwater fishes (e. g., Huish and Hoffmeister 1947; Hodgson 1986; Moore and Kenagy 2004; Jung et al. 2011; Lisi et al. 2013), a number of additional ambulatory and semi-fossorial species readily take to water.

Table 5 Variable loadings of 17 locomotor indices and classification matrix. A and B classification matrices from a DFA of 17 locomotor indices from 33 taxa of soricids (Figure 3). 

Variable loadings
Variable Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3
%hCL -1.139 -0.73 0.569
MANUS -0.576 -0.302 0.386
%hDPL -0.373 0.184 -0.186
HEB -0.345 0.158 -0.129
CLI -0.281 -0.24 0.15
MW3 -0.162 0 0.522
TTP -0.05 0.346 0.197
CLAW -0.01 -0.057 0.098
%TAIL 0.031 0.05 0.06
SHI 0.103 -0.354 0.36
PI 0.176 0.069 -0.42
HTI 0.235 0.106 -0.19
%DPL 0.34 -0.476 -0.223
FOOT 0.351 0.068 -0.266
%CL 0.687 0.579 -0.336
SMI 0.717 0.369 -0.023
HRI 1.096 0.754 -0.737
SA Am SF F Total
A
Classification matrix (100% correct classification)
Semi-aquatic (SA) 6 0 0 0 6
Ambulatory (Am) 0 12 0 0 12
Semi-fossorial (SF) 0 0 13 0 13
Fossorial (F) 0 0 0 2 2
Total 6 12 13 2 33
B
Jackknifed classification matrix (81.8% correct classification)
Semi-aquatic (SA) 6 0 0 0 6
Ambulatory (Am) 3 8 1 0 12
Semi-fossorial (SF) 0 2 11 0 13
Fossorial (F) 0 0 0 2 2
Total 9 10 12 2 33
Fossorial (F) 0 0 0 2 2
Total 6 12 13 2 33

There is also no reason to assume that any particular species cannot possess traits that enhance its abilities for more than one locomotor mode. A ready example in the Talpidae is the Condylura cristata, which possesses numerous anatomical traits associated with fossorial locomotion, but which is also an active swimmer and may forage dominantly on hypogeal or aquatic prey, depending on where it lives (Petersen and Yates 1980).

Figure 4 Plot of scores on PC1 from a PCA of 10 locomotor indices from 33 species of known locomotor mode and four species of uncertain locomotor mode (Table 6). 

Despite the foregoing caveats, a number of generalizations can be suggested regarding the external and skeletal morphological traits marking common, generalized locomotor modes in soricids.

Ambulatory shrews. Most species of shrews are ambulatory and have short legs and a moderately long tail (Hutterer 1985). The foreclaws and hind claws are short (%DPL, %CL, %hDPL, %hCL), the manual distal phalanges are typically somewhat shorter than the pedal distal phalanges (CLAW), although the claws on the fore feet and hind feet may be of approximately the same length (CLI). This means the foreclaw is less supported by the underlying distal phalanx (%CLS) than the hind claw (%hCLS). This relatively unspecialized body form is assumed to be the basic plan for soricids from which more specialized swimming, climbing, and digging forms evolved, but such singular directionality remains to be substantiated. Regardless, the generalized body morphology of ambulatory shrews represents the model to which more specialized shrews are compared and contrasted (Woodman and Gaffney 2014; Woodman and Stabile 2015b; Woodman and Wilken 2019).

Figure 5 Plots of scores a) on CV1 and CV2 and b) on CV2 and CV3 from a DFA of 10 locomotor indices from 33 species of known locomotor mode and four species of uncertain locomotor mode (Table 7). 

Semi-aquatic shrews. Externally, semi-aquatic shrews typically possess long tails relative to other shrews, and there may be a dorsal; dorsal and ventral; or dorsal, ventral, and lateral keels of stiff hairs. The tail probably functions like that of a muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) tail, by providing a small amount of forward thrust, but more importantly, by preventing the animal from yawing (Fish 1982). In contrast with the muskrat, which swims with just the hind limbs (Fish 1984), however, semi-aquatic and terrestrial shrews typically paddle by alternately stroking the front and hind limbs (Jackson 1928; Dagg and Windsor 1972; Mendes-Soares and Rychlik 2009). There is also a fringe of stiff hairs on the lateral edges of the digits of the hands and feet. In some species, notably Nectogale, the digits are partly webbed (Hutterer 1985). The foreclaws and hind claws are generally short (%DPL, %CL, %hDPL, %hCL), the foreclaws and manual distal phalanges typically are somewhat shorter than the hind claws and pedal distal phalanges (CLI, CLAW). The underlying manual distal phalanx, however, supports a greater proportion of the foreclaw than is typical in, for example, ambulatory shrews (%CLS). Semi-aquatic shrews typically have long hind limbs and hind feet relative to other shrews. Proportionally, the femur averages 28 % (range 27 to 29 %, n = 6 species), tibiofibula 50 % (44 to 52), and metacarpal III 22 % (19-26) of their combined length. This is in contrast to ambulatory shrews in which the femur averages 33 % (range 29 to 36 %, n = 9 species), tibiofibula 50 % (49 to 52), and metacarpal III 17 % (15 to 19) of their combined length, and to semi-fossorial and fossorial shrews, in which the femur averages 35 % (range 33 to 36 %, n = 9 species), tibiofibula 50 % (48 to -52), and metacarpal III 15 % (14 to 16) of their combined length. Moreover, the humerus of semi-aquatic shrews tends to be long in proportion to the femur (HFI), so much of the length of hind limb is a result of the proportionally longer tibiofibula (CI) and hind foot (PES).

