126 General Notes. 



Note on Sciurus mollipilosus Audubon and Bachman. 



In a recent note entitled 'The proper name of the Redwood Chickaree', 

 published in these Proceedings (Vol. XVI, pp. 99, 100, June 25, 1903), 

 Mr. Bangs objects to my identification of Sciurus mollipilosus Aud. and 

 Bach, with his later described Sciurus hudsonicus orarius, which he now 

 says "should be known as Sciurus (Tamiasciurus} douglasi orarius 

 (Bangs)." His objection seems to be mainly that when the original 

 authors of the name said: "This species was secured in Upper California, 

 near the Pacific Ocean," and, "Our specimens were obtained in the 

 northern part of California, near the Pacific Ocean," they did not really 

 mean California at all but, "merely northwest coast of America, and 

 is analogous to 'that part of California that adjoins Mexico' of the same 

 authors." As to this 'analogous' expression, it originated with Bennett 

 in 1833 (P. Z. S., 1833, p. 39), and, correctly quoted is: "that part of Cali 

 fornia which adjoins to Mexico," and is not in any sense Audubon and 

 Bachman's. As ' 'the northern part of California, near the Pacific Ocean' ' 

 was at the time Audubon and Bachman wrote an unsettled wilderness 

 belonging to Mexico, they could hardly have more definitely indicated 

 the home of the Redwood Chickaree than by the phraseology they 

 employed. 



The coloration, as indicated by their figure, can be given little weight, 

 when we recall the extravagant and unnatural tints that disfigure so large 

 a part of their illustrations in the work to which reference is made, but 

 the mention of white-tipped hairs in the tail, and lower parts "lightly 

 tinged in some places with rufous" will apply very well to winter speci 

 mens I have seen of Mr. Bangs's orarius, far better than to any other 

 known form of the subgenus Tamiasciurus, 



Mr. Bangs says that the only ground I gave "for using the name 

 [mollipilosus'] to supplant my [his] S. orarius" was the supposed origin 

 of the specimens. As a matter of fact, the case seemed so clear to me 

 that no argument or discussion of the matter appeared necessary. Nor 

 is my opinion changed by Mr. Bangs's presentation of the case. 



It will be noticed that Mr. Bangs now considers that S. mollipilosus 

 belongs to the hudsonicus group and not to the douglasii group, and is of 

 the opinion that it should be referred to either S. h. vancouverensis or 

 S. h. streatori, both from British Columbia. Baird, however, in 1857, 

 said: "I have no doubt that the Sciurus mollipilosus of Audubon and 

 Bachman is the same animal in the cinereous pelage ascribed to the 

 above species [S. douglasii] * * * From the remark that the cinere 

 ous of the underparts is in some places lightly tinged with rufous, I 

 infer that the specimen described of S. mollipilosus was in a transition 

 state between the summer and winter pelage" (Mamm. N. Amer., 1857, 

 p. 277). 



Mr. Bangs is, therefore, the first to question the correctness of the al 

 leged locality. /. A. Allen. 



