Phyllotini. Includes forms formerly associated with Graomys; morphological and karyotypic traits summarized by Olds et al. (1987), who emended the generic diagnosis. Closely related to Graomys (e.g., Olds et al., 1987), but recent phylogentic colloquy has centered on the monophyly and ergo the generic validity of the taxon. Braun (1993) and Steppan (1993, 1995), using morphological characters, found that exemplars of Andalgalomys associated among those of Graomys; the former author retained Andalgalomys as genus whereas the latter formally merged it under Graomys (in a reanalysis, Steppan and Sullivan, 2000, provisionally retained both as genera). Taxonomically narrow (Anderson and Yates, 2000) and broad (D’Elía et al., 2003) surveys of cytochrome b sequences do convey the monophyly of Andalgalomys, well delineated from species of Graomys, on resultant trees.
The issue has become more complex commensurate with the emerging appreciation of taxonomic diversity within this phyllotine assemblage, expressed at both the generic (Salinomys Braun and Mares, 1995; Tapecomys Anderson and Yates, 2000) and specific (Andalgalomys roigi Mares and Braun, 1996) levels, and the shifting snapshots of cladistic relationship as these new forms are serially considered (e.g., compare Braun and Mares, 1995, with Anderson and Yates, 2000, and Steppan and Sullivan, 2000). As is sometimes the case, the conflicting nomenclatural recommendations rest variably on the scope of sampled species, the character bases referenced, and the requisite weight to be accorded recent statistical methodologies vis a vis differential diagnosis (see Mares and Braun [2000b] and Steppan and Sullivan  for an engaging representation of issues and viewpoints). Given the nascent stage of our systematic understanding, Anderson and Yates (2000) offered a reasoned overview of the problems to be resolved and a reasonable provisional taxonomy that we follow here.