76 MONOGRAPHS OF NORTH AMERICAN RODENTIA. 



HESPEROMYS LEUCOPUS GOSSYPINUS (LeC). 



Hcspcromys gossypinus, LeConte, l'roc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. vi, 1853, 411 (Georgia). — B.ukd, M. N. A. 



ls">7, 409 (Georgia and South Carolina).— ALLEN, Bull. Mus. Comri. Zool. ii, 1870, 180 (Florida). 

 //. iperomys ( Pi tperimus) leucopus gossypinus, Coues, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1*74. 179. 

 Hypudcrux gossypinus, LeConte, McMnrtrie'e Cnvier, i, 4IS4, app. — AUD. & Bach., Q. N. A. i, 305 (in text ; 



consider it, as a var. of leucopus). 



Diagnosis. — H. staturd H. leucopum cxccdens (\-poll.), caudd breviore 

 fere unicolore, pedibus major ibus (subpoll.), color ibus obscurioribus. 



Habitat. — South Atlantic States. Kansas ? 



Mouse larger than H. leucopus (some four inches long), with a shorter 

 tail, but little paler below than above; hind feet nine-tenths of an inch; fur 

 of the upper parts dark rusty-brown, and of the under parts not pure white. 



The few specimens below enumerated show some tangible differences 

 from ordinary leucopus, as expressed in the foregoing paragraphs. Besides 

 averaging in stature a dimension that leucopus very rarely attains, the tail is 

 absolutely shorter than in the average of that species, and therefore propor- 

 tionally still less. It is, moreover, nearly unicolor in some specimens; in 

 others, however, it is evidently, but not sharply, bicolor. The hind feet are 

 about 0.90 long, a dimension that leucopus only reaches in exceptional 

 cases. The general colors are much darker, and, perhaps, never of the bright 

 fulvous of typical leucopus; it is much as if the darker dorsal wash of leuco- 

 pus was spread over all the upper parts. Correspondingly, the under parts 

 are dull soiled whitish, or white with an ashy-gray hue. 



Our specimens are obviously too few for a final conclusion, and we have 

 been much perplexed to determine how to treat this form. All the seven below 

 given are distinguishable at a glance from leutopus ; but our suspicion is very 

 strong, indeed, that if we had, say fifty instead of seven examples, some of them 

 would be indistinguishable from leucopus, and others would show indissoluble 

 connection. This was the mature opinion of Audubon and Bachman, who 

 say : — "We were for several years disposed to regard it as distinct, and have, 

 not without much hesitation, and after an examination of many hundred speci- 

 mens, been induced to set it down as a variety only." Mr. Allen (/. c.) allows 

 the name to head his paragraph, but expressly states his belief that it is not 

 a valid species, both in this place and in a previous paper (Bull. Mus. Clomp. 

 Zool. i, 1869, 229). Under the circumstances, we judge that nature will be 

 the more faithfully reflected to consider H. gossi/pinus as a variety of leucopus, 



