Peromyscus leucopus
| White-footed Deermouse
(Peromyscus leucopus) | |
|---|---|
| Range | |
 | |
| Taxonomic classification | |
| Order: | Rodentia |
| Suborder: | Supramyomorpha |
| Infraorder: | Myomorphi |
| Superfamily: | Muroidea |
| Family: | Cricetidae |
| Subfamily: | Neotominae |
| Tribe: | Peromyscini |
| Genus: | Peromyscus |
| Binomial details | |
| Peromyscus leucopus (Rafinesque, 1818) | |
| Other resources | |
| Full taxonomic details at MDD | |
Description
From Best & Hunt (2020): "The white-footed deermouse is a small-to-medium-sized mouse, brown or grayish on the back, and sometimes with a darker mid-dorsal band. Ventral hairs are white with darker bases. Feet are white. Ears are prominent and dark with a white edge. Eyes are large and dark. Length of tail is equal to or less than the length of head and body combined. The tail is indistinctly bicolored, dark on top, and pale on the underside. Length of hind foot is usually 18–20 mm." For Colorado, from Armstrong et al. (2010): "The color is pale gray-brown to buffy with white underparts and feet. Most individuals are grayer in overall color than deer mice of similar size. The white hairs of the belly are gray at their bases."
External measurements
Length measurements are in millimeters (mm) and weight measurements are in grams (g), unless stated otherwise. If available, the sample size (n=) is provided. If a range is not provided and n= is not given, then the listed measurement represents an average.
| Part of range | Reference | Total length | Tail length | Hindfoot length | Ear length | Mass |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Best & Dusi (2014) | 145 (131–171) (n=30) | 60 (44–70) (n=30) | 18 (16–21) (n=30) | 16 (14–18) (n=30) | 18.9 (12.4–25.2) (n=22) |
| Arizona (Cochise Co., 15–18 mi E of Douglas) | Hoffmeister (1986) | 160–193 (n=29) | 67–95 (n=29) | 22–25 (n=29) | 16–19 (n=29) | |
| Arizona (Cochise Co., Fairbank) | Hoffmeister (1986) | 156–180 (n=16) | 65–81 (n=16) | 20–25 (n=16) | 15–18 (n=16) | |
| Arizona (Navajo Co.) | Hoffmeister (1986) | 153–180 (n=21) | 59–80 (n=21) | 20–25 (n=21) | 16–20 (n=21) | |
| Arizona (Yavapai Co.) | Hoffmeister (1986) | 155–184 (n=47) | 63–85 (n=47) | 21–24 (n=47) | 15–19 (n=47) | |
| Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland | Webster et al. (1985) | 152–188 | 65–92 | 17–22 | ||
| Colorado | Armstrong et al. (2010) | 150–200 | 60–100 | 19–24 | 13–16 | 20–36 |
| Minnesota | Hazard (1982) | 153–178 | 65–84 | 19–22 | 15–17 | 19.0–35.4 |
| Nebraska (north-central) | Johnsgard (2020) | 161–186 | 68–81 | 27–36 | ||
| North Dakota | Seabloom et al. (2020) | 173 | 75 | 22 | 16 | 30 |
| not reported | Ceballos (editor, 2014) | 130–205 | 45–100 | 17–25 | 13–16 | 20–23 |
| Texas | Schmidly & Bradley (2016) | 173 | 78 | 21 | 22 (15–25) | |
| Virginia | Linzey (1998) | 140–205 | 55–100 | 14–28 |
Color variation
This section shows some of the color variation present in Peromyscus leucopus. The location is provided for reference only. The individual shown does not necessarily represent the only color variant within the local population.
-
Kansas, Riley County -
Maryland, Anne Arundel County -
Massachusetts, Worcester County -
New Hampshire, Carroll County -
Tennessee, Anderson County -
Tennessee, Sevier County -
Texas, Wise County -
Virginia, Clarke County -
Virginia, Warren County -
Wisconsin, Price County
Skull
Dorsal view of the skull of Peromyscus leucopus. 
Ventral view of the skull of Peromyscus leucopus. 
Lateral view of the skull of Peromyscus leucopus. 
Dorsal view of the lower jaw of Peromyscus leucopus.
