Peromyscus eremicus

(Baird, 1857)

Cactus Deermouse

G5Secure Found in 1 roadless area NatureServe Explorer →
G5SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100994
Element CodeAMAFF03010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassMammalia
OrderRodentia
FamilyCricetidae
GenusPeromyscus
Other Common Names
cactus deermouse (EN) Cactus Mouse (EN) Ratón (ES)
Concept Reference
Cornejo-Latorre, C., P. Cortés-Calva, and S. T. Álvarez-Castañeda. 2017. The evolutionary history of the subgenus Haplomylomys (Cricetidae: Peromyscus). Journal of Mammalogy 98(6):1627-1640.
Taxonomic Comments
Peromyscus merriami (Arizona, Sonora, Sinaloa) , P. eva (southern Baja California), and P. avius (Mexico) formerly were included in P. eremicus. Populations occurring in southwestern California and northern Baja California are now recognized as a distinct species, P. fraterculus (Hafner et al. 2001, Riddle et al. 2000). Includes P. interparietalis.

Subspecies collatus formerly was regarded as a distinct species. Peromyscus eremicus pullus is regarded as a synonym of P. e. eremicus (Hoffmeister 1986).

Musser and Carleton (in Wilson and Reeder 2005) recognized P. interparietalis as a species, but data presented by Hafner et al. (2001) suggest only subspecific differentiation from mainland P. eremicus.
Conservation Status
Review Date2006-02-13
Change Date1996-11-08
Edition Date2006-02-13
Range Extent Comments
Southeastern California, southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, northern Arizona, central New Mexico, and western Texas south to northeastern Baja California (Riddle et al. 2000, Hafner et al. 2001), southern Sinaloa, Zacatecas, and San Luis Potosi (see map in Carleton 1989; Musser and Carleton, in Wilson and Reeder 2005). Elevations of 35-2130 m. The Sonoran and Chihuahuan desert populations apparently represent distinct species (Walpole et al. 1997).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

A mouse with a white belly, white feet, large membranous ears lacking a white rim, and naked soles on the hind feet; dorsal pelage varies from dark to buffy to grayish, with ochraceous or fulvous wash; tail nearly always is longer than the head and body, is not distinctly bicolored, has a broad brownish dorsal stripe, and is nearly naked, with hairs about 2-4 mm long at the tip; total length 160-218 mm, tail length 84-128 mm, hind foot length 18-22 mm, ear length 13.4-20.0, mass 18-40 g (usually 18-27 g in subadult and adult males and nonpregnant females); ordinarily no accessory cusps on the first upper molar; premaxillary bones extend noticeably beyond the ends of the nasals posteriorly; zygomatic arches weak and not flared out (Ingles 1965, Veal and Caire 1979, Hoffmeister 1986).

Diagnostic Characteristics

Differs from P. MERRIAMI usually in having a hind foot length of usually less than 21.6 mm rather than larger, smaller total length (185-223 mm in MERRIAMI), lacking a pectoral spot, having whitish rather than frequently cream-colored underparts, mastoidal breadth less than 11.55 mm rather than larger, alveolar length of maxillary toothrow less than 4.18 mm rather than more, greatest length of skull less than 25.75 mm rather than more, baculum curving dorsally rather than ventrally, length of baculum less than 8.5 mm rather than more (these differences are usual, not absolute; identifications should be made using a combination of characters; Hoffmeister 1986). Differs from P. CRINITUS in lacking a noticeable tuft of hairs at the tip of the tail (which in CRINITUS is well haired), having shorter and less silky fur, and having the premaxillaries extending posterior to the ends of the nasals (Hoffmeister 1986, which see for further cranial distinctions). Differs from P. LEUUCOPUS in having a actually and relatively longer tail (tail is shorter than head and body in LEUCOPUS), lacking white border on ears, having a less prominent dorsal tail stripe, weaker and less bowed zygomatic arches, a smaller hind foot (usually 21-24 mm in LEUCOPUS), and 2 pairs of mammary glands instead of 3 pairs (Hoffmeister 1986). Differs from P. BOYLII in less heavily haired and less bicolored tail, smaller ears, upper molars 1-2 without mesolophs, auditory bullae less inflated, nasal branches of premaxillaries extending posteriorly beyond nasala rather than the reverse, glans penis relatively broader, 2 pairs of mammary glands instead of 3 pairs, and hind foot usually 18-21 mm rather than 21-24 mm (Hoffmeister 1986). Differs from P. CALIFORNICUS by being smaller (CALIFORNICUS: 220-266 mm total length, 117-148 mm tail, 25-29 mm hind foot, 20-25 mm ear) and lacking a well-haired tail (see Veal and Caire 1979). PEROMYSCUS MANICULATUS has extra mesolophs on upper molars 1-2, tail shorter than the head and body, and 3 pairs of mammary glands (Hoffmeister 1986). See Veal and Caire (1979) for distinctions between EREMICUS and P. EVA in southern Baja California. Most of the preceding comparisons are based on data from Arizona; details may differ in other locations.

Habitat

Rocky areas as well as localities with sandy substrates and loamy soils (Veal and Caire 1979). Deserts and pinyon-juniper zone. Nests have been found in rock heaps, stone walls, burrows, and brush fences (Veal and Caire 1979); also in woodrat houses.

Ecology

Average home range has been estimated at 0.3 hectares (Veal and Caire 1979).