Table 6 Variable loadings and taxon scores from a PCA of 10 locomotor indices from 33 taxa of known locomotor mode and four species for which locomotor mode is uncertain (Figure 4). 

Variable loadings
Variable PC 1
CLI 0.674
CLAW 0.538
SHI 0.201
HTI 0.188
TTP 0.131
SMI 0.121
HRI 0.057
%CLS 0.049
FEB -0.008
%TAIL -0.378
Eigenvalue 1144.07
% variance 77.244
Taxon scores on PC1 with classification of unknowns
Taxon Mode PC 1
Sorex albibarbis SA -53.13
Sorex navigator SA -47.943
Sorex bendirii SA -44.065
Sorex palustris SA -43.347
Neomys fodiens SA -41.121
Nectogale elegans SA -31.949
Sorex cinereus Am -48.893
Sorex sonomae Am -28.365
Sorex hoyi Am -26.805
Cryptotis nigrescens Am -23.709
Cryptotis merus Am -20.019
Cryptotis merriami Am -17.725
Cryptotis tropicalis Am -16.444
Myosorex geata Am -12.561
Cryptotis parvus Am -8.6015
Myosorex cafer Am -7.3472
Blarinella quadricaudata Am -7.1599
Myosorex kihaulei Am -6.7505
Congosorex phillipsorum SF -5.3339
Myosorex varius SF 10.644
Myosorex blarina SF 10.691
Blarina brevicauda jerryrchoatei SF 18.017
Blarina carolinensis SF 20.531
Blarina brevicauda talpoides SF 22.948
Cryptotis lacertosus SF 33.638
Myosorex zinki SF 35.979
Cryptotis mam SF 36.293
Cryptotis celaque SF 36.328
Cryptotis oreoryctes SF 36.544
Cryptotis matsoni SF 37.737
Cryptotis eckerlini SF 46.334
Surdisorex norae F 67.586
Surdisorex polulus F 82.263
Cryptotis gracilis unknown -15.742
Cryptotis meridensis unknown -11.824
Cryptotis thomasi unknown 1.7374
Cryptotis endersi unknown 21.566

Skeletally, the emphasis on the hind limbs in semi-aquatic shrews may be further illustrated by the relatively broad epicondyles of the femur (FEB), from which the plantaris, gastrocnemius, and the extensor digitorum longus muscles originate. The long bones of the limbs and manus bones are not particularly robust (HRI, RDW, URI) and are generally similarly proportioned to those of ambulatory shrews, with the exception of the femur (FRI), which can be considerably more robust than those of ambulatory and even semi-fossorial shrews (RR). The humerus has relatively small muscle attachment areas in the short deltopectoral crest (SMI) and small teres tubercle of the humerus (HTI), but can have a relatively broad epicondylar region (HEB) relative to ambulatory shrews. The olecranon process of the ulna tends to be slightly longer than in ambulatory shrews (OLI, TMO, TCO), suggesting the transmission of greater force from the triceps brachii muscle, although the insertion for that muscle (OCI) is no larger than in ambulatory shrews and the ulna averages slightly less breadth, therefore rendering it somewhat less resistant to bending and shearing stresses.

Semi-fossorial and fossorial shrews. In contrast to semi-aquatic shrews, the emphasis in semi-fossorial and fossorial shrews is on the changes in the morphology of the forelimb, particularly the humerus, ulna, and manus (Woodman and Morgan 2005; Woodman and Stephens 2010; Woodman and Gaffney 2014; Woodman and Stabile 2015a, 2015b; Woodman and Timm 2016; Woodman and Wilken 2019; Woodman et al. 2019). Among species in these two locomotor groups, morphological changes can appear to be gradual and progressive (e. g., Figs. 2, 3, 5), but traits do not necessarily co-vary in the same way or to the same degree (e. g., Figs. 1, 4, 6).

