50 Osgood Unrecognized and Misapplied Names. 



Mus humilis Aud. and Bach., Quad. N. Am., II, pp. 103-106, pi. LXV, 1854. 

 Reithrodontomys lecontii Allen, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., VII, p. 116, 1895. 

 Dr. Allen (supra cit. ) has refused recognition to Mns humulis Bachman, 

 1841, for the eastern little harvest mouse and adopted in its stead the later 

 Mus lecontii. He says : " While in general the description of Mus humulis 

 Aud. and Bach, applies satisfactorily to the species of Reithrodontomys oc 

 curring near the coast in South Carolina and Georgia, it is singular and 

 noteworthy that these authors failed to mention the grooved incisors in 

 any of the three descriptions given by them of this species; especially 

 when they so particularly refer to the character of the molars, which they 

 compare with those of Mus and Arvicola, remarking (Quad. N. Am., II, p. 

 106) 'that there are angular ridges in the enamel,'" etc. Thus it seems 

 (disregarding mere opinions expressed or indicated without staled reasons 

 by LeConte and Baird) that the name humulis is rejected solely because 

 its authors failed to mention the grooved incisors. This in spite of the 

 facts that the original description is otherwise perfectly applicable to a 

 Reithrodontomys, that the proper vernacular name "Little Harvest Mouse" 

 is coupled with it, and that the accompanying extensive account of habits 

 also indicates Reithrodontomys. Moreover, by exclusion, the description 

 again indicates Reithrodontomys for it could not apply to Mus or to Pero- 

 myscus. The reference to the subsequent lack of mention of the grooved 

 incisors in the Quadrupeds of North America as additional evidence that 

 Reithrodontomys was not intended is absolutely negatived by the accom 

 panying colored plate (pi. LXV) which is an excellent representation of 

 Reithrodontomys. The description with this pi ate is essentially like the origi 

 nal description and although the grooving of the incisors is not mentioned, 

 there is no statement that they are not grooved. As regards other particu 

 lars, a better description of Reithrodontomys could not be desired. It seems, 

 therefore, that Reithrodontomys humulis should be reinstated. Mus carolin- 

 ensis is doubtfully referred by Dr. Allen (1. c.) to the synonomy of Reithro 

 dontomys lecontii with the opinion that it is " not determinable; probably 

 a young Peromyscus.^ To this conclusion one may readily agree for here 

 there are contradictions, the description of color and size indicating a 

 young Peromyscus, while the mention of the slightly grooved incisors sug 

 gests Reithrodontomys. Had it been stated in the description of M. humaH* 

 that the incisors were not grooved the case would be more comparable to 

 that of M. carolinensis and the name might well be rejected as indeterminate. 



Reithrodontomys cherriei (Allen). 



Hesperomys ( Vesperimus) cherrii Allen, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Ill, pp. 



211-212, 1891. 

 Reithrodontomys costaricensis Allen, supra cit., VII, p. 139, 1895. 



The specimens forming the basis of the name cherrii are indicated in the 

 original description, as follows: "Six specimens, as follows: skin (d*? 

 adult), San Jose, June 9, 1889, C. F. Underwood ; five specimens in spirits 

 (2 c? ad., 1 $ ad., and two half-grown young), La Carpintera (altitude about 

 6,000 feet), Oct.-Nov., 1890, George K. Cherrie." Through the good offices 



