50 Osgood — Unrecognized and Misapplied Ndmes. 



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

 Reltlirodontomijs lecontti Allen, Bull. Am. Mas. Nat. Hist., VII, p. 116, 1895. 

 Dr. Allen (supra cit.) has refused recognition to Mns liumidla Bachnian, 

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

 Mus JecontU. He says : " While in general the description of J/h.s- Jiitunills 

 Aud. and Bach, applies satisfactorily to the species of JieitJtiudontomt/ti 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 hy them of this species; especially 

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

 compare with those of Mus and Arr'icolu, remarking (Quad. N. Am., II, p. 

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

 (disregarding mere opinions expressed or indicated without stated reasons 

 bj'^ LeConte and Baird) that the name Itunnilis 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 

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

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

 also indicates Jieit]irodoidoiiii/s. Moreover, by exclusion, the description 

 again indicates HeHhrodontomi/s for it could not apply to Mus or to Fero- 

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

 incisors in the Quadrupeds of North America as additional evidence that 

 Heithroddntomt/s was not intended is absolutely negatived by the accom- 

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

 Jieithrodontomys. The description with this plate 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 Reit]irodnnto)nys could not be desired. It seems, 

 therefore, that Ite'dhr odontomas huinuUs should be reinstated. Mus r(ti'<jlin- 

 ensls is doubtfully referred by Dr. Allen (1. c.) to the synonomy of Re'iiluo- 

 dontoiuys lecontu with the opinion that it is " not determinable; probably 

 a young Peroruysciis.'" To this conclusion one may readily agree for here 

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

 young Revninyscus, while the mention of the slightly grooved incisors sug- 

 gests Reiihr(id</nt(>iiiys. Had it been stated in the description of J/. Im mulls 

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

 that of .1/. cardHiu'iisis and the name might well be rejected as indeterminate. 



Reithrodontomys cherriei (Allen). 



Jlrsiicroiuys {W'spcriiuus) cheirii Allen, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Ill, pp. 



211-212, 1891. 

 licilhrodoiilouiys fostarid'usis Allen, supra cit., VII, p. 139, 1895. 



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

 original <lescription, as follows: "Six specimens, as follows: skin (6^? 

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

 (2 c? ad., 1 9 ad., and two half-grown young), La Carpintera (altitude about 

 6,000 feet), Oct.-Nov., 1890, George K. (^hcrrie." Through the good oHices 



