842 MONOGRAPHS OF NOUTH AMERICAN UODKNTIA. 



by Forster, who described a specimen from Churchill River as the "Quebec 

 Marmot", doubtfully referring it to Pennant's Quebec Marmot, which is the 

 Arctomys monax of recent authors, but generally wrongly referred to the 

 Mus empetra of Pallas. Forster's description shows clearly that his animal, 

 as firs! stated by Richardson,* is identical with his S. parryi. Hearne, 

 during his long Arctic journey (1769-72), also met with it in the region west 

 of Hudson's Bay, and in his narrative of his travels, published in 1807, refers 

 to it under the name "Ground Squirrel". 



In 1778, Pallas described a Mus empetra, based on a specimen in the 

 Ley den Museum from boreal America, which is unquestionably referable to 

 the present species, subsequently (in 1825) described by Richardson under 

 the name Arctomys parryi. His account of the size, form, proportions, and 

 color are all applicable here, and not at all to Arctomys monax, to which 

 his name has commonly of late been referred. A few years later (about 

 1784), Pallas's Mus empetra was redescribed by Schreber under the name 

 Arctomys empetra. Schreber also gave of it a colored figure, made from a 

 drawing of Pallas's Mus empetra sent to him by Pallas himself. This figure, 

 as no one can well doubt, is a fair representation of the Arctomys parryi of 

 Richardson, the Spermophilus parryi of recent authors. Pallas cites, as a 

 synonym of his Mus empetra, the Quebec Marmot of Pennant, and also the 

 Quebec Marmot of Forster.f Pallas, in thus citing Pennant, referred an 

 unquestionably distinct species to his Mus empetra, which complication was 

 perpetuated by subsequent writers, who uniformly blended Pennant's Quebec 

 Marmot with Forster's Quebec Marmot and Pallas's Mus empetra. The ani- 

 mal described by Pallas, however, as already stated, is the Arctomys parryi 

 of later authors, as is fully shown by the publication of his figure by Schre- 

 ber, and as is also unquestionably evident from his description. J This is 

 evident from the short tail, small size, and coloration, in these points the 

 figure and description agreeing with no American species of the restricted 



- Parry's 2d Voy. App. ]>. 318. 



f These citations, rendered by Pallas into Latiu, are as follows: — "Marmota quehekana Pennant, 

 Syn. p. 270. Sp. 199, tal>. 24, f. 2, bona. Fobstek, Act. angl. vol. LXII, p. 378." 



; Pallas's description, from the specimen in the Ley den Museum, is as follows: — " Magnitude) Caviio 

 Pncse, sen inter Marmotam & Citillnm media ; habitus plane Marmota* vel Arctomyos; longitudo circiter 

 pedal is. Caput reinsum, supra fusco-nigrescens, lateribus albicans. Denies primores magni, nudati ut 

 in Marmota, Dec antice fulvi. Auricula parvas, sabundse, rotundataj, vis pilo Iongiores. Verruca plures 

 sparsao, Buperciliares bisetas, paroticae bisetas, pilis albidis distinctra, gnlaris nniseta. Corpus subtus 

 totinn artnsqne rofo-ferraginea : Bupra corpus fuscum, extremis piloram <■ gryseo-albicautibns ondulato 

 Debalosam. Pedes extremi brnuneo nigri, unguibus fuscis ; paJnue sine vestigio pollicis. Cauda bipolli- 

 i mi., in ill lio, dorso concolor, apicc uigrescens." — (Nin: Spec. (Hires, p. 7f>.) 



