Roadless Areas
Home/Species/ Little Pocket Mouse

Perognathus longimembris

(Coues, 1875)

Little Pocket Mouse

G5Secure Found in 1 roadless area NatureServe Explorer →
G5SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
PSESA Status
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102955
Element CodeAMAFD01040
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassMammalia
OrderRodentia
FamilyHeteromyidae
GenusPerognathus
USESAPS
Other Common Names
little pocket mouse (EN)
Concept Reference
Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Taxonomic Comments
Perognathus longimembris arizonensis may represent a distinct species based on mitochondrial data, but following the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM), this view has not been followed in recent work and is tentatively not followed by ASM (2024).
Conservation Status
Review Date1996-11-07
Change Date1996-11-07
Range Extent>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 to >300
Rank Reasons
Large range in western North America; common in many areas.
Range Extent Comments
Western U.S. and northwestern Mexico: southeastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho south through eastern, central and southern California, Nevada, western and southern Utah, and scattered parts of Arizona to northern Baja California and western Sonora. Does not occur in central California west of the Sierra Nevada (Williams et al. 1993).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

Pinkish- or ochraceous-buff or grayish buff above, pale tawny to buffy or white below; pelage soft, with no bristles or spines; two small whitish patches at the base of the ear; adult total length 100-155 mm, tail 53-86 mm (plus 3-7 mm hair tuft), hind foot 15-20 mm, ear 5-7 mm (Hall 1981, Ingles 1965).

Diagnostic Characteristics

Differs from CHAETODIPUS spp. in softer pelage that lacks spines or bristles (see Hall 1981 for cranial differences between CHAETODIPUS and PEROGNATHUS). Differs from P. ALTICOLUS, P. XANTHONOTUS, P. PARVUS, and P. FORMOSUS in smaller hind foot (less than 20 mm vs. more than 20 mm), unlobed antitragus, and occipitonasal length usually less than 24 mm rather than usually more than 24 mm (Hall 1981). Differs from P. FASCIATUS, P. FLAVUS, and P. FLAVESCENS in having the tail longer than the head and body rather than equal to or shorter than the head and body. Adults differ from P. AMPLUS in smaller size (maximum total length 15 cm vs. 17 cm) and shorter tail (usually 67-81 mm vs. 75-88 mm; less than 75% of head and body length in LONGIMEMBRIS, more than 75% in AMPLUS) (Hall 1981, Hoffmesiter 1986); see Hoffmeister (1986) for a detailed account of the differences between the very similar P. LONGIMEMBRIS and P. AMPLUS. Differs from P. INORNATUS in smaller mastoidal bullae.

Habitat

Sandy soil in valleys; firm sandy soil, overlain with pebbles, on slopes with widely spaced shrubs. In sagebrush, creosote bush, and cactus communities in Lower and Upper Sonoran life zones. Young are born in a nest in an underground burrow.

Ecology

Primarily solitary. Populations may fluctuate markedly from year to year and seasonally. In some areas this is the most abundant mammal; populations have been estimated to be as high as 400/acre (Hall 1946); other estimates generally have been not more than about 1-6/ha (see Zeiner et al. 1990). Home range size generally averages not more than a few hectares (see Zeiner et al. 1990).

