is found in mountainous regions from northern California and western Nevada, eastward to western Texas and Oklahoma, and southward to central Mexico (Hall 1981, Bradley and Schmidly 1999).
pinyon-juniper woodlands, and pine-oak forests (Baker 1968, Findley et al. 1975, Hoffmeister 1986). On a more local scale within these vegetation communities, is most commonly associated with rocky and dense shrub covered areas (Wilson 1968, Holbrook 1978, Boyett 2001). Shrub cover, rock cover, and logs are important habitat components that provide nesting sites and refuge from weather and predators (Bradley and Schmidly 1999). (Baker, 1968; Boyett, 2001; Bradley and Schmidly, 1999; Findley, et al., 1975; Hoffmeister, 1986; Holbrook, 1978; Wilson, 1968)generally occurs at elevations over 2,000 m where it inhabits chaparral,
Peromyscus. No significant sexual dimorphism is evident. The tail is usually longer than the head and body, bicolored (dark gray above and white below), well haired, and tufted at the end. The hind foot is small and similar in length to the ear but sometimes longer. Skull is medium-sized and auditory bullae are not greatly inflated. Upperparts of pelage are medium brown; sides lighter brown with a broad orange lateral line extending from cheek to hindquarters; underparts whitish; ankles dusky gray; and feet whitish below ankle (Hoffmeister 1986, Schmidly et al. 1988, Bradley and Schmidly 1999). The mean and ranges (mm) of the following four external characters are taken from Schmidly et al. (1988): total length, 194.3 (175-210); length of tail, 103.6 (89-115); length of hind foot, 20.1 (19-22); and length of ear, 19.0 (18-21).is a medium-sized
P. crinitus, P. leucopus, and P. maniculatus. differs from P. difficilis and P. truei in having shorter ears and smaller hind feet. Darker ankles rather than white differentiates from P. pectoralis. Several closely related species found in Mexico (P. aztecus, P. beatae, P. levipes, P. simulus, and P. spicilegus) are exceedingly difficult to distinguish from one another (Bradley and Schmidly 1999). They were all previously considered part of , but are now considered separate species based on molecular differences. (Bradley and Schmidly, 1999; Hoffmeister, 1986; Schmidly, et al., 1988)may be confused with P. attwateri, P. crinitus, P. difficilis, P. leucopus, P. maniculatus, P. pectoralis, and P. truei. These species are similar in general appearance and have distributions that overlap with . However, a few external characters may help distinguish from these species (Hoffmeister 1986, Bradley and Schmidly 1999). differs from P. attwateri in having a larger hind foot. A longer tail in relation to head and body length and larger overall size differentiates from
The social behavior ofhas not been well studied when compared to other species of Peromyscus (Wolff 1989). Consequently, little information on the mating system in is available. However, Ribble and Stanley (1998) found that the spatial distributions of male and female in their New Mexico study populations were indicative of a promiscuous mating system. Paternity of litters, however, was not investigated. Additional studies, throughout the range of , are needed to characterize further the type of mating system or systems operating in this species.
At birth, young (Bradley and Schmidly, 1999)are hairless and blind and rely on the mother for care (Bradley and Schmidly 1999).
Little information on the life span/longevity of Peromyscus is typically short with few living more than one year under natural conditions (Terman 1968). In a long-term mark-recapture study of in Arizona, Abbott et al. (1999) found that of more than 300 individuals most survived one year or less. A few individuals survived up to 26 months. Although mark-recapture studies typically underestimate survival and longevity and do not distinguish between dispersal and mortality, they provide a rough estimate of these demographic parameters. (Abbott, et al., 1999; Terman, 1968)in the wild is available. Nevertheless, the longevity of
is nocturnal and active year-round. These mice are skilled climbers (Holbrook 1979, Hoffmeister 1986). Nests, constructed with dry grasses and other vegetation, may be found in tree cavities and rock crevices, under logs and boulders, and in caves and mine shafts (Hoffmeister 1986, Bradley and Schmidly 1999). Hoffmeister (1986) notes that mice living in caves and mine shafts often build open nests similar to those of goldfinches. During periods of environmental stress (e.g., food and/or water scarcity), many species of Peromyscus, including , may employ torpor to temporally escape such stressful conditions (see MacMillen 1983, MacMillen and Garland 1989 and references therein).
In New Mexico, Ribble and Stanley (1998), using radiotelemetry, found that home ranges of male(mean of 0.47 ha) were significantly larger than home ranges of female (mean of 0.26 ha). Additionally, home-range size also varied inversely with population density, and home ranges of females overlapped little with those of other females while home ranges of males overlapped those of several other males and females. These patterns of home-range size and overlap were consistent with a promiscuous mating system for .
Like other Peromyscus species, brush mice have keen eyesight and vision and extensively use chemical cues in communication.