Externally, semi-fossorial and fossorial shrews are typically characterized by having small (or absent) pinnae, short tails, broadened forefeet, and elongated and broadened foreclaws (%DPL, %CL). They also have elongated and broadened hind claws (%hDPL, %hCL), although not to the same degree as the foreclaws (CLI,CLAW), and there is increasing support from the underlying distal phalanx as the claws increase in size (%CLS, %hCLS). There may be a tendency to reduce the overall length of the hind limbs relative to the forelimbs (IM) and the hind feet relative to the fore feet (FOOT), but, in contrast, there is a definite trend toward reduction of the length of the humerus relative to that of the femur (HFI).

Skeletally, the long bones of the limbs and manus bones become increasingly robust (HRI, RDW, URI, FRI, RR), particularly relative to those of ambulatory shrews. The humerus shortens, but becomes much broadened with enlarged teres tubercle (HTI), deltopectoral crest (SMI), epicondyles (HEB), and other regions involved in muscle attachment. The olecranon process of the ulna elongates and broadens relative to the functional arm (OLI, TMO, TCO), allowing for the transmission of much greater force from the triceps brachii muscle, and the insertion for that muscle on the olecranon process (OCI) greatly increases. In contrast, the breadth of the distal epicondyles of the femur (FEB) are only slightly enlarged relative to those of ambulatory shrews, and they are generally smaller than those of semi-aquatic shrews.

Locomotory modes of the “unknowns”. Cryptotis gracilis and members of the C. thomasi group of species (C. endersi, C. meridensis, C. monteverdensis, C. thomasi) have defied easy characterization of their locomotory modes based on external and skeletal characters (Supplementary material Figure 1). These shrews all have relatively long foreclaws and hind claws and associated distal phalanges, like semi-fossorial shrews, but the claws are not particularly broad, and their tails in some cases (e. g., C. gracilis, C. endersi, C. monteverdensis) are rather long, as in ambulatory shrews. Previous analyses of these species showed most of them to plot between the ambulatory and semi-fossorial shrews, with C. gracilis somewhat more semi-fossorial (Woodman and Timm 2016; Woodman 2019; Woodman and Wilken 2019).

In the current analyses, most of these species remain ambiguous, in part because of a continued lack of data regarding relevant characters, particularly for the rare C. endersi and C. monteverdensis (Pine et al. 2002; Woodman and Timm 2016). Cryptotis gracilis plots out as ambulatory based on mean percentile ranks (Figure 1; Table 2) and PCA (Figure 5; Table 5), but it was classified by DFA (Figure 5; Table 6) as semi-aquatic. In reality, it is separate from all other species in multivariate space between the ambulatory and semi-aquatic groups of species. It is unlikely to be truly semi-aquatic, as it plots as an ambulatory species for two of the more relevant characteristics of semi-aquatic species, represented by the locomotor indices PES and %TAIL (Figure 1; Table 2), and because it lacks more obvious external characteristics of typical semi-aquatic shrews, such as the fringes of short hairs lining the digits and tail.

Table 7 Variable loadings from a DFA of 10 locomotor indices from 33 taxa of known locomotor mode and four species for which locomotor mode is uncertain (Figure 5). 

Variable loadings
Variable Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3
TTP 0.177 -0.034 0.285
FEB 0.123 0.734 -0.021
SHI 0.006 -0.339 0.262
%TAIL -0.016 0.06 0.041
CLAW -0.016 -0.091 0.015
%CLS -0.017 -0.338 0.238
CLI -0.052 -0.102 0.045
HTI -0.145 0.339 -0.388
SMI -0.217 0.579 -0.086
HRI -0.448 1.388 -0.681
SA Am SF F Total Unknowns
Classification matrix (96.97% correct classification)
Semi-aquatic (SA) 6 0 0 0 6 1
Ambulatory (Am) 1 11 0 0 12 2
Semi-fossorial (SF) 0 0 13 0 13 1
Fossorial (F) 0 0 0 2 2 0
Total 7 11 13 2 33 4

The four members of the C. thomasi group all plot as ambulatory, semi-fossorial, or intermediate between those two modes. Cryptotis meridensis is consistently ambulatory, and C. monteverdensis plots as ambulatory based on mean percentile rank, the only analysis in which it could be included. Cryptotis endersi plots as ambulatory in the mean percentile rank analysis, and it is classified as semi-fossorial based on both PCA and DFA, but it really plots as somewhat intermediate between both groups (Figure 5; Table 6). In contrast, C. thomasi plots as intermediate between the ambulatory and semi-fossorial groupings in both the mean percentile rank analysis and the PCA, but was classified as ambulatory in the DFA.

All five of these species occupy high elevation habitats in southern Central America and Andean South America, and they may represent one or more unique locomotor adaptations or combinations of adaptations for foraging in high-elevation forests and páramo-like habitats.

1. Of 34 locomotor indices tested in this study, 23 (IM, HFI, FOOT, CLAW, CLI, SMI, HRI, HTI, TTP, HEB, TCO, OCI, URI, %DPL, %CL, MW3, CI, PES, FEB, %hDPL, %hCL, RR, %TAIL) proved effective for discriminating one or more of the four a priori locomotor groups (ambulatory, semi-aquatic, semi-fossorial, fossorial).

