A NEW SPECIES OF HYLOMYS 
£4 (97) 
>8 6 
EB. gymnura 
P. aureospinula 
truei 
H. sinensis 
H. hainanensis 
Hee (Stes 
H. parvus 
H. megalotis 
Erinaceinae 
Fig. 5 Strict consensus of 40 most parsimonious trees. The branch lengths are shown above the branches followed by the bootstrap support values in 
parentheses, representing the percentage of trees containing the specified clades. The Bremer support indices are given below the branches. 
the sphenofrontal foramen and McDowell (1958) as the sinus canal. 
CI 1.000. 
SYNAPOMORPHY OF HYLOMYS SINENSIS, H. HAINANENSIS, H. 
SUILLUS AND H. PARVUS: 
[4.1] Size of palatal foramina: (0) small; (1) anterior foramina 
elongated posteriorly; (2) anterior foramina elongated to include 
middle palatine foramina. CI 1.000. 
SYNAPOMORPHIES OF HYLOMYS SINENSIS, H. HAINANENSIS, H. 
SUILLUS: 
{13.1] Supraorbital process of frontal on parietal/frontal suture: (0) 
absent or poorly defined; (1) sharp, well defined. CI 1.000. 
[16.1] Anterior process of parietal: (0) absent or very weak; (1) 
extends anteriorly along the supraorbital rim to form the base of the 
supraorbital process. CI 1.000. 
[57.1] p3: (0) two roots present, larger in size than p2; (1) one root 
present, nearly equal in size to p2; (2) absent. CI 1.000. 
The analysis found no autapomorphic characters to define H. 
megalotis but the following apomorphies for this species are recorded 
as follows: 
[1.1] Posteriormost extension of nasals: (0) anterior to the level of 
the antorbital rim; (1) medial or posterior to the level of the antorbital 
rim. CI 0.333. Homoplasious with H. sinensis but also with 
Erinaceinae. 
[5.1] Location of the anterior palatine foramina: (0) at the maxilla/ 
palatine suture; (1) anterior to the maxilla/palatine suture. CI 0.500. 
Shown only in DELTRAN, homoplasious with Echinosorex and 
Podogymnura. 
[17.1] Anterior process of alisphenoid: (0) absent; (1) present. CI 
0.500. Homoplasious with Erinaceinae. This character, defined as a 
narrow, fusiform anterior process of the orbital wing of the alisphe- 
noid is, according to Frost et al. (1991), related to the location of the 
sphenopalatine foramen and involved with shortening of the 
orbitotemporal region. Gould (1995) commented that the relative 
position of the suboptic foramen (her character 21 scored thus: (0) 
anterior to the sphenorbital fissure; (1) present in the medial wall of 
the sphenorbital fissure; (2) present in the medial wall of the 
sphenorbital fissure but hidden within the fissure) seems to be 
related to the shortening of the skull in erinaceids. As the skull 
shortens, the alisphenoid overlaps the orbitosphenoid, creating a 
strong alisphenoid wing [character 17 of Frost et al. (1991) and 
Gould (1995)], the degree of overlap seems to be directly related to 
the visibility of the suboptic foramen from lateral view and, as 
pointed out by Butler (1948) the orbitosphenoid is reduced in size. 
While the alisphenoid is more extensive in H. megalotis than in other 
galericines, and the suboptic and sphenorbital foramina are partially 
concealed in lateral view, the orbitotemporal region is not obviously 
shortened. The anterior process in H. megalotis is fully ventral in 
location and is actually or nearly in contact with a short posteroventral 
process of the maxilla, thus contributing to the ventral floor of the 
orbit, however the orbitosphenoid is not reduced in size. It is 
possible that this character state in H. megalotis is not homologous 
with that of the Erinaceinae and that it actually represents a separate 
character transformation, alternatively it is scored incorrectly and 
the plesiomorphous condition should be the presence of the anterior 
process. 
[22.1] Palatal shelf and spine: (0) well developed spine on posterior 
palatal shelf; (1) spine absent or vestigial. CI 0.200. Shown only in 
DELTRAN, homoplasious with Podogymnura, H. parvus, and 
Atelerix. 
DISCUSSION 
The addition of two taxa to the analysis performed by Frost et al. 
(1991) provided broadly similar results in that the Galericinae divided 
intotwo main groups: one comprising Echinosorex and Podogymnura, 
the second including all five species of Hylomys. The results of the 
current phylogenetic analysis lend support to the taxonomy proposed 
by Frost et al. (1991) that the three species of Hylomys considered in 
their analysis (H. suillus, H. sinensis and H. hainanensis) are correctly 
attributed to a single genus rather than the three separate genera 
(respectively Hylomys, Neotetracus and Neohylomys) maintained by 
Corbet (1988). The additional species of Hylomys however, reduced 
the degree of support for the genus and, on this particular morphologi- 
cal data set, a considerable degree of homoplasy 1s evident within the 
Hylomys clade. There was only one unique synapomorphy for the 