Like other species of Peromyscus, is omnivorous. Its flexible diet varies both temporally and spatially reflecting variation in the availability of food resources across seasons, years, and habitats. In California, Jameson (1952) found that fed extensively on acorns and conifer seeds in winter; insects in spring; manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula) berries and insects in summer; and acorns, conifer seeds, and fungi in fall. In New Mexico, Smartt (1978) found that over a one-year period important food items included, 31% arthropods, 26% juniper fruit and cones, 11% mistletoe, and 5% parts of prickly pear cactus (Opuntia). (Jameson, 1952; Smartt, 1978)
escapes predation through their nocturnal and secretive habits. Their fecundity allows populations to withstand high predation pressures. They are important prey items for many predatory mammals, birds of prey, and snakes, including foxes, owls, hawks, and rattlesnakes.
Most information indicates that (Jameson, 1952)is probably of little positive economic importance. Jameson (1952), however, suggested that may be beneficial to reforestation projects by consuming harmful insect pests in such areas, but he also noted that these mice probably consume the planted seeds. On a large scale, likely has little or no positive economic benefit for humans.
has no special conservation status.
Considerable taxonomic revision has taken place within Peromyscus (see Carleton 1979, Castro-Campillo et al. 1999, Bradley et al. 2000). Bradley and Schmidly (1999) recognize four subspecies: P. b. boylii (northern California and western Nevada); P. b. glasselli (San Pedro Nolasco Island, Sea of Cortéz, Mexico); P. b. rowleyi (southern California to Colorado and western Texas and Oklahoma, south to central Mexico); and P. b. utahensis (central Utah). Hafner et al. (2001) recommended that the insular P. stephani (San Esteban Island, Sea of Cortéz, Mexico) be included as a subspecies of based on mitochondrial DNA sequence data.. Many taxa from Mexico and Central America previously assigned as subspecies of (aztecus, beatae, levipes, madrensis, simulus, and spicilegus) have been elevated to species status (see Alvarez 1961, Carleton 1977, Schmidly et al. 1988) while others (ambiguus, cordillerae, and sacarensis) have been realigned under other species of
Other small mammal species frequently found in association with Neotoma albigula (white-throated wood rats), N. stephensi (Stephen's wood rats), Spermophilus variegatus (rock squirrels), Tamias dorsalis (cliff chipmunks), and T. quadrivittatus (Colorado chipmunks) (Wilson 1968, Hoffmeister 1986, Boyett 2001). (Alvarez, 1961; Boyett, 2001; Bradley and Schmidly, 1999; Bradley, et al., 2000; Carleton, 1977; Carleton, 1979; Castro-Campillo, et al., 1999; Hafner, et al., 2001; Hoffmeister, 1986; Schmidly, et al., 1988; Wilson, 1968)include
Tanya Dewey (editor), Animal Diversity Web.
William Boyett (author), University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Chris Yahnke (editor), University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
living in the Nearctic biogeographic province, the northern part of the New World. This includes Greenland, the Canadian Arctic islands, and all of the North American as far south as the highlands of central Mexico.
uses sound to communicate
young are born in a relatively underdeveloped state; they are unable to feed or care for themselves or locomote independently for a period of time after birth/hatching. In birds, naked and helpless after hatching.
having body symmetry such that the animal can be divided in one plane into two mirror-image halves. Animals with bilateral symmetry have dorsal and ventral sides, as well as anterior and posterior ends. Synapomorphy of the Bilateria.
Found in coastal areas between 30 and 40 degrees latitude, in areas with a Mediterranean climate. Vegetation is dominated by stands of dense, spiny shrubs with tough (hard or waxy) evergreen leaves. May be maintained by periodic fire. In South America it includes the scrub ecotone between forest and paramo.
uses smells or other chemicals to communicate
animals that use metabolically generated heat to regulate body temperature independently of ambient temperature. Endothermy is a synapomorphy of the Mammalia, although it may have arisen in a (now extinct) synapsid ancestor; the fossil record does not distinguish these possibilities. Convergent in birds.
forest biomes are dominated by trees, otherwise forest biomes can vary widely in amount of precipitation and seasonality.
having a body temperature that fluctuates with that of the immediate environment; having no mechanism or a poorly developed mechanism for regulating internal body temperature.
offspring are produced in more than one group (litters, clutches, etc.) and across multiple seasons (or other periods hospitable to reproduction). Iteroparous animals must, by definition, survive over multiple seasons (or periodic condition changes).
having the capacity to move from one place to another.
This terrestrial biome includes summits of high mountains, either without vegetation or covered by low, tundra-like vegetation.
the area in which the animal is naturally found, the region in which it is endemic.
active during the night
an animal that mainly eats all kinds of things, including plants and animals
the kind of polygamy in which a female pairs with several males, each of which also pairs with several different females.
scrub forests develop in areas that experience dry seasons.
breeding is confined to a particular season
remains in the same area
reproduction that includes combining the genetic contribution of two individuals, a male and a female
uses touch to communicate
that region of the Earth between 23.5 degrees North and 60 degrees North (between the Tropic of Cancer and the Arctic Circle) and between 23.5 degrees South and 60 degrees South (between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Antarctic Circle).
Living on the ground.
uses sight to communicate
reproduction in which fertilization and development take place within the female body and the developing embryo derives nourishment from the female.
Abbott, K., T. Ksiazek, J. Mills. 1999. Long-term hantavirus persistence in rodent populations in central Arizona. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5: 102-112.