2. Among three analyses of locomotor indices, percentile ranking was the only analysis that permitted the inclusion of all 52 taxa, including species of unknown locomotor mode. The lack of data for some taxa, however, results in uneven morphological comparisons across taxa, and there was considerable overlap of some locomotor groups, particularly the semi-aquatic and ambulatory groups.

In contrast, PCA and DFA require complete datasets, and the largest sample I could compile was 17 indices from 33 taxa, which excluded the unknowns in this study. The first principal component (PC1) from PCA distinguished the major (and some minor) locomotor groupings, but there was overlap between locomotor groups that makes it difficult to identify locomotor mode for some species. Plotting PC1 and PC2 provided greater discrimination among groups, but some overlap remains.

DFA classification of a priori locomotor groups provided the best discrimination among locomotor groups, but requires complete datasets.

3. Classification of four species of unknown locomotor mode using PCA and DFA of 10 locomotor indices provided contrasting results. One species was classified as ambulatory by PCA and semi-aquatic by DFA; one species was classified as ambulatory by both analyses; one species was classified as intermediate between ambulatory and semi-fossorial by PCA and semi-fossorial by DFA; and one species was classified as semi-fossorial by both. The lack of complete datasets clearly hampered the analyses, but there is also strong indication that some of these species have unique combinations of morphological traits that are not easily explained by comparison with other shrews, even those in the same genus.

4. Results here confirm that variation in skeletal traits typically exists within defined locomotor modes. Such variation probably results in part from the reality that 1) most species (and individuals) are not restricted to a single mode, but engage in a variety of locomotor behaviors to varying degrees; 2) the traits that we can measure or otherwise gauge are not necessarily adaptive for a particular locomotor mode; and 3) seemingly similar traits may be employed in different ways by different species or populations.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Jacob Esselstyn and Giovani Hernández-Canchola for organizing this tribute to Al Gardner. This project was made possible by L. Heaney, A. Ferguson, J. Phelps (FMNH), D. Lunde, and I. Rochon (USNM), who permitted access to the invaluable collections under their care, and by Julian C. Kerbis Peterhans, who permitted me to inspect unique specimens obtained during his field studies. Many thanks to Asante N. Crews, Sarah A. Gaffney, James J. P. Morgan, Frank A. Stabile, Ryan B. Stephens, and Alec T. Wilken, who worked with me on earlier aspects of similar studies. I particularly want to thank Alfred L. Gardner, my valued colleague in the former Biological Survey Unit at the U.S. National Museum of Natural History, for sharing his field expertise, historical knowledge, editorial skills, and comradery during more than two decades. This work benefited from comments by Terry Chesser, Jacob Esselstyn, and two anonymous reviewers. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. government.

Literature cited

Beneski, J. T., Jr., and D.W. Stinson. 1987 . Sorex palustris. Mammalian Species 296:1-6. [ Links ]

Cahn, A. R. 1937. The mammals of Quetico Provincial Park of Ontario. Journal of Mammalogy 18:19-30. [ Links ]

Chamberlain, E. B. 1929. Behavior of the least shrew. Journal of Mammalogy 10:250-251. [ Links ]

Churchfield, S. 1990. The Natural History of Shrews. Comstock Publishing Associates. Ithaca, U.S.A. [ Links ]

Dagg, A. I., and E. E. Windsor. 1972. Swimming in northern terrestrial mammals. Canadian Journal of Zoology 50:117-139. [ Links ]

Davis, W. B., and L. Joeris. 1945. Notes on the life history of the little short-tailed shrew. Journal of Mammalogy 26:136-138. [ Links ]

Eisenberg, J. F. 1981. The Mammalian Radiations. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, U.S.A. [ Links ]

Elissamburu, A., and L. De Santis. 2011. Forelimb proportions and fossorial adaptations in the scratch-digging rodent Ctenomys (Caviomorpha). Journal of Mammalogy 92:683-689. [ Links ]

Fish, F. E. 1982. Function of the compressed tail of surface swimming muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus). Journal of Mammalogy 63:591-597. [ Links ]

Fish, F. E. 1984. Mechanics, power output and efficiency of the swimming muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Journal of Experimental Biology 110:183-201. [ Links ]

Fish, F. E. 2000. Biomechanics and energetics in aquatic and semiaquatic mammals: platypus to whale. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology: Ecological and Evolutionary Approaches 73:683-698. [ Links ]

Hammer, Ø., D. A. T. Harper, and P. D. Ryan. 2001. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologica Electronica 4:1-9. [ Links ]

Hanski, I. 1986. Population dynamics of shrews on small islands accord with the equilibrium model. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 28:23-36. [ Links ]

