Search

Stone marten (Martes foina) and European pine marten (M.martes) occur in western Eurasia. Current distributions of martens within Turkey and phylogenetic relationships among the Turkish and other populations of the two species within Eurasia remain relatively unknown. In this study, we aimed to determine genetic diversity within Martes populations inhabiting Turkey and to reveal the phylogenetic relationships among the Turkish and conspecific populations of the two marten species, using mitochondrial cytochrome b (CytB) sequences. Twenty-four (24) haplotypes were identified among 86 marten samples collected across Turkey, including 23 novel haplotypes. Genetic distances among the Turkish haplotypes ranged from 0.1% to 0.8%, with an average of 0.3%. The 24 Turkish haplotypes were analysed together with those of conspecific populations deposited in GenBank. Phylogenetic (Bayesian Inference, maximum likelihood, neighbor-joining) and network analyses revealed that all of the Turkish samples belonged to M.foina and that samples of M.martes were not encountered. Haplotypes of M.foina were divided into five haplogroups. The haplogroup including the two Chinese samples differed markedly from other the haplogroups. The remaining haplogroups contained samples from both the Turkish and European populations. We found that there was a genetically close relationship between the Turkish and the European stone marten populations. As a result of this study, M.martes may not be distributed in the Anatolian part of Turkey, possibly due to a barrier effect of two straits (Dardanelles and Bosporus) and the Caucasus Mountains. On the other hand, M.foina is distributed in both the Anatolian and Thracian parts of Turkey. Our results suggest that Turkey was likely one of the refuges for M.foina during Pleistocene glacial periods and is one of the centres of distribution of stone marten for Europe and the surrounding regions.

We studied crown morphology of Martes foina , M. martes , and M. zibellina from different regions of the northern Eurasia and described its morphotypes. The following has been identified: three morphotypes for P3, eight morphotypes for P4, 16 morphotypes for M1, four morphotypes for i3, three morphotypes for p3, four morphotypes for p4, nine morphotypes for m1, and three morphotypes for m2. Morphotypes for P4, i3, m1, and m2 are described for the first time. Morphotype frequency is given for each species. It was found that 3 teeth (i3, m1, and m2) are enough for differentiation of the sable, stone marten, and pine marten. We used the above-mentioned dental patterns for species identification of the teeth belonging to the representatives of the genus Martes from archaeological sites of the southern Urals. M. foina , M. martes , and M. zibellina inhabited the territory under study in the Holocene. We have also given some consideration to the morphotypes of Tertiary and Quaternary members of the genus Martes and come to preliminary conclusions about evolutionary trends.

Sexual dimorphism in cranial measurements was studied in Ural populations of two species of the genus Martes, M. martes and M. zibellina. The index of sexual dimorphism averaged 8.39% in the former and 9.03% in the latter, being subject to geographic variation. For the first time, temporal variability of sexual dimorphism in dimensional characters was revealed in mammals by analyzing M. zibellina samples collected in different decades of the second half of the 20th century. The majority of corresponding microtrends had reciprocating dynamics.

Polymorphism of P11, P33, P4, and M1 are described by morphotypes in 28 recent populations of Martes martes (n=828), M. martes x M. zibellina (n=37), M. zibellina (n=749), M. melampus (n=1), M. americana (n=28), M. foina (n=539), M. flavigula (n=53), and M. pennanti (n=4).

(1840). XXXIII.—Some Remarks on the British Species of the Genus Martes. Annals and Magazine of Natural History: Vol. 6, No. 37, pp. 290-292.

When Dr. T. E. White (Proc. New England Zool. Club, 18: 91–98, 1941) erected the genus Mephititaxus he based the differences between this genus and the related genus Leptarctus on the characters of M1. A re-examination and comparison of the type of M. ancipidens with casts of the types of L. oregonensis , L. primus and the type of L. progressus indicates that there is as much difference among these related species as between Mephititaxus and Leptarctus . Although M. ancipidens is considerably larger when compared with the known Leptarctines, it is certainly within the size variation found in the comparable living genus Martes . With the material now at hand, and until such time as a more extensive comparison can …