Systematic Status of the Cumberland Island 



Pocket Gopher, Geomys cumberlandius 



Joshua Laerm 



Museum of Natural History and Department of Zoology, 



University of Georgia, A then, Georgia 30602 



ABSTRACT. — The Cumberland Island pocket gopher, Geomys cum- 

 berlandius, is known only from its type locality on Cumberland Island, 

 Camden County, Georgia. Statistical analyses of 21 morphometric 

 characters of G. cumberlandius and 5 mainland populations of G. 

 pinetis indicate that coastal populations of G pinetis are more similar 

 to G cumberlandius than they are to more inland populations of G 

 pinetis. These data, coupled with the Recent connection of Cumber- 

 land Island to the mainland, argue against taxonomic recognition of 

 G. cumberlandius, which is therefore regarded as a synonym of G 

 pinetis. 



INTRODUCTION 



Until the recent work of Williams and Genoways (1980), Geomys 

 cumberlandius Bangs was recognized as one of four nominal species of 

 pocket gophers occurring in Georgia (Hall and Kelson 1959; see also 

 Hall 1981). It has been considered monotypic and known only from its 

 type locality on Cumberland Island, Camden County, Georgia (Fig. 1). 

 Geomys colonus Bangs and Geomys fontanelus Sherman were also con- 

 sidered monotypic and known only from their type localities in Camden 

 and Chatham counties, Georgia, respectively. Geomys pinetis Rafinesque 

 was considered polytypic and widespread throughout Alabama, Florida 

 and Georgia. 



Geomys cumberlandius was described in 1898. Specimens were 

 taken on Cumberland Island as late as 1956 but no subsequent speci- 

 mens were found and the species had been thought extinct. Recently, 

 however, a small population has been reported on the island (H. Neu- 

 hauser, pers. comm). 



Williams and Genoways (1980) reviewed the systematics of south- 

 eastern pocket gophers and concluded, based on morphometries, that of 

 the four named species only G. pinetis is valid. They recognized only 

 two subspecies, G. p. pinetis and G. p. fontanelus, and synontmized G. 

 cumberlandius and G. colonus with G. p. pinetis. 



This manuscript was in preparation when the Williams and Geno- 

 ways results were published. Because they employed only a portion 

 (77%) of available G. cumberlandius specimens, and did not include in 

 their study several characters upon which cumberlandius was originally 

 described, an independent corroboration of the systematic status of the 

 species is appropriate. The characters they omitted were: width of 

 nasals, breadth of ascending ramus of maxillary, and measurements of 



Brimleyana No. 6: 141-151. December 1981. 141 