Hildebrand, M. 1985a. Walking and running. Pp. 38-57, in Functional Vertebrate Morphology (Hildebrand, M., D. M. Bramble, K. F. Liem, and D. B. Wake, eds.). Belknap Press, Cambridge, U.S.A. [ Links ]

Hildebrand, M. 1985b. Digging of quadrupeds. Pp. 89-109, in Functional Vertebrate Morphology (Hildebrand, M. , D. M. Bramble, K. F. Liem, and D. B. Wake, eds.). Belknap Press, Cambridge, U.S.A. [ Links ]

Hodgson, J. R. 1986. The occurrence of small mammals in the diets of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Jack-Pine Warbler 64:39-40. [ Links ]

Hopkins, S. S. B., and E. B. Davis. 2009. Quantitative morphological proxies for fossoriality in small mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 90:1449-1460. [ Links ]

Howell, H. B. 1930. Aquatic mammals. Their adaptations to life in the water. Charles C. Thomas. Springfield, USA. [ Links ]

He, K., et al. 2015. Molecular phylogeny supports repeated adaptation to burrowing within small-eared shrews, genus of Cryptotis (Eulipotyphla, Soricidae). Plos One 10:0140280. [ Links ]

He, K., et al. 2021. Mitogenome and comprehensive phylogenetic analyses support rapid diversifications among species groups of small eared shrews genus Cryptotis (Mammalia: Eulipotyphla: Soricidae). Zoological Research 42:739-745. [ Links ]

Huish, M. T., and D. F. Hoffmeister. 1947. The short-tailed shrew (Blarina) as a source of food for the green sunfish. Copeia 1947:198. [ Links ]

Hutterer, R. 1985. Anatomical adaptations of shrews. Mammal Review 15:43-55. [ Links ]

Jackson, H. H. T. 1928. A taxonomic review of the American long-tailed shrews (genera Sorex and Microsorex). North American Fauna 51:1-238. [ Links ]

Jung, T. S., et al. 2011. American pygmy shrew, Sorex hoyi, consumed by an arctic grayling, Thymallus arcticus. Canadian Field Naturalist 125:255-256. [ Links ]

Kirk E. C., P. Lemelin, M. W. Hamrick, D. M. Boyer, and J. I. Bloch. 2008. Intrinsic hand proportions of euarchontans and other mammals: Implications for the locomotor behavior of plesiadapiforms. Journal of Human Evolution 55:278-299. [ Links ]

Lemelin P. 1999. Morphological correlates of substrate use in didelphid marsupials: Implications for primate origins. Journal of Zoology 247:165-175. [ Links ]

Lisi, P. J., et al. 2013. Episodic predation of mammals by stream fishes in a boreal river basin. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 23:622-630 [ Links ]

Mendes-Soares, H., and L. Rychlik. 2009. Differences in swimming and diving abilities between two sympatric species of water shrews: Neomys anomalus and Neomys fodiens (Soricidae). Journal of Ethology 27:317-325 [ Links ]

Moore, J. W., and G. J. Kenagy. 2004. Consumption of shrews, Sorex spp., by Arctic grayling, Thymallus arcticus. The Canadian Field Naturalist 118:111-115. [ Links ]

Nations, J. A., et al. 2019. A simple skeletal measurement effectively predicts climbing behaviour in a diverse clade of small mammals. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 128:323-336. [ Links ]

Petersen, K. E., and T. L. Yates. 1980. Condylura cristata. Mammalian Species 129:1-4. [ Links ]

Pine, R. H., N. Woodman, and R. M. Timm. 2002. Rediscovery of Enders’s small-eared shrew, Cryptotis endersi (Insectivora: Soricidae), with a redescription of the species. Mammalian Biology 67:372 -377. [ Links ]

Price, M. V. 1993. A functional-morphometric analysis of forelimbs in bipedal and quadrupedal heteromyid rodents. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 50:339-360. [ Links ]

Reed, C. A. 1951. Locomotion and appendicular anatomy in three soricoid insectivores. American Midland Naturalist 45:513-670. [ Links ]

Samuels, J. X., and B. Van Valkenburgh. 2008. Skeletal indicators of locomotor adaptations in living and extinct rodents. Journal of Morphology 269:1387-1411. [ Links ]

Sargis, E. J. 2002. Functional morphology of the forelimb of tupaiids (Mammalia, Scandentia) and its phylogenetic implications. Journal of Morphology 253:10-42. [ Links ]

Sargis, E. J., et al. 2013a. Using hand proportions to test taxonomic boundaries within the Tupaia glis species complex (Scandentia, Tupaiidae). Journal of Mammalogy 94:183-201. [ Links ]

Sargis, E. J., et al. 2013b. Morphological distinctiveness of Javan Tupaia hypochrysa (Scandentia, Tupaiidae). Journal of Mammalogy 94:938-947. [ Links ]

Shimer, H. W. 1903. Adaptations to aquatic, arboreal, fossorial and cursorial habits in mammals. III. Fossoriality. American Naturalist 37:819-825. [ Links ]

