8 
Hylomys clade (character 19.1: the wide separation between the 
cranio-orbital and ethmoid foramina), two of the other apomorphies 
(34.1: the inflation of the mastoid region between the exoccipital and 
the squamosal, and 41.1: the expanded exoccipital) showing 
homoplasy with P. truei, while the third character state (50.1: upper 
canine slightly larger than the adjacent post-canine teeth) is not 
shown by H. sinensis (50.2: upper canine approximately equal in 
size to the adjacent post-canine teeth). There are no autapomorphies 
defining H. megalotis, which shows more plesiomorphy than the 
other species of Hylomys; many of its features are homoplasious 
with Echinosorex, Podogymnura and Erinaceinae. 
Hylomys is a morphologically variable genus, containing species 
that are generally well segregated and show little overlap in species 
range. Hylomys hainanensis is a geographically isolated island form 
and while H. sinensis and H. parvus are each parapatric with H. 
suillus in a few areas, Corbet (1988) pointed out that in regions 
where H. sinensis and H. suillus occur, H. sinensis is found at greater 
altitudes than H. suillus. Similarly Ruedi et al. (1994) showed that 
although H. parvus is currently restricted to moss forests at the peak 
of Gunung Kerinci, Sumatra at greater altitudes than H. suillus, the 
latter occurs elsewhere at greater and lesser altitudes. Both Corbet 
(1988) and Ruedi et al. (1994) invoked ecological factors such as 
competitive exclusion to explain the altitudinal segregation of these 
three species, but did not provide data to support this supposition. 
There are few distribution records of H. suillus and H. megalotis in 
Lao PDR, which potentially may be sympatric or possibly parapatric 
if H. megalotis should prove to be ecologically restricted to the 
specific limestone habitat in which it was first collected. 
Little is known about the biology of Hylomys. Hylomys sinensis is 
believed to be entirely terrestrial and H. swillus mainly so, although 
this species has also been observed climbing in low bushes (Lekagul 
& McNeely, 1977). Hylomys suillus occurs in hilly or montane 
humid forests with dense undergrowth, H. sinensis in cool damp 
forests in the cover of runways and under logs and rocks. In their 
original description Shaw & Wong (1959) reported that H. 
hainanensis spends most of its time in underground burrows and that 
the cylindrical body, short tail and claws are adaptations to a 
fossorial life. Hylomys parvus is apparently restricted to high alti- 
tude moss forest. There is no information about the behavioural 
ecology of H. megalotis but the limestone karst where it has been 
found to date is an unusual habitat and some of the morphological 
features of this species, such as the moderately broad forefeet with 
long, fairly stout claws, the long naked hindfeet with large cheiridia, 
the moderately long tail and the comparatively flattened braincase 
may be adaptations to life in this habitat. 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We would like to thank the staff of WWEF-Thai- 
land, the Lao PDR Department of Forestry (DoF) and the Forest Management 
and Conservation Project (FOMACOP) for permission to work in Lao PDR 
and for organising the project; in particular Bouahong Phanthanousy (National 
Project Director, FOMACOP), Bouaphanh Phantavong (Deputy National 
Project Director, FOMACOP), Robert Mather and Robert Steinmetz (WWF- 
Thailand) and Bruce Jefferies (FOMACOP), who additionally oversaw the 
export of specimens. We are very grateful to Maurice Webber for his vital 
contribution to all aspects of the fieldwork. 
Assistance inthe field was gratefully received from Thongphanh Ratanalangsy 
(Khammouan Limestone and DongPhu Vieng NBCA Co-ordinator), Sinnasone 
Seangchanthanarong (DoF) and Nousine Latvylay (driver for FOMACOP in 
Savannakhet). The headmen and villagers from Pontong, Muang, Mouangkhai, 
Louang, Vieng, Kengkhot, Thamtem and Tonglom provided excellent field 
support and companionship, and without them this project would nothave been 
possible. We would like to thank Angela L. Smith for her help in measuring 
specimens at TISTR and for her comments on the manuscript. 
P.D. JENKINS AND M.F. ROBINSON 
Field work was funded by the Global Environment Facility through the 
World Bank to the Government of Lao PDR, via a contract with Burapha 
Development Consultants, sub-contracted to WWF-Thailand. 
We thank Bob Randal (AMNH), Jacques Cuisin (MNHN) and Nivesh 
Nadee (TISTR) for making specimens in their collections available to us. We 
are very grateful to Andrew Cabrinovic (NHM) for specimen preparation, to 
Harry Taylor, Photographic Unit (NHM) for the excellent photographs and to 
Karen Fisher (volunteer, NHM) for her kind assistance with documentation. 