Reproduction

Gestation lasts 3-5 weeks, longest in lactating females. Litter size is 1-6 (average 2-3). Young are weaned in about 18 days. Males and females in breeding condition have been trapped throughout the year (Veal and Caire 1979). Apparently monogamous mating system.
Terrestrial Habitats
Woodland - ConiferShrubland/chaparralDesertBare rock/talus/scree
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN5
ProvinceRankNative
UtahS2Yes
New MexicoS5Yes
TexasS5Yes
NevadaS5Yes
CaliforniaSNRYes
Navajo NationS3Yes
ArizonaS5Yes
Roadless Areas (1)
Arizona (1)
AreaForestAcres
WhetstoneCoronado National Forest20,728
References (32)
  1. American Society of Mammalogists (ASM). 2025. Mammal Diversity Database (Version 1.13) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10595931. Online. Available: https://www.mammaldiversity.org/
  2. Banks, E. M., R. J. Brooks, and J. Schnell. 1975. A radiotracking study of home range and activity of the brown lemming (<i>Lemmus trimucronatus</i>). Journal of Mammalogy 56:888-901.
  3. Bowman, J. C., M. Edwards, L. S. Sheppard, and G. J. Forbes. 1999. Record distance for a non-homing movement by a deer mouse, <i>Peromyscus maniculatus</i>. Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:292-293.
  4. Brooks, R. J., and E. M. Banks. 1971. Radio-tracking study of lemming home range. Communications in Behavioral Biology 6:1-5.
  5. Bureau of Land Management. Life History Summaries.
  6. Carleton, M. D. 1989. Systematic and evolution. Pp. 7-142 in Kirkland, G. L. and Layne, J. N., eds. Advances in the Study of <i>Peromyscus </i>(Rodentia). Lubbock, Texas Tech University Press.
  7. Castleberry, S., B., T. L. King, P. B. Wood, and W. M. Ford. 2002. Microsatellite DNA analysis of population structure in Allegheny woodrats (<i>Neotoma magister</i>). Journal of Mammalogy 83:1058-1070.
  8. Cornejo-Latorre, C., P. Cortés-Calva, and S. T. Álvarez-Castañeda. 2017. The evolutionary history of the subgenus <i>Haplomylomys </i>(Cricetidae: Peromyscus). Journal of Mammalogy 98(6):1627-1640.
  9. Douglass, R. J. 1977. Population dynamics, home ranges, and habitat associations of the yellow-cheeked vole, <i>Microtus xanthognathus</i>, in the Northwest Territories. Canadian Field-Naturalist 91:237-47.
  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. Hafner, D. J., B. R. Riddle, and S. T. Alvarez-Castañeda. 2001. Evolutionary relationships of white-footed mice (<i>Peromyscus</i>) on islands in the Sea of Cortez. Journal of Mammalogy 82:775-790.
  12. 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.
  13. Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 602 pp.
  14. Ingles, L. G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
  15. Jike, L., G. O. Batzli, L. L. Geta. 1988. Home ranges of prairie voles as determined by radiotracking and by powdertracking. Journal of Mammalogy 69:183-186.
  16. 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.
  17. King, J. A. (ed.). 1968. Biology of <i>Peromyscus</i> (Rodentia). Am. Soc. Mamm. Spec. Publ. No. 2. 593 pp.
  18. Kirkland, G. L., Jr., and J. N. Layne. 1989. Advances in the study of <i>Peromyscus </i>(Rodentia). Texas Tech Univ. Press, Lubbock.
  19. Krohne, D. T., and G. A. Hoch. 1999. Demography of <i>Peromyscus leucopus</i> populations on habitat patches: the role of dispersal. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1247-1253.
  20. 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.
  21. Maier, T. J. 2002. Long-distance movements by female white-footed mice, <i>Peromyscus leucopus</i>, in extensive mixed-wood forest. Canadian Field-Naturalist 116:108-111.
  22. Mammalian Species, nos. 1-604. Published by the American Society of Mammalogists.
  23. 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.
  24. Rehmeier, R. L., G. A. Kaufman, and D. W. Kaufman. 2004. Long-distance movements of the deer mouse in tallgrass prairie. Journal of Mammalogy 85:562-568.
  25. Riddle, B. R., D. J. Hafner, and L. F. Alexander. 2000. Phylogeography and systematics of the <i>Peromyscus eremicus</i> species group and the historical biogeography of North American warm regional deserts. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 17:145-160.
  26. Smith, M. H. 1965. Dispersal capacity of the dusky-footed wood rat, <i>Neotoma fuscipes</i>. American Midland Naturalist 74:457-463.
  27. Storer, T. I., F. C. Evans, and F. G. Palmer. 1944. Some rodent populations in the Sierra Nevada of California. Ecological Monographs 14:166-192.
  28. Veal, R. and W. Caire. 1979. <i>Peromyscus eremicus</i>. Am. Soc. Mamm., Mammalian Species No. 118:1-6.
  29. Walpole, D. K., S. K. Davis, and I. F. Greenbaum. 1997. Variation in mitochondrial DNA in populations of <i>Peromyscus eremicus</i> from the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts. Journal of Mammalogy 78:397-404.
  30. Wilkins, K. T. 1982. Highways as barriers to rodent dispersal. Southwestern Naturalist 27: 459-460.
  31. 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/.
  32. 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]