Sorenson, M. W. 1962. Some aspects of water shrew behavior. American Midland Naturalist 68:445-462. [ Links ]

Tapisso, J. T., et al. 2013. Ecological release: swimming and diving behavior of an allopatric population of the Mediterranean water shrew. Journal of Mammalogy 94:29-39. [ Links ]

Tuttle, M. D. 1964. Observation of Sorex cinereus. Journal of Mammalogy 45:148. [ Links ]

Vizcaino, S. F., and N. Milne. 2002. Structure and function in armadillo limbs (Mammalia: Xenarthra: Dasypodidae). Journal of Zoology 257:117-127. [ Links ]

Wahab, M. F. A., et al. 2020. Taxonomic assessment of the Malayan water shrew Chimarrogale hantu Harrison, 1958 and reclassification to the genus Crossogale. Mammalian Biology 100:399-409. [ Links ]

Woodman, N. 2019. Three new species of small-eared shrews, genus Cryptotis, from El Salvador and Guatemala (Mammalia: Eulipotyphla: Soricidae). Special Publication of the Museum of Texas Tech University 72:1-46. [ Links ]

Woodman, N., and S. A. Gaffney. 2014. Can they dig it? Functional morphology and degrees of semi-fossoriality among some American shrews (Mammalia, Soricidae). Journal of Morphology 275:745-759. [ Links ]

Woodman, N. , and J. P. J. Morgan. 2005. Skeletal morphology of the forefoot in shrews (Mammalia: Soricidae) of the genus Cryptotis, as revealed by digital x-rays. Journal of Morphology 266:60-73. [ Links ]

Woodman, N. , and F. A. Stabile . 2015a. Variation in the myosoricine hand skeleton and its implications for locomotory behavior (Eulipotyphla: Soricidae). Journal of Mammalogy 96:159-171. [ Links ]

Woodman, N. , and F. A. Stabile. 2015b. Functional skeletal morphology and its implications for locomotory behavior among three genera of mysoricine shrews (Eulipotyphla: Soricidae). Journal of Morphology 276:550-563. [ Links ]

Woodman, N. , and R. B. Stephens. 2010. At the foot of the shrew: manus morphology distinguishes closely-related Cryptotis goodwini and Cryptotis griseoventris (Mammalia, Soricidae) in Central America. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 99:118-134. [ Links ]

Woodman, N. , and R. M. Timm. 2016. A new species of small-eared shrew in the Cryptotis thomasi species group from Costa Rica (Mammalia: Eulipotyphla: Soricidae). Mammal Research 62:89-101. [ Links ]

Woodman, N. , and A. T. Wilken. 2019. Comparative functional skeletal morphology among three genera of shrews: implications for the evolution of locomotory behavior in the Soricinae (Eulipotyphla: Soricidae). Journal of Mammalogy 100:1750-1764. [ Links ]

Woodman, N. , A. T. Wilken, and S. Ikram. 2019. See how they ran: morphological and functional aspects of skeletons from ancient Egyptian shrew mummies (Eulipotyphla: Soricidae: Crocidurinae). Journal of Mammalogy 100:1199-1210. [ Links ]

Associated editor: Jake Esselstyn and Giovani Hernández Canchola

Appendix 1

New specimens examined and measured.

Specimens used for postcranial measurements (long bones of the appendicular skeleton).

Soricinae: Soricini

Sorex cinereus (n = 20). New Hampshire: Carroll Co.: Bartlett Experimental Forest (USNM 600625, 600626, 600628, 600629, 600630, 600631, 600633, 600634, 600635, 600637, 600638, 600639, 600642, 600643, 600646, 600648, 600649, 600650, 600651, 600653).

Sorex hoyi (n = 8). New Hampshire: Carroll Co.: Bartlett Experimental Forest (USNM 600742, 600743, 601995, 601996, 601999, 602000, 602001, 602001).

Sorex sonomae (n = 4). Oregon: Douglas Co.: 24.4 km S, 6 km W of Elkton (USNM 560070). Lane Co.: 0.4 km N, 18.5 km W Lorane (USNM 561167); 3 km N, 19.5 km W Lorane (USNM 561184); 1.6 km S, 5.2 km W McKenzie Bridge (USNM 556750).

Sorex bendirii (n = 19). California: 271162; Washington: (USNM 250616, 558133, 563996, 563997, 563998, 564000). Oregon: (USNM 556532, 556546, 556554, 556558, 556572, 556583, 557725, 557726, 557734, 561125, 561127, 563080).

Sorex navigator (n = 10). Colorado: (USNM 485409, 485411, 485413, 515058, 515059, 515060). Oregon: (USNM 556780). Washington: (USNM 241998, 241999, 242003).

