Red List of South African Species

Alternatively, Explore species
| National Red List categories | Partners |
Data Deficient (DD)
Assessors: Claire Relton Peter Taylor Ara Monadjem
Contributors: Matthew Child Nico Avenant Margaret Avery Rod Baxter Duncan MacFadyen Guy Palmer Beryl Wilson
Reviewers: Claire Relton Peter Taylor Ara Monadjem

Rationale

This species is listed as Data Deficient in view of continuing uncertainty as to its extent of occurrence, natural history, threats and population size. Within the assessment region there are only a handful of records from Mkhuze Game Reserve and Wolkberg Nature Reserve. The species appears to be naturally uncommon, and its conservation status and taxonomy are unclear. Further vetting of museum records and field surveys are required to resolve the uncertainty around this species. It should be reassessed when additional data become available.

Regional population effects: Isolated and disjunct subpopulations of this species have been recorded in South Africa and Zimbabwe/Zambia, thus no rescue effect is possible.

Distribution

Thomas’s Pygmy Mouse has a largely unresolved distribution, as it is commonly misidentified as M. minutoides, but is thought to range patchily from northern South Africa northwards to Tanzania (Monadjem et al. 2015). Although, further investigation and confirmation is necessary, this species has been reported from north-eastern South Africa, southern Zimbabwe, western and southern Mozambique, Zambia, southern Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo (Skinner & Chimimba 2005).

Within the assessment region, it is only known from two localities at present: Wolkberg Wilderness Area in Limpopo Province, where Newbery and Bronner (2002) first confirmed the presence of the species within the assessment region, and Mkhuze Game Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal (Figure 1), which was identified both morphologically and genetically (Lamb et al. 2014). Newbery and Bronner (2002) suggest that the species may be more widespread in Limpopo, but additional surveying is needed to determine the extent of its distribution in the assessment region.

Population trend

Trend

The current population abundance of M. neavei is unknown, partly because it is frequently mistaken for M. minutoides and M. indutus. These species are extremely difficult to distinguish from one another without thorough analysis of their teeth. Thomas’s Pygmy Mouse has three-roots on its second lower molars, whereas the Desert Pygmy Mouse and the Pygmy Mouse have only two roots on these teeth. Additionally, Thomas’s Pygmy Mouse has pro-odont incisors, rather than opisthodont incisors, as seen in the other two species (Meester et al. 1986; Lamb et al. 2014).

Only a handful of records exist for this species within the assessment region and the Mkhuze record was collected over intensive pitfall trapping. This specimen was identified as M. neavei based on its distinct tawny fur colour and pro-odont incisors, but was extremely alike in cytochrome b sequence divergence to M. minutoides (Lamb et al. 2014).

Threats

As this species has only been confirmed from two localities in South Africa, the extent of its distribution is unknown, and thus the major threats to this species cannot be distinguished.

Uses and trade

This species does not appear to be utilised or traded in any form.

Conservation

It is possible that this species is located within more protected areas within Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal provinces, but this cannot be established until the range of this species has been more thoroughly investigated. Additional research into the population abundance, distribution, general ecology and threats faced by this species is necessary for a more accurate investigation of its conservation status.

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners:
  • Fieldwork to survey for subpopulations and assess its distributional limits and the extent of anthropogenic threats is urgently needed.
Research priorities:
  • Research is needed to establish the geographic range limits and to gather basic data on natural history of this species, including taxonomy, ecology, and population size, distribution and trends.
  • Vetting of museum records to identify previously unidentified localities.
  • Studies into specific threats to this species, and corresponding conservation actions are needed.
Encouraged citizen actions: None

References 

[@book{275,
 address = {Cambridge},
 author = {Skinner, J.D. and Chimimba, C.T.},
 publisher = {Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom},
 title = {The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion},
 year = {2005}
}
,@book{1087,
 address = {Pretoria, South Africa},
 author = {Meester, J.A.J., Rautenbach, I.L., Dippenaar, N.J. and Baker, C.M.},
 publisher = {Transvaal Museum },
 title = {Classification of Southern African Mammals. Monograph number 5.},
 year = {1986}
}
,@book{14262,
 address = {Berlin, Germany},
 author = {Monadjem, A., Taylor, P.J., Denys, C. and Cotterill, F.P.D.},
 publisher = {De Gruyter},
 title = {Rodents of Sub-Saharan Africa: A Biogeographic and Taxonomic Synthesis. },
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{21693,
 author = {Bronner, G.N., Hoffman, M., Taylor, P.J., Chimimba, C.T., Best, P.B., Matthee, C.A. and Robinson, T.J.},
 journal = {Durban Museum Novitates},
 pages = {56--106},
 title = {A revised systematic checklist of the extant mammals of the southern African subregion},
 volume = {28},
 year = {2003}
}
,@inbook{45097,
 address = {Washington, DC, USA},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {Family Muridae},
 editor = {Musser, G.G. and Carleton, M.D.},
 pages = {501--736},
 publisher = {Smithsonian Institution Press},
 title = {Mammal species of the world: A taxonomic and geographic reference},
 year = {1993}
}
,@article{13964,
 author = {Lamb, J., Downs, S., Eiseb, S. and Taylor, P.J.},
 journal = {Mammalian Biology},
 pages = {24--35},
 title = {Increased geographic sampling reveals considerable new genetic diversity in the morphologically conservative African Pygmy Mice (Genus <i>Mus</i>; Subgenus <i>Nannomys</i>)},
 volume = {79},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{13973,
 author = {Skinner, J.D. and Smithers, R.H.N.},
 title = {The mammals of the southern African subregion},
 year = {1990}
}
,@article{13973,
 author = {Newberry, C. H. and Bronner, G. N.},
 journal = {Koedoe},
 pages = {127--128},
 title = {Confirmation of the occurrence of <i>Mus neavei</i> in South Africa},
 volume = {45},
 year = {2002}
}
,@article{13973,
 author = {Petter, F.},
 journal = {Mammalia},
 number = {3},
 pages = {313--320},
 title = {Les souris africaines de groupe <i>Sorella</i> (Rongeurs, Murids)},
 volume = {45},
 year = {1981}
}
,@inbook{13973,
 address = {Chilanga, Zambia},
 author = {Ansell, W.F.H.},
 booktitle = {The Mammals of Zambia},
 pages = {73--74},
 publisher = {The National Parks and Wildlife Service},
 title = {The Mammals of Zambia},
 year = {1978}
}
,]
Send feedback about this assessment to SANBI

Lead agencies, Partners and Funders

See the partners page