Alvarez, T. 1961. Taxonomic status of some mice of the *Peromyscus boylii* group in eastern Mexico, with description of a new subspecies. University of Kansas Publications of the Museum of Natural History, 14: 111-120.
Baker, R. 1968. Habitats and distribution. Pp. 98-126 in J King, ed. Biology of *Peromyscus* (Rodentia). Special Publication Number 8: American Society of Mammalogists.
Boyett, W. 2001. Habitat relations of rodents in the Hualapai Mountains of northwestern Arizona. University of Wisconsin Oshkosh: Unpublished M.S. thesis.
Bradley, R., D. Schmidly. 1999. Brush mouse / *Peromyscus boylii*. Pp. 564-565 in D Wilson, S Ruff, eds. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Bradley, R., I. Tiemann-Boege, C. Kilpatrick, D. Schmidly. 2000. Taxonomic status of *Peromyscus boylii sacarensis*: inferences from DNA sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome- *b* gene. Journal of Mammalogy, 81: 875-884.
Carleton, M. 1977. Interrelationships of populations of the *Peromyscus boylii* species group (Rodentia, Muridae) in western Mexico. Occasional Papers, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 675: 1-47.
Carleton, M. 1979. Taxonomic status and relationships of *Peromyscus boylii* from El Salvador. Journal of Mammalogy, 60: 280-296.
Castro-Campillo, A., H. Roberts, D. Schmidly, R. Bradley. 1999. Systematic status of *Peromyscus boylii ambiguus* based on morphologic and molecular data. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 1214-1231.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. "National center for infectious diseases, special pathogens branch, all about hantavirus, prevention information" (On-line). Accessed November 04, 2001 at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hanta/hps/noframes/phys/prevent.htm.
Clark, F. 1938. Age of sexual maturity in mice of the genus *Peromyscus*. Journal of Mammalogy, 19: 230-234.
Findley, J., A. Harris, D. Wilson, C. Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press.
Hafner, D., B. Riddle, S. Alvarez-Castañeda. 2001. Evolutionary relationships of white-footed mice (*Peromyscus*) on islands in the Sea of Cortéz, Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy, 82: 775-790.
Hall, E. 1981. The mammals of North America. Vol. 2, Second ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Hoffmeister, D. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department and University of Arizona Press.
Holbrook, S. 1978. Habitat relationships and coexistence of four sympatric species of *Peromyscus* in northwestern New Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy, 59: 18-26.
Holbrook, S. 1979. Vegetational affinities, arboreal activity, and coexistence of three species of rodents. Journal of Mammalogy, 60: 528-542.
Jameson, E. 1952. Food of deer mice, *Peromyscus maniculatus* and *P. boylei*, in the northern Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Mammalogy, 33: 50-60.
Jameson, E. 1953. Reproduction of deer mice (*Peromyscus maniculatus* and *P. boylei*) in the Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Mammalogy, 34: 44-58.
MacMillen, R. 1983. Water regulation in *Peromyscus*. Journal of Mammalogy, 64: 38-47.
MacMillen, R., T. Garland, Jr.. 1989. Adaptive physiology. Pp. 143-168 in G Kirkland, Jr., J Layne, eds. Advances in the study of *Peromyscus* (Rodentia). Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press.
Mills, J., T. Ksiazek, B. Ellis, P. Rollin, S. Nichol. 1997. Patterns of association with host and habitat: antibody reactive with Sin Nombre virus in small mammals in the major biotic communities of the southwestern United States. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 56: 273-284.
Mills, J., T. Yates, J. Childs, R. Parmenter, T. Ksiazek. 1995. Guidelines for working with rodents potentially infected with hantavirus. Journal of Mammalogy, 76: 716-722.
Ribble, D., S. Stanley. 1998. Home ranges and social organization of syntopic *Peromyscus boylii* and *P. truei*. Journal of Mammalogy, 79: 932-941.
Sanchez, A., K. Abbott, S. Nichol. 2001. Genetic identification and characterization of Limestone Canyon virus, a unique *Peromyscus*-borne hantavirus. Virology, 286: 345-353.
Schmidly, D., R. Bradley, P. Cato. 1988. Morphometric differentiation and taxonomy of three chromosomally characterized groups of *Peromyscus boylii* from east-central Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy, 69: 462-480.
Smartt, R. 1978. A comparison of ecological and morphological overlap in a *Peromyscus* community. Ecology, 59: 216-220.
Terman, C. 1968. Population dynamics. Pp. 412-450 in J King, ed. Biology of *Peromyscus* (Rodentia). Special Publication Number 8: American Society of Mammalogists.
Ward, J., W. Block. 1995. Mexican spotted owl prey ecology. Pp. 1-48 in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Mexican spotted owl recovery plan. Volume II. Albuquerque, New Mexico: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wilson, D. 1968. Ecological distribution of the genus *Peromyscus*. Southwestern Naturalist, 13: 267-274.
Wolff, J. 1989. Social behavior. Pp. 271-291 in G Kirkland, Jr., J Layne, eds. Advances in the study of *Peromyscus* (Rodentia). Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press.