Sorex albibarbis (n = 6). CANADA: Nova Scotia: 30 mi E of Trenton (USNM 530829). USA: New Hampshire: (USNM 515061, 515062, 600745); Maine: (USNM 600798). West Virginia: Pocahontas Co.: Allegheny Mountains (USNM 569120).

Sorex palustris (n = 4). CANADA: Ontario: Quetico Provincial Park, side Lake (FMNH 44529). USA: Michigan: Schoolcraft Co.: Seney National Wildlife Refuge (USNM 530501, 551769). Minnesota: Cook Co.: Greenwood Lake, 47º 59’ 55” N, -90º 8’ 30” W (FMNH 163321). Wisconsin: Douglas Co.: 13 mi W of Salon Springs (USNM 600003).

Soricinae: Nectogalini

Chimarrogale himalayica (n = 2). TAIWAN: 6.5 km S of Wu Sheh (USNM 358140); Mupin (USNM 358141).

Nectogale elegans (n = 2). CHINA: Sichuan: ca. 17 km SSE of Shimian (USNM 254812, 574296).

Neomys fodiens (n = 4). FRANCE: Bourgogne: Is-Sur-Tille (USNM 233967). SWEDEN: Lapland (USNM 1058). SPAIN: Cantabria: Camargo, Barrio El Juyo, Igollo, 60 m (FMNH 153665, 153666).

Specimens used for measurements of the manus and pes.

Soricinae: Soricini

Ambulatory/terrestrial:

Sorex cinereus (n = 25). New Hampshire: Carroll Co.: Bartlett Experimental Forest (USNM 601840, 601841, 601842, 601843, 601846, 601847, 601849, 601850, 601855, 601858, 601859, 601862, 601863, 601925); Coos Co.: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (USNM 568177, 568178, 568179, 568180, 568184, 568186, 568189, 568190, 568191, 568195); Strafford Co.:1 mi N, 7 mi W of Rochester (USNM 600627).

Sorex hoyi (n = 18). CANADA: New Brunswick: Mt. Carleton Provincial Park (USNM 553310, 553311, 553312, 553313, 553314, 553315, 553316, 553317, 553318, 553319, 553320, 553321). USA: New Hampshire: Carroll Co.: Bartlett Experimental Forest (USNM 601998, 602001, 602004); Coos Co.: Bretton Woods (USNM 294773); Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (USNM 568192, 568198)

Sorex sonomae (n = 8). USA: California: Del Norte Co.: Crescent City (USNM 68166, 68167); Gasquet (USNM 91551, 91552, 91553). Humboldt Co.: Eureka (USNM 47090, 63520, 63521).

Semi-aquatic:

Sorex bendirii (n = 39). California: Del Norte Co.: Crescent City (USNM 97601, 97603, 97604, 97605, 97606, 97607); Gasquet (USNM 91555, 91552, 91553). Oregon: Morrow Co.: Camas Prairie, Mount Hood, eastern base of Cascade Mountains (USNM 79964). Clatsop Co.: Astoria (USNM 89019). Lane Co.: 4.4 km N, 6.8 km E Blue River (USNM 556565); Eugene (USNM 204482); Vida (USNM 204480). Lincoln Co.: Otis (USNM 264398). Linn Co.: 9.2 km N, 1.2 km W McKenzie Bridge (USNM 556534, 556535, 557728). Multnomah Co.: Larch Mountain, T1N, R5E, sec. 36 (USNM 294066); Portland (USNM 140852). Washington: Grays Harbor Co.: Oakville (USNM 231022, 231024, 231025). Klickitat Co.: Trout Lake (USNM 230235). Lewis Co.: 8 mi W of Chehalis (USNM 230230, 230233, 230234, 230236); Toledo (USNM 231023). Pacific Co.: Ilwaco (USNM 230231, 230237). Pierce Co.: Mount Rainier, Ohanapecosh Springs (USNM 232844, 232845); Mount Rainier, 1 mi W Rainier Park, Meslers Ranch (USNM 233593, 233594, 233595); Pullalup (USNM 227155); 6 mi S of Tacoma (USNM 231019). Snohomish County: Oso (USNM 234503). Wahkiakum Co.: Cathlamet (USNM 230232). Yakima Co.: Yakima Indian Reservation (USNM 226862).

Sorex navigator (n = 22). Colorado: Boulder Co.: Boulder (USNM 112064); Gold Hill (USNM 35671, 73862, 73863). Gilpin Co.: Black Hawk, Dory Hill Pond (USNM 112048, 112049). Larimer Co.: Elkhorn (USNM 148154). Montrose Co.: Maverick Canyon, 2 mi N Coventry (USNM 149968, 149969, 149970, 149972). Washington: Pierce Co.: Mount Rainier (USNM 232843, 232846, 233093, 233222, 233590, 233591, 233592). Skamania Co.: Mount St. Helens (USNM 90751). Snohomish Co.: Suiattle River, Chiwawa Mountain Fork (USNM 229887). Yakima Co.: Yakima Indian Reservation (USNM 226860, 226861).

