Bull. nat. Hist. Mus. Lond. (Zool.) 68(1): 1-11 
Issued 27 June 2002 

Another variation on the gymnure theme: 
description of a new species of Hylomys 
(Lipotyphla, Erinaceidae, Galericinae). 

PAULINA D. JENKINS 
Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD 
MARK F. ROBINSON 
Waterway Conservation & Regeneration, British Waterways, Llanthony Warehouse, Gloucester Docks, 
Gloucester, GLI 2EJ 
SYNOPSIS. 

A new species of Hylomys from Lao Peoples Democratic Republic is described, based on morphological 
comparisons with other members of the subfamily Galericinae. The relationships revealed by a phylogenetic analysis are 
discussed and compared with those of a previous published analysis. 
INTRODUCTION 
The Family Erinaceidae is divided into two subfamilies: the wide- 
spread Erinaceinae (hedgehogs) occuring in Africa, Europe and 
Asia, and the Galericinae (moonrats and gymnures), which is con- 
fined to southeast Asia, Indonesia and the Philippines. There has 
been considerable disagreement over the correct name to apply to 
the subfamily of moonrats and gymnures, summarised by Frost er al. 
(1991), who favoured the use of Hylomyinae. McKenna & Bell 
(1997) pointed out however, that the use of Galericini as a tribal 
name by Butler (1948) had been accepted by many subsequent 
writers, particularly palaeontologists, and was therefore the appro- 
priate name to use. In this paper we follow McKenna & Bell (1997) 
in using the name Galericinae. Most authors up to and including 
Corbet (1988), considered that the Galericinae includes five genera: 
Echinosorex Blainville, 1838, Hylomys Miiller, 1840, Neotetracus 
Trouessart, 1909, Neohylomys Shaw & Wong, 1959 and 
Podogymnura Mearns, 1905, all but the latter being monotypic. In 
their revision of the family Erinaceidae, Frost et al.(1991) con- 
cluded that there are only three valid genera within the Galericinae: 
Echinosorex, Podogymnura and Hylomys. They accepted Hylomys 
as a rather variable but nevertheless monophyletic genus, although 
they conceded that there was evidence to support the retention of 
Neotetracus and Neohylomys as subgenera. 
The genus Hylomys is widely distributed in southeast Asia and 
Indonesia. Hylomys suillus Miiller, 1840 occurs in Malaysia, Indo- 
nesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lao Peoples Democratic 
Republic (PDR), Myanmar and southern PDR China; in Lao PDR it 
has been recorded from Phongsali, Xiangkhouang, Vientiane and 
Dong Hua Sao National Biodiversity Conservation Area (NBCA) 
(Robinson, 1999). A number of different subspecies have been 
attributed to H. suillus and the biochemical and metrical variation 
within this species was examined by Ruedi ef al. (1994). They 
recognised that much of the high level of variation could be attrib- 
uted to the geographical and altitudinal isolation of the named forms 
but demonstrated that one of these taxa, H. parvus Robinson & 
Kloss, 1916, merited specific status. Hylomys sinensis (Trouessart, 
1909) occurs from southern China to Myanmar and northern Viet- 
nam; it has not been recorded from Lao PDR but is likely to occur in 
those areas adjacent to northern Vietnam, whence it is recorded by 
Osgood (1932). Hylomys hainanensis (Shaw & Wong, 1959) is 
© The Natural History Museum, 2002 
restricted to Hainan Island, PDR China and H. parvus is known only 
from Sumatra, Indonesia. Another geographically isolated 
undescribed gymnure has been discovered recently from a region of 
limestone karst in the Lao PDR. While sharing many characters with 
other species of Hylomys this new species also differs markedly 
from its congeners and, furthermore, shares some features with 
geographically remote species of Podogymnura. The new taxon has 
been compared in particular with specimens of H. suillus, although 
there is no indication that the two species occur sympatrically, and 
also with H. sinensis, H. parvus and, in the absence of specimens, 
with the original description of H. hainanensis and the figures of the 
skull of this species in Frost er al. (1991). In addition comparisons 
were made with the other genera of Galericinae: Echinosorex 
gymnura (Raffles, 1822) from Malaysia and Indonesia, and 
Podogymnura truei Mearns, 1905 from the Philippines. In order to 
assess phylogenetic relationships, both the new taxon and H. parvus 
were analysed using the criteria employed by Frost et al. (1991). 
MATERIAL AND METHODS 
Comparative material was examined from the collections of the 
Natural History Museum (BMNH), London (formerly the British 
Museum (Natural History)), the American Museum of Natural 
History, New York (AMNH), the Muséum National d’ Histoire 
Naturelle, Paris (MNHN) and the Thailand Institute of Scientific 
and Technological Research, Bangkok (TISTR), as listed in Table 1. 
All measurements are in millimetres and were taken using digital 
calipers. Cranial and dental nomenclature follows Butler (1948), 
Novacek (1986), Frost et al. (1991) and Gould (1995). Dental 
notations are indicated in the text in the following manner, with 
premaxillary and maxillary teeth denoted by uppercase letters and 
mandibular teeth by lowercase: incisor (I/1), canine (C/c), premolar 
(P/p), molar (M/m), thus P3 refers to the third upper premolar, i2 to 
the second lower incisor. 
PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS 
Cranial, dental, skeletal and external characters were scored for the 
new species and H. parvus according to the character transformation 
