190 [October, 



alcohol, 1 do not hesitate to pronounce them as having no real existence as 

 distinct species, or at most as being slight variations from others well known 

 and long ago determined. 



The Kinosternum Doubledayii, however, forms an exception. Tt appears to he 

 certainly a new and hitherto undescribed animal, although what Mr. Gray says of 

 it is scarcely sufficient to distinguish it. M. Dumeril's E. labyrinthica seems 

 to be nothing more than E. hieroglyphica of Holbrook, slightly varying in the 

 disposition of the marks and lines on the shell ; his Kinosternum cruentatum 

 is probably not from this country; it is a well marked and distinct species. 



The following species, retained in most of our books, ought to be struck out. 

 In Schcepff, Testudo tricarinata, a young animal of some Kinosternum; T. 

 cinerea, a young picta; T. scripta, a young serrata or reticulata; T. rostiata, a 

 young Trionyx. And from Linnaeus, Syst. Nat., T. membranacea, which is 

 likewise a young Trionyx ; T. scabra, the description has been made from an 

 immature specimen, which, if full grown, might have been smooth ; T. carinata ; 

 T. sulcata; and, finally, T. squamosa, which is not a Chelonian. 



Observations on the Vespertilio leporinus of Linnaeus. 

 By John Le Conte. 



Our associate Dr. Woodhouse, some time ago gave me for examination a 

 species of Bat found by him in the province of Honduras, which is undoubtedly 

 the Noctilio dorsatus of Geoffroy de St. Hilaire, the Vespertilio leporinus of 

 Linnaeus, i. p. 47, although the description of " the illustrious Swede " is rather 

 short and imperfect. Schreber vol. i. p. 163 tab. 60 describes and figures it as 

 a Noctilio retaining the Linnean specific name. Wagner, in his supplement to 

 the work of this last author vol. 1 p. 451, calls it N. dorsatus and considers it 

 the same as the albiventris of Spix. Sim. et Ves. Brazil tab. xxxv. fig. 2 and 

 3, and the N. affinis of D'Orbigny Voy. vol. iv. p. 42 p. 12. The N. unicolor 

 of Wagner is probably the same. Indeed the author observes, that it only differs 

 in color from the other species which he describes ; which is a matter of very 

 little consequence in any of the Vespertilionidse. Every species of this family 

 is so variable in this respect as to forbid its being taken as a criterion of differ- 

 ence. There will therefore be but one species of this genus, and for the name of 

 this we must revert to Linnaeus and resume the old name of leporinus, although 

 this appellation was founded in error, the upper lip not being cleft, but in recent 

 specimens covering the incisors. In dried animals it shrinks and becomes drawn 

 up in such a manner as to leave the upper fore teeth exposed, and to represent a 

 very bad case of hare lip. 



The animal from which the following description was taken, was in its most 

 perfect state of development ; at that period of its life when it would be called 

 neither young nor old. It certainly had but tw r o upper incisors nor was there 

 any appearance of there ever having been any others ; in their shape they re- 

 semble canines, and like them are furnished with an interior lobed calcaneum. 

 The lower incisors are deeply emarginate and may in some instances be taken 

 for four distinct teeth. 



The upper fore teeth of Cheiropters offer a very interesting subject for inves- 

 tigation, whether what are so-called are in reality incisors, or not more properly 

 canines. It is now generally allowed that no teeth ought to be called incisors 

 unless they spring from the intermaxillary bone; now whether in those animals 

 where there is no nasal bone and the front of the upper jaw is excavated, and this 

 excavation reaching to the end of the os frontis, they can be said to have any 

 os intermaxillare, I have not been able to determine. In the frugivorous bats 

 which have regular incisors in the upper jaw, the cranium entirely wants this 

 frontal excavation, and is furnished with nasal bones in as much perfection as 

 any other mammal. The determination of this point must be left to others ; it 

 is sufficient that I have hinted at the circumstance. It appears to me that some 

 species of Taphizous may belong to this genus ; not however having specimens 

 to compare I cannot pronounce positively. The generic essence of our animal, 



