Neotomini. Phylogenetic relationships of the genus considered by Hooper and Musser (1964a), Carleton (1980), and Edwards and Bradley (2002b). Anatomical systems described by Arata (1964), Burt and Barkalow (1942), Carleton (1973, 1980), Hooper (1960), and Howell (1926); fossil taxa (Miocene-Recent) and trends in dental evolution reviewed by Zakrewski (1993). Karyotypic variation and evolution assessed by Mascarello and Hsu (1976) and Koop et al. (1985); multispecific surveys of molecular variation and its systematic implications covered by Planz et al. (1996), Edwards and Bradley (2001, 2002a, b), and Edwards et al. (2001), especially for temperate forms.
Revised by Goldman (1910), then including only Homodontomys, Teonoma, and the nominate subgenus. Burt and Barkalow (1942) established the prevailing subgeneric framework (e.g., Hall, 1981), also relegating Hodomys and Teanopus to subgenera. Carleton (1973, 1980) reinstated Hodomys as a genus (see above account), an action supported by phylogenetic analysis of cytochrome b sequences (Edwards and Bradley, 2002b). Traditional species groups within the subgenus Neotoma (e.g., Burt and Barkalow, 1942; Goldman, 1910) are undergoing critical reassessment; see Birney (1976), Mascarello (1978), Planz et al. (1996), Edwards et al. (2001), and Edwards and Bradley (2002a, b) for evolving views on interspecific affinities.