Rev. L. Jenyns on the British Shrews. 421 



const-rictus of Geoffrey, which is evidently distinct, and which 

 appears in many of its characters, especially its size and the 

 form of the cranium, to resemble the square-tailed shrew of 

 this paper, or Hermann's S. tetragonurus ; whilst, on the other 

 hand, the S. tetragonurus of Geoffroy, I think may possibly 

 be the same as my common shrew. That the name of tetra- 

 gonurus has been thus applied by Hermann and Geoffroy to 

 two distinct species, though Geoffroy did not confound the 

 species themselves, is further probable from the circumstance, 

 that the S. cunicularius of Bechstein, which seems closely to 

 approach the square-tailed shrew of this country, Duvernoy 

 considers as synonymous with the S. tetragonurus of Her- 

 mann, whilst Geoffroy regards it to be the same as his con- 

 strictus. It is useless looking to any of the later systematic 

 authors with the view of solving this question, as none of 

 them have added anything in their descriptions of the above 

 species from their own observation. And it appears to me 

 that the only step to be taken is to impose a new name on the 

 common shrew of this country, reserving the name of tetrago- 

 nurus for the square-tailed shreiv of this paper, which I believe 

 to be the true tetragonurus of Hermann and Duvernoy. It is 

 not at all improbable that the former may be the S. constric- 

 tus of some authors, but it appears to me a more preferable 

 step to run the hazard of increasing its synonymy, than of 

 adding to the confusion which exists at present by giving it a 

 name, which may one day be proved to have been applied in 

 some cases to a distinct species. The name which I propose 

 for it is that of S. rusticus. 



Before I proceed to the synopsis of British shrews with 

 which I propose to conclude this paper, I may say a few words 

 with reference to the nomenclature of S.fodiens and S. remifer 

 of this country. I stated in a previous memoir that the former 

 was not the S.fodiens of Duvernoy, and judging from the 

 characters of the teeth which he assigns to his species, I see 

 no ground for revoking that opinion. But further investiga- 

 tion has led me to believe that it is the real S.fodiens of 

 Gmelin, as well as of Bechstein, Brehm, and Wagler. I find 

 also, in confirmation of this latter point, that in a second me- 

 moir on the shrews read by Duvernoy to the Strasburg Na- 