We are grateful to Dr Francois Catzeflis, Institut des Sciences del’ Evolution, 
Université Montpellier for his constructive review of the manuscript. We 
particularly thank Dr Darrell Siebert, NHM for his generous guidance with 
the phylogenetic analysis and constructive criticism of the manuscript. 
REFERENCES 
Blainville, H. M. D. de 1838. Recherches sur l’ancienneté des Mammiferes insecti- 
vores a la surface de la terre; précédées de I’histoire de la science a ce sujet, des 
principes de leur classification et de leur distribution géographique actuelle. 
Compte Rendus Hebdomadaires de Scéances de |’ Académie des Sciences 6: 738— 
744. 
Butler, P. M. 1948. On the evolution of the skull and teeth in the Erinaceidae, with 
special reference to fossil material in the British Museum. Proceedings of the 
Zoological Society, London 118 (2): 446-500. 
Corbet, G. B. 1988. The family Erinaceidae: a synthesis of its taxonomy, phylogeny, 
ecology and zoogeography. Mammal Review 18 (3): 117-172. 
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. 
Evolution 39: 783-791. 
Frost, D. R., Wozencraft, W. C. & Hoffmann, R. S. 1991. Phylogenetic relationships 
of hedgehogs and gymnures (Mammalia: Insectivora: Erinaceidae). Smithsonian 
Contributions to Zoology (518): 1-69, 19 plates. 
Gould, G. C. 1995. Hedgehog phylogeny (Mammalia, Erinaceidae) — the reciprocal 
illumination of the quick and the dead. American Museum Novitates (3131): 1-45. 
Kitching, I. J., Forey, P. L., Humphries, C. J. & Williams, D. M. 1998. Cladistics. 
Second edition. The theory and practice of parsimony analysis. Oxford University 
Press, Oxford, New York, Tokyo. 
Lekagul, B. & McNeely, J. A. 1977. Mammals of Thailand. Kurusapha Ladprao Press, 
Bangkok. 
McDowell, S. B. 1958. The greater Antillean insectivores. Bulletin of the American 
Museum of Natural History 115 (3): 117-214. 
McKenna, M. C. & Bell, S. K. 1997. Classification of mammals above the species 
level. Columbia University Press, New York. 
Mearns, E. A. 1905. Descriptions of new genera and species of mammals from the 
Philippine Islands. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 28: 425-460. 
Miiller, S. 1840. Over de Zoogdieren van den Indischen Archipel (No. 2) pp. 9-57. In 
C. J. Temminck (ed.) Verhandelingen over de Natuurlijke Geschiedenis der 
Nederlandsche overzeesche bezittingen, door de Leden der Natuurkundige commissie 
in Indié en andere Schrijvers. A. Amz & Co., Leiden. 
Novacek, M. J. 1986. The skull of lepticid insectivorans and the higher-level classi- 
fication of eutherian mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 
183 (1): 1-111. 
Osgood, W. H. 1932. Mammals of the Kelley-Roosevelts and Delacour Asiatic 
expeditions. Publications of the Field Musuem of Natural History, Zoology (18): 
193-339. 
Raffles, T. S. 1822. Descriptive catalogue of a zoological collection, made on account 
of the Honourable East India Company, in the island of Sumatra and its vicinity, 
under the direction of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, Lieutenant-Governor of Fort 
Marlborough; with additional notices illustrative of the Natural History of these 
countries. Transactions of the Linnean Society, London 13 (1): 239-274. 
Robinson, H. C. & Kloss, C. B. 1916. Preliminary diagnoses of some new species and 
subspecies of mammals and birds obtained in Korinchi, West Sumatra, Feb.—June 
1914. Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (73): 269-278. 
Robinson, M. F. 1999. Order Insectivora, pp. 221-223 In J. W. Duckworth, R. E. Salter 
& Khounboline, K. (compilers) Wildlife in Lao PDR 1999 status report. TUCN, 
Vientiane. 
Ruedi, M., Chapusiat, M. & Iskander, D. 1994. Taxonomic status of Hylomys parvus 
and Hylomys suillus (Insectivora: Erinaceidae): biochemical and morphological 
analyses. Journal of Mammalogy 75 (4): 965-978. 
Swofford, D. L. 1999. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other 
Methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 
Shaw, T. H. & Wong Song 1959. [A new Insectivore from Hainan]. Acta Zoologica 
Sinica 11: 422-425. [In Chinese; English summary]. 
Trouessart, E.-L. 1909. Neotetracus sinensis, a new insectivore of the family 
Erinaceidae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (8) 4: 389-391. 