Sorex albibarbis (n = 24). CANADA: New Brunswick: 5.3 km N, 3.5 km N Riverside-Albert (USNM 528207); Mount Carleton Provincial Park (USNM 553303, 553304, 553305, 553306, 553307, 553308). Nova Scotia: Digby (USNM 150056, 150068); Halifax (USNM 288005). 30 km E of Trenton (530829). Quebec: St. Rose (USNM 150079). USA: Maine: Mount Katahdin (USNM 117980, 117981). Somerset Co.: N shore of Russell Pond (USNM 569772). York Co.: Lyman, Massabesic Experimental Forest (USNM 600798). New Hampshire: Coos Co.: Bretton Woods (USNM 294622, 294772); Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (USNM 568193). Carroll Co.: Bartlett Experimental Forest (USNM 600745). Tennessee: Sevier Co.: Great Smoky Mountain National Park (USNM 294409). Vermont: Rutland Co.: Mondon (USNM 250165). Virginia: Bath Co.: Little Back Creek (USNM 512048).

Sorex palustris (n = 15). Michigan: Marquette Co.: Michigamme (USNM 243724, 243725); Schoolcraft Co.: Seney National Wildlife Refuge (USNM 514244, 514382, 524518, 524519, 530499, 530500, 530501, 551765, 551766, 551768, 551770, 551773). Minnesota: Cook Co.: Greenwood Lake, 47º 59’ 55” N, - 90º 8’ 30” W (FMNH 163321).

Soricinae: Nectogalini

Semi-aquatic:

Chimarrogale himalayica (n = 4). CHINA: Yunnan: West Slope of Likiang (USNM 240167). Taiwan: Nan-T’Ou: Meichi (USNM 358139, 358140, 358141).

Nectogale elegans (n = 4). CHINA: Qinghai: Bei Zha Forestry Station (USNM 449155). Sichuan: Mupin (USNM 254812); ca. 17 km SSE Shimian (USNM 574296). INDIA: Sikkim: Lachung (USNM 260768).

Neomys fodiens (n = 20). FRANCE: Bourgogne: Cote-D'Or Department, Is-Sur-Tille (USNM 498756, 498757, 498759, 498760, 498761). SWEDEN: Lapland (USNM 1058); Uppsala: Uppsala (USNM 84909). Locality unknown (USNM 12330). SWITZERLAND: Bern: Meiringen (USNM 85938, 85939, 85941, 85942, 85943, 85944, 85946, 85947, 85949). Neuchatel: Neuchatel (USNM 12329). Sankt Gallen: Sitterwald (USNM 86497). Vaud: Lausanne (USNM 104486).

Crocidurinae:

Ambulatory/terrestrial:

Suncus hututsi (n = 1). BURUNDI: Bururi Province: Bururi Commune, 2170 m: Bururi Forest Reserve, Ruhinga Hill. (FMNH 155925).

Appendix 2

A priori locomotor classifications of soricid species.

Crocidurinae:

Ambulatory:

Crocidura olivieri

Crocidura religiosa

Crocidura suaveolens

Suncus hututsi

Myosoricinae:

Ambulatory:

Myosorex cafer

Myosorex geata

Myosorex kihaulei

Semi-fossorial:

Congosorex phillipsorum

Myosorex blarina

Myosorex varius

Myosorex zinki

Fossorial:

Surdisorex norae

Surdisorex polulus

Soricinae: Blarinellini

Ambulatory:

Blarinella quadricaudata

Soricinae: Blarinini

Ambulatory:

Cryptotis parvus

Cryptotis tropicalis

Cryptotis merriami

Cryptotis merus

Cryptotis nigrescens

Semi-fossorial:

Blarina brevicauda jerryrchoatei

Blarina brevicauda jknoxjonesi

Blarina brevicauda talpoides

Blarina carolinensis

Blarina hylophaga

Blarina peninsulae

Blarina shermani

Cryptotis cavatorculus

Cryptotis celaque

Cryptotis eckerlini

Cryptotis lacertosus

Cryptotis magnimanus

Cryptotis mam

Cryptotis matsoni

Cryptotis mccarthyi

Cryptotis mexicanus

Cryptotis oreoryctes

Cryptotis phillipsii

Unknown:

Cryptotis endersi

Cryptotis gracilis

Cryptotis meridensis

Cryptotis monteverdensis

Cryptotis thomasi

Soricinae: Nectogalini

Semi-aquatic:

Chimarrogale himalayica

Nectogale elegans

Neomys fodiens

Soricinae: Soricini

Ambulatory:

Sorex cinereus

Sorex hoyi

Sorex sonomae

Semi-aquatic:

Sorex albibarbis

Sorex bendirii

Sorex navigator

Sorex palustris

Received: August 09, 2022; Revised: August 15, 2022; Accepted: November 09, 2022

*Corresponding author: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2689-7373.

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License