REVISION OF AMERICAN MOLES— TRUE. 



not liave done from the statements of Seba, who, if my view is correct, 

 did not have any American specimens of moles, though he describes 

 some as snch.^ 



The records mentioned thus for relate to Scalops aquaticus or Condy- 

 lura cristata, but William Bartram (born in 1739, died in 1823) seems 

 to have knowu at an early date of the existence of the species now 

 called Brewer's mole, Parascalops hreweri. There is a reference to his 

 manuscript name, " Trti/)« americana, black mole" (but no description), 

 in Harlan's Fauna Americana of 1825.2 There were specimens of 

 Brewer's mole in London prior to 1829, but they were not recognized 

 as such, and the species was not formally described until 1842, when 

 Bachman published a notice of it. 



The Pacific Coast mole, Sea2)anus toicnscndi, came under the observa- 

 tion of Lewis and Clarke between 1804 to 1806, but they did not recognize 

 the fact that it was different from the species of the Atlantic Coast.^ 

 This was reserved for Bachman in 1839. There were specimens in the 

 museum of the Hudson's Bay Company, however, prior to 1829. 



The very remarkable little mole of the Pacific Coast, Neurotrichus 

 gibhsii, remained unknown to science until 1857, when it was described 

 by Professor Baird from a specimen collected in 1854 by George 

 Gibbs. 



Many zoologists, beginning with Linnneus, were disposed to regard 

 the American moles as shrews. Linnaeus placed both the common 

 Eastern mole and the Star-nosed mole in his genus Sorex, which is 

 practically equivalent to the family 8oricid(v of the present day. This 

 view was opposed by Pennant as early as 1771, who places the Ameri- 

 can forms known to him with the moles.^ 



Most unfortunately, however, he classifies his " Yellow Mole," which 

 he got from New York, and was really Scalo2)s aquaticus, as a variety 

 of the European mole. The consequence was that the impression pre- 

 vailed, even as late as 1829, that a variety of the European mole (i. e., 

 a representative of the genus Talpa) existed in America.^ The truth 

 was obscured also from the fact that there were specimens in London at 

 a comparatively early date of Brewer's mole, which in color resembles 

 the European mole. After 1831, when Godman expressed disbelief in 

 the occurrence of Talpa in America, that generic name as applied to 



> As will appear later, Seba's " Talpa, rubra, Americana" (supposed to be from the 

 West Indies), represented in bis plate 32, is probably a Chrysochloris ; while his 

 Talpa, rirgin'uniuii, niger, supposed to bo from Virginia, is an European mole. 

 (Seba, Thesaurus, I, pi. 32.) ! 



'Page 43. i 



=See CouEs's T.ewis and Clarke's Expedition, 1804-1806, III, 1893, p. 864. | 



■"Synopsis of Quadrupeds, 1771, p. 315 {fide Fischer). I have not seen this work. ' 

 In the 3d edition (History of Quadrupeds), II, 1793, p. 233, he remarks: "Linn:eus j 

 places this [\.&., Scalops aquaticiiii] and our radiated mole in his class of Sorex, or { 

 shrew, on account of the diflVrenre of the teeth; but as these animals possess the ! 

 stronger characters of the mole, such as form of nose and body, shape of feet, and 

 even the manner, we think them better ndapted to this genus than to the preceding." 

 ^Seo Richardson, Fauna Bor. Auier., Quad., 1, 1S29, p. 12. 



