Goodfellows’s Tuco-tuco

Ctenomys goodfellowi

French: Tuco-tuco de Goodfellow / German: Goodfellow-Kammratte / Spanish: Tuco tuco de Goodfellow

Taxonomy. Ctenomys goodfellowi Thomas, 1921,

“Esperanza, near Conception, Prov. Nuflo de Chaves, E. Bolivia,” 16° 15’ S and 62° 04’ W, 400 m, Santa Cruz Department, Bolivia.

Validity of Ctenomys goodfellowi isstill under discussion. Some authors considered it a “good” species, but a recent report about species of Ctenomys from Bolivia did not recognize it. Based on biogeographical studies, it belongs to the Bolivian-Matogrossense group, but using mtDNA,it has been shown as belonging to the boliviensisspecies group. Chromosomal complement is 2n = 46 and FN = 68, with symmetric shape of sperm. Monotypic.

Distribution. E Bolivia (NC Santa Cruz Department), known only from two localities (Esperanza and from 10 km N of San Ramon, La Laguna).

Descriptive notes. Head-body 240 mm (males) and 186-214 mm (females), tail 93 mm (males) and 71-79 mm (females). No specific data are available for body weight. Goodfellows’s Tuco-tuco is large but slightly smaller than the Bolivian Tucotuco ( C. boliviensis). Colors of Goodfellows’s Tuco-tuco are also very similar to those of the Bolivian Tuco-tuco, but dark dorsal line is heavier and white undersurface is reduced to discrete axillary and inguinal patches. Skull of Goodfellows’s Tuco-tuco is generally smaller and less ridged than that of the Bolivian Tuco-tuco; zygomatic arc is less thickened, and bullae are smaller and less inflated. Incisors of Goodfellows’s Tuco-tuco are broad and heavy orange, and premolars are also very large and orange.

Habitat. There is no information available for this species.

Food and Feeding. There is no information available for this species.

Breeding. There is no information available for this species.

Activity patterns. There is no information available for this species.

Movements, Home range and Social organization. There is no information available for this species.

Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCN Red List.

Bibliography. Anderson (1997), Bidau (2015).