Similar species
Comparison with Peromyscus gossypinus
Distinguishing Peromyscus gossypinus from Peromyscus leucopus in the field can be extremely challenging. From Fernandes et al. (2010): "Traditionally, pelage coloration, body measurements, and cranial characteristics have been used to distinguish the Cotton Mouse [Peromyscus gossypinus] from the White-footed Mouse [Peromyscus leucopus]. The dorsum of the Cotton Mouse is dark golden brown with a mid-dorsal dusky area. The White-footed Mouse is grayish brown to dull reddish brown dorsally. Both species are white on the ventral side (Wilson and Ruff 1999). The Cotton Mouse is more massive (17–46 g) than the White-footed Mouse (15–25 g) and has a considerably darker dorsum (Reed et al. 2004, Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). Hind-foot length is generally >22 mm in Cotton Mouse and 22 mm in the White-footed Mouse (Dice 1940, McCarley 1954a). The two species are best distinguished by skull length, which is generally >28 mm in the Cotton Mouse and <25.4 mm in the White-footed Mouse (Lowery 1974). Since skull length and other cranial characteristics require sacrifice of animals, these criteria are not useful in many ecological studies. In certain habitats, morphological differences between the two species can be rather subtle (Hoffmeister 1989, Schwartz and Schwartz 1981) due to their close relationship (Lovecky et al. 1979, McCarley 1963), so misidentifications of species occur. Identification is particularly challenging when small sample sizes preclude use of discriminant function analysis of external measurements (Choate 1973, Feldhamer et al. 1983). Additionally, age and geographic variation can affect accuracy of identification based on external measurements (Sternburg and Feldhamer 1997)."
From Wolfe & Linzey (1977): "Hybrids between the two species have been obtained through captive breeding (Dice, 1937), and naturally occurring hybrids have been reported in Virginia (Dice, 1940), Alabama (Howell, 1921) and Texas (McCarley, 1954a). The authors are of the opinion that natural hybridization between P. leucopus and P. gossypinus rarely occurs. Keys in general use distinguish P. gossypinus on the basis of hind foot length greater than 22 mm and skull length greater than 28 mm. Studies in Alabama have shown that specimens showing intermediate (or "hybrid") skull or hind foot lengths can be distinguished by other, perhaps more critical criteria such as length and width of the anterior palatine foramina (Linzey et al., 1976). It is generally stated that ecological displacement between the two species occurs (McCarley, 1954b, 1963), although both taxa may be taken side by side in some habitats (Linzey and Linzey, 1968)."
From Laerm & Boone (1994), using a discriminant function equation based on hind foot and skull length to distinguish P. gossypinus from P. leucopus: "to separate P. gossypinus from P. leucopus using external and skull measurements, the appropriate transformation is (only one axis is needed). Any positive value of D indicates P. gossypinus, and any negative value of D indicates a P. leucopus.
D = -34.125 + 0.593(hindfoot length) + 0.821(skull length)
-
Peromyscus leucopus -
Cotton Deermouse (Peromyscus gossypinus)
-
Representation of Hoffmeister's 1977 scattergram for differentiating the the skulls of Peromyscus gossypinus and Peromyscus leucopus (from Hoffmeister, 1989).
Comparison with Peromyscus maniculatus
Peromyscus maniculatus and Peromyscus leucopus are a pair of often co-occurring species that is notoriously difficult to differentiate in the field in certain regions of North America. Generally, Peromyscus maniculatus has a strongly/sharply bicolored tail and a duller gray-brown appearance, whereas Peromyscus leucopus has a less distinctly bicolored tail and a brighter or richer brown appearance. However, these characters should be used with caution. Confidently differentiating these two species may require genetic testing. Peromyscus maniculatus and P. leucopus can be differentiated in the lab using an AFLP-PCR (genetic) method developed by Tessier et al. (2004). A modified version that is fairly quick and inexpensive is available in the Genetic resources section.
-
Peromyscus leucopus -
Eastern Deermouse (Peromyscus maniculatus)
Comparison with Peromyscus sonoriensis
Armstrong et al. (2010) notes: "The white-footed mouse closely resembles the deer mouse but is larger in size with a less distinctly bicolored tail. The tail is usually longer than that of the deer mouse, generally exceeding 65 mm in length. Greatest length of skull is usually more than 27 mm, and the hindfoot is usually longer than 21 mm." Peromyscus sonoriensis and P. leucopus can be differentiated in the lab using an AFLP-PCR (genetic) method developed by Tessier et al. (2004). A modified version that is fairly quick and inexpensive is available in the Genetic resources section.
-
Peromyscus leucopus -
Western Deermouse (Peromyscus sonoriensis)
References
Armstrong DM, Fitzgerald JP, Meaney CA. 2010. Mammals of Colorado, Second Edition. Denver (CO, USA): University Press of Colorado.
Best TL, Hunt JL. 2020. Mammals of the southeastern United States. Tuscaloosa (AL, USA): University Alabama Press.
Ceballos G, editor. 2014. Mammals of Mexico. Baltimore (MD, USA): Johns Hopkins University Press.
