APPENDIX. 15 



on authority of Turton, who refers to a form ; "2. Head, upper parts 

 dusky ; sides brownish rusty. Inhabits Hudson's Bay and Labradore." 



"Black Shrew, Sorex niger." Not mentioned in Turton nor in Pennant, 

 nor elsewhere that I can find, unless it refers to the "Talpa Virginianus 

 niger sttpinus" of Seba (Thes., II, p. 51.) quoted in the synonymy 

 of Scalops ("Sorex") aquations of earlier authors, and which originated, 

 perhaps, in a specimen of Condylura cristata. 



"Mexican Shrew Sorex Mexicanus." Ord bases this on the 5". mexicanus 

 of Turton, Turton on Pennant's name and description, and Pennant 

 on the "DeTucan, seu Talparum Indicarumquodamgenere, Cap. XXIV," 

 of Fernandez, (Hist. Quad. Nov. Hisp., 1651, 7.). Erxleben confounds it 

 (De Tucan) with the "Talpa rubra Americana" of Seba (vid. sup. cit.) 

 questioning, however, if the latter be the same as the Mexican Shrew of 

 Pennant. Fernandez's description is that of a "tawny" Geomys with 

 "short tail and legs, sharp nose, small rounded ears, long incurved claws 

 and living in burrows with numerous passages, which are a nuisance to 

 travelers." 



Pennant translates, "two long fore-teeth above and below . . , 

 length from nose to tail nine inches," and adds "M. de Buffou thinks it 

 a mole, but by the ears it should be classed here," (viz. as a shrew). 

 Turton makes the same diagnosis, prefacing it, however, with, "fore- 

 feet, 3-toed, hind-feet 4." evidently taken (after Erxleben) from Seba's 

 erroneous description of the aforesaid "falpa rubra americana. " Fer- 

 nandez's meaning in that passage, translated by Pennant, "two long 

 fore-teeth above and below," is very difficult to make out and may have 

 reference to the grooved incissors. In this case the animal was a true 

 Geomys, (not Thomomys] ; Thomomys, however, has not been reported 

 from southern Mexico. Fernandez's "Tucan" was evidently either Ge- 

 omys hispidus, L,econte, or the G. mexicanus (Licht.) , (Abhand. K. Acad. 

 Wiss. Berl, 1827, 113), of late authors. The probability is strongly in 

 favor of this assumption, and, judging by the abundance of the animal 

 described by Fernandez as compared with what we know of the compar- 

 ative abundance and scarcity, respectively, of G. mexicanus and G. his- 

 pidus there is small doubt that Fernandez's "Tucan" was the same as 

 Liechenstein's animal. 



Fortunately for svnonymy, Lichtenstein selected the same specific 

 name for the Tucan that had been applied to it 25 years previously by 

 Turton. Briefly summarized, the synonymy of the Tucan should be 



Tucan, Fernandez, Hist. Quad. N. Hisp., 1651, 7. 



Mexican Shrew, Pennant, Syn. Quad., 1771 (No. 240), 309. 



Sorex mexicanus, Turton, Syst. Nat., 1802, 72. 

 " Ord, Guth. Geog., 1815, 291. 



Ascomys mexicanus Licht, Abhan. K. Akad. Wiss. Berl., 1827, 113. 



Geomys mexicanus Rich. , Rep. Brit. Assn. Ad. Sci., 1836 & '37, 150. 

 " " Baird, Mam. N. Am., 1857, 387. 



