CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Megalomys luciae

species of mammal

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 27, 2026
Entity authorityQ1762153 ↗
Source-derived summary

Megalomys luciae, also known as the Saint Lucia pilorie or Saint Lucia giant rice rat, is an extinct rodent in the family Cricetidae. It was endemic to the island of Saint Lucia, in the Lesser Antilles.

Taxonomy

The first description of the species was published by Charles Immanuel Forsyth Major in 1901, under the name Oryzomys luciae. The holotype is the stuffed specimen still held by the Natural History Museum of London.. Forsyth Major stated that he believed the specimen he was examining to be the same one that was mentioned being added to a collection in a 13 November 1849 entry in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, then documented as the Mus (Hesperomys) pilorides (considered a synonym of Megalomys desmarestii). Édouard Louis Trouessart moved the species from Oryzomys to Megalomys in 1904.

Description

M. luciae was described as smaller than Megalomys desmarestii, a closely related species from Martinique, by Forsyth Major. The stuffed M. lucaei specimen in the collection of the Natural History Museum had a head–body length of 261 mm (10.3 in).

M. luciae had slender claws and brown fur, with the fur of the specimen at the Natural History Museum having pale area under the chin and throat separated from another pale area under the lower thorax by a dark streak.

Extinction

M. luciae was endemic to the island of Saint Lucia, in the Lesser Antilles, and the last known individual died in London Zoo in 1852, after three years of living in captivity.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Megalomys luciae” is species of mammal. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Megalomys, luciae and species, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewUseful for establishing the present vocabulary of the subject while preserving a route back to the evidence on which that vocabulary rests. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1901, 1849, 1904, 1852—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Megalomys, luciae and species is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “species of mammal” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1762153. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1901, 1849, 1904 and 1852.

Critical limits

A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Megalomys luciae”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Megalomys luciae primary sources, Megalomys luciae archive and Megalomys research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Megalomys luciae”?
  2. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
  3. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Megalomys luciae” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.