Choate JR. 1973. Identification and recent distribution of white-footed mice (Peromyscus) in New England. Journal of Mammalogy 54(1):41-49.
Dice LR. 1937. Fertility relations in the Peromyscus leucopus group of mice. Contrib. Lab. Vert. Genetics, Univ. Michigan 4:1-3
Dice LR. 1940. Relationships between the wood-mouse and the cotton-mouse in eastern Virginia. Journal of Mammalogy 21(1): 14-23.
Feldhamer GA, Gates JE, Howard JH. 1983. Field identification of Peromyscus maniculatus and P. leucopus in Maryland: reliability of morphological characteristics. Acta Theriologica 28(27):417-423.
Fernandes PR, Reynolds JL, Segedin-Garrett N, Dewey MJ. 2010. Identification of Peromyscus gossypinus at Poinsett State Park, South Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 9(4), 757-772.
Hazard EB. 1982. The mammals of Minnesota. Minneapolis (MN, USA): University of Minnesota Press.
Hoffmeister DF. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. Tucson (AZ, USA): University of Arizona Press.
Hoffmeister DF. 1989. Mammals of Illinois. Urbana (IL, USA): University of Illinois Press.
Howell AH. 1921. A biological survey of Alabama. North American Fauna 45:1-88.
Johnsgard PA. 2020. Wildlife of Nebraska: a natural history. Lincoln (NE, USA): University of Nebraska Press.
Layne JN. 1990. The Florida mouse. Pp. 1-21, in Burrow associates of the gopher tortoise (C. K. Dodd, Jr., R. E. Ashton, Jr., R. Franz, and E. Wester, eds.). Eighth Annual Meeting, Gopher Tortoise Council, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, 134 pp.
Linzey DW. 1998. The mammals of Virginia. McDonald & Woodward Publishing.
Linzey AV, Linzey DW, Perkins SE Jr. 1976. The Peromyscus leucopus species group in Alabama. Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science 47, 109-113.
Laerm J, Boone JL. 1994. Mensural discrimination of four species of Peromyscus (Rodentia: Muridae) in the southeastern United States. Brimleyana (21): 107--123. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/part/229721
Lovecky DV, Estep DQ, Dewsbury DA. 1979. Copulatory behaviour of cotton mice (Peromyscus gossypinus) and their reciprocal hybrids with white-footed mice (P. leucopus). Animal Behaviour 27: 371-375.
Lowery GH Jr. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and adjacent waters. Baton Rouge (LA, USA): Louisiana State University Press.
McCarley WH. 1954a. Natural hybridization in the Peromyscus leucopus species group of mice. Evolution pp.314-323.
McCarley WH. 1954b. The ecological distribution of the Peromyscus leucopus species group in eastern Texas. Ecology 35:375-379.
McCarley WH. 1963. Distributional relationships of sympatric populations of Peromyscus leucopus and P. gossypinus. Ecology 44(4):784-788.
Osgood WH. 1909. Revision of the mice of the American genus Peromyscus. North American Fauna 28:1-285
Poole GAK. 2005. Hybridization of the cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus) with the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) in southern Illinois (Order No. 1432632). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305389903). http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/hybridization-cotton-mouse-i-peromyscus/docview/305389903/se-2.
Rafinesque CS. 1818-10. Further discoveries in natural history, made during a journey through the western region of the United States. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 3(6):445-447.
Reed AW, Kennedy PK, Beck ML, Kennedy ML. 2004. Using morphologic characters to identify Peromyscus in sympatry. The American Midland Naturalist 152(1), pp.190-195.
Schmidly DJ, Bradley RD. 2016. The mammals of Texas. Austin (TX, USA): University of Texas Press.
Schwartz CW, Schwartz ER. 1981. The wild mammals of Missouri, revised edition. Columbia (MO, USA): University of Missouri Press and Missouri Department of Conservation.
Seabloom R, Hoganson JW, Jensen WF. 2020. The mammals of North Dakota. Fargo (ND, USA): North Dakota State University Press.
Sternburg JE, Feldhamer A. 1997. Mensular discrimination between sympatric Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus in southern Illinois. Acta Theriologica 42(1):1-13.
Webster WD, Parnell JF, Biggs WC. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. Chapel Hill (NC, USA): University of North Carolina Press.
Whitaker JO, Hamilton WJ. 1998. Mammals of the eastern United States. Ithaca, (NY, USA): Cornell University Press.
Wilson DE, Ruff S, editors. 1999. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. Washington D.C. (USA): Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
Wolfe JL, Linzey AV. 1977. Peromyscus gossypinus. Mammalian species (70), 1-5.