264 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 61, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



time between 1840 and 1848 (see Essig, E. O., p. 777, "A History of En- 

 tomology," The Macmillan Co., New York, 1931). 



The specimen was preserved in alcohol, in a small jar containing no 

 other specimen. An unattached label in the jar bears the catalogue number, 

 2389, "Unalaska" and "Wosnesensky". A label on the outside of the jar bears 

 the data given on the label inside the jar and also the words "Sorex hy- 

 drodromus type". The specimen is poorly preserved and has lost much 

 of the hair. From the parts preserved, it is ascertainable that the animal 

 was darker-colored above than below. The hairs remaining on the tail are 

 of the same reddish color on the top, bottom and sides of the tail. Dissec- 

 tion of the specimen revealed the uterine horns as small structures which 

 certainly had not recently contained young. Upon removal, the skull was 

 found to have the left side of the brain case broken in and to be broken in 

 two along the plane of the cribiform plate. Fortunately, another specimen, 

 an adult female, containing 6 embryos, 5.8 mm. in crown-rump length, taken 

 at Unalaska by Vosnesensky in 1848, is available at the Zoological Insti- 

 tute at Leningrad. This specimen, no. 2370, also an alcoholic, proved to 

 have a perfect skull. Nos. 2389 and 2370, measured respectively as follows: 

 Total length, 97, 93; length of tail, 42.8, 32.6; length of hind foot, with 

 claws, 13.4, 12.3. 



* Probably least interorbital breadth. 



The hairiness of the tail is about the same in no. 2370 and Sorex arcticus, 

 No. 39709, of the Mus. Vert. Zool., from Barrow, Alaska, and the fringe 

 of hair on the sides of both the fore- and hind-feet are not appreciably 

 different. The skull of no. 2370, compared with M.V.Z. 39710 (one of 2 

 specimens of S. tundrensis taken with me from the United States to use 

 in comparison), has less protruding upper incisors and a slightly "flatter" 

 brain case, due in each instance, I think, to the greater age of no. 2370 

 which, however, is smaller in every measurement taken. Otherwise, when 

 viewed from the side the two skulls have identical contour in the dorsal 

 longitudinal axis. Also, when the same two skulls are viewed from directly 

 above they are, to my eye, of identical outline excepting in the rostrum 

 which appears to be broader, relative to its length, in no. 2370, even allow- 

 ing for the lesser profusion of the incisors in that specimen — a circumstance 

 which magnifies the impression of greater relative breadth. 



When comparison is made between Sorex pribilofensis (cat. nos. 2485 and 



