Upon their initial discovery, Jenkins and coauthors (2005) considered the Laotian rock rat to represent a completely new family. The discovery of a new species of an extant mammal
genus, or a new genus, happens periodically, such as with the
leaf muntjac or the
saola. The discovery of a completely new family is, by comparison, much more unusual. The most recent comparable incident before this discovery by Western science was the discovery of the
bumblebee bat (
Craseonycteris thonglongyai; family
Craseonycteridae) in 1974. The only other examples from the 20th century are species that are only considered distinct families by a few authorities. These discoveries are: the
Chinese river dolphin (
Lipotes vexillifer; family Lipotidae) in 1918, the
Zagros mouse-like hamster (
Calomyscus bailwardi; family Calomyscidae) in 1905, and
Goeldi's marmoset (
Callimico goeldii; family Callimiconidae) in 1904. Representatives from all the remaining rodent families with living representatives (approximately 30) were discovered before 1900. Jenkins
et al. did not compare the specimens to known rodent fossils. The analysis of
mtDNA 12S rRNA and
cytochrome b sequence by Jenkins
et al. allied
Laonastes with African
hystricognath rodents, namely the
blesmols and the
dassie rat. Support for such a placement was fair, but the exact position could not be resolved. Huchon
et al. conducted a large-scale molecular phylogeny of rodents, including representatives of all major rodent taxonomic groups, based on 5.5 kb of sequence data from four nuclear and two mitochondrial genes, and a short, interspersed element, insertion analysis including 11 informative loci. Their molecular data place
Laonastes robustly as a sister
clade of
Ctenodactylidae, and support an ancient divergence during the
Lutetian (Early/Middle Eocene, ~44 mya). The earlier molecular study was in error due to
long branch attraction and inadequate sampling. == Etymology ==