Reproduction

Breeding season generally peaks in spring, varies with temperatures, food supply, and plant growth. Produces 1 (usually) or 2 litters/year, 2-8 young/litter. Gestation lasts 21-31 days. Young are weaned in 30 days. Sexually mature in 2-5 months. May not reproduce in years with below average precipitation (Kenagy and Bartholomew 1985).
Terrestrial Habitats
Shrubland/chaparralGrassland/herbaceousDesert
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN5
ProvinceRankNative
CaliforniaSNRYes
OregonS4Yes
UtahS3Yes
Navajo NationS3Yes
ArizonaS5Yes
NevadaS5Yes
IdahoS1Yes
Roadless Areas (1)
California (1)
AreaForestAcres
Wonoga Pk.Inyo National Forest11,272
References (40)
  1. American Society of Mammalogists (ASM). 2024. The Mammal Diversity Database (MDD). Online. Available: www.mammaldiversity.org
  2. Bartholomew, G. A., and H. H. Caswell. 1951. Locomotion in kangaroo rats and its adaptive significance. Journal of Mammalogy 32:155-169.
  3. Best, T. L. 1994. <i>Perognathus alticolus</i>. Mammalian Species No. 463:1-4.
  4. Blair, W. F. 1943. Populations of the deer mouse and associated small mammals in the mesquite associations of southern New Mexico. Contributions of the Laboratory of Vertebrate Biology, University of Michigan, No. 21. 40 pp.
  5. Bleich, V. C. 1977. <i>Dipodomys stephensi</i>. Mammalian Species No. 73:1-3.
  6. Bradford, D. F. 1976. Space utilization by rodents in <i>Adenostoma </i>chaparral. Journal of Mammalogy 57:576-579.
  7. Burt, W. H. and R. P. Grossenheider. 1964. A field guide to the mammals. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
  8. Chew, R. M., and B. B. Butterworth. 1964. Ecology of rodents in Indian Cove (Mojave Desert), Joshua Tree National Monument, California. Journal of Mammalogy 45:203-225.
  9. Fitch, H. S. 1948. Habits and economic relationships of the Tulare kangaroo rat. Journal of Mammalogy 29:5-35.
  10. Garland, T., Jr. and W. G. Bradley. 1984. Effects of a highway on Mojave Desert rodent populations. American Midland Naturalist 111:47-56.
  11. Genoways, H. H., and J. H. Brown, editors. 1993. Biology of the Heteromyidae. American Society of Mammalogists Special Publication No. 10. 719 pp.
  12. Ghiselin, J. 1970. Edaphic control of habitat selection by kangaroo mice (<i>Microdipodops</i>) in three Nevada populations. Oecologia 4:248-261.
  13. Hall, E. R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. The University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
  14. Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I &amp; II. John Wiley &amp; Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.
  15. Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 602 pp.
  16. Ingles, L. G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
  17. Iverson, S. L. 1967. Adaptations to arid environments in <i>Perognathus parvus</i> (Peale). Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. British Columbia, Vancouver. 130pp.
  18. Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.
  19. Jorgensen, C. D., and C. L. Hayward. 1965. Mammals of the Nevada test site. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biol. Ser. No. 7. 81pp.
  20. Kenagy, G. J., and G. A. Bartholomew. 1985. Seasonal reproductive patterns in five coexisting California desert rodent species. Ecolog. Monogr. 55:371-397.
  21. Larrison, E.J. and D.R. Johnson. 1981. Mammals of Idaho. The University of Idaho Press, Moscow.
  22. MacMillen, R. E. 1964. Population ecology, water relations and social behavior of a southern California semidesert rodent fauna. University of California Publications in Zoology 71:1-59.
  23. Maza, B. G., N. R. French, and A. P. Aschwanden. 1973. Home range dynamics in a population of heteromyid rodents. Journal of Mammalogy 54:405-425.
  24. McKnight, M. L. 1995. Mitochondrial DNA phylogeography of <i>Perognathus amplus</i> and <i>Perognathus longimembris </i>(Rodentia: Heteromyidae): a possible mammalian ring species. Evolution 49:816-826.
  25. McKnight, M. L. 2005. Phylogeny of the <i>Perognathus longimembris</i> species group based on mitochondrial cytochrome-b: how many species?. Journal of Mammalogy 86(4):826-832.
  26. McKnight, M. L., and M. R. Lee. 1992. Karyotypic variation in the pocket mice <i>Perognathus amplus</i> and <i>P. longimembris</i>. J. Mamm. 73:625-629.
  27. O'Farrell, M. J. 1978. Home range dynamics of rodents in a sagebrush community. Journal of Mammalogy 59:657-68.
  28. O'Farrell, M.J. and A.R. Blaustein. 1974b. <i>Microdipodops megacephalus</i>. Mammalian Species 46:1-3.
  29. O'Farrell, T. P., R. J. Olson, R. O. Gilbert, and J. D. Hedlund. 1975. A population of Great Basin pocket mice, <i>Perognathus parvus</i>, in the shrub-steppe of south-central Washington. Ecological Monographs 45:1-28.
  30. Oxley, D. J., M. B. Fenton and G. R. Carmody. 1974. The effects of roads on populations of small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 11: 51-59.
  31. Reynolds, H. G., and H. S. Haskell. 1949. Life history notes on Price and Bailey pocket mice of southern Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy 30:150-156.
  32. Riddle, B. R. 1995. Molecular biogeography in the pocket mice (<i>Perognathus </i> and <i>Chaetodipus</i>) and grasshopper mice (<i>Onychomys</i>): the late Cenozoic development of a North American aridlands rodent guild. Journal of Mammalogy 76:283-301.
  33. Ryan, J. M. 1989. Comparative myology and phylogenetic systematics of the Heteromyidae (Mammalia, Rodentia). Univ. Michigan Museum Zoology Miscellaneous Publication (176):1-103.
  34. Thomas, J. R., Jr. 1975. Distribution, population densities, and home range requirements of the Stephens' kangaroo rat (<i>Dipodomys stephensi</i>). M.S. Thesis, California State Polytechnic University, Ponoma. 64pp.
  35. Wilkins, K. T. 1982. Highways as barriers to rodent dispersal. Southwestern Naturalist 27: 459-460.
  36. Williams, D. F., H. H. Genoways, and J. K. Braun. 1993a. Taxonomy. Pages 38-196 in H. H. Genoways and J. H. Brown, editors. Biology of the Heteromyidae. Am. Soc. Mamm., Spec. Publ. 10:1-719.
  37. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
  38. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. [As modified by ASM the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) at https://www.mammaldiversity.org/index.html]
  39. Wilson D. E., T. E. Lacher, and R. A. Mittermeier. 2016. Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Volume 6. Lagomorphs and Rodents I. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 987 pp.
  40. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, editors. 1990b. California's wildlife. Volume III. Mammals. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 407 pp.