REVISION OF AMERICAN MOLES— TRUE. 



In the only two specimens of australis wbicli can be used for compari- 

 son (the type and ai)other) the skull is 31 mm. long, and the hind foot 

 has a length of 15 mm. and 15.4 mm. respectively. It would seem prob- 

 able from this that there is no appreciable difference in the relative 

 length of the hind foot in these two forms. As somewhat confirming 

 this opinion, I find that the average measurements of eight females 

 of texanuH (measured when fresh) recently given by Dr. Allen agree 

 very closely with average measurements of seven fresh specimens 

 (females also) in the N"ational Museum collection from Ealeigh, North 

 Carolina. In the former, the hind foot 12.3 per cent of the total length, 

 and in the latter 12.4 per cent. 



In opposition to these apjtarently close resemblances in proportions, 

 we find that the tail is much longer in texaniis than in au.strali.s, being 

 about 18 per cent of the total length in males of the former variety and 

 13 [ler cent in the latter. The skull of ic.vanns, as already mentioned 

 diflers in some respects from that of axstralis. Very striking in the 

 former is the enlargement of the muzzle and the massiveuess of the 

 coronoid process of the mandible. This process has generally a straight 

 posterior margin in texanuSj but a concave one in australis. Further, 

 the molar teetli in icxanus are relatively larger and more nearly square 

 in outline, and the first upper premolar is very small. 



On account of the large size of the molars, the mandible is heavier 

 and deeper than in the Florida mole. 



These i^eculiarities of the teeth and skull appear to me to connect 

 the Texas mole with the large Mississippi Valley Diacliriims, and I am 

 disposed to regard the form as connected with tyiYicgil aquatic us through 

 that channel. Whether texanus is connected also with australis appears 

 to me more uncertain. Specimens from about New Orleans, however, 

 exhibit characters intermediate between australis and texanus. Thus, 

 in specimens from Louisiana and Mississippi, the molar teeth are mod- 

 erately large and the upper premolar is neither very large nor very 

 small. Such specimens as are at hand, however, do not show the rusty 

 suffusion in any striking manner: indeed, not as much so as specimens 

 from Florida, the Carolinas, and elsewhere. Tlie material at command 

 is scarcely sutticient for a determination of the questions at issue, and 

 conjectures in this case will be of little value.' 



'After the foregoinsi: paragraphs were in type I had the opportunity, as already 

 stated, of examining Mr. Bangs' interesting collection, which contains five speci- 

 mens from Mer Rouge, Louisiana, and an excellent series of adults from Oak Grove, 

 Florida. An examination of the skulls of the Florida series makes it more evident 

 that in cianial characters, as in size, nHstfalis very closely resembles tvsaniis, the 

 greater breadth of the muzzle iu the latter being perhaps the only ditference of any 

 magnitude and constancy. 



The Louisiana specimens are rather puzzling, but they have the long tail and 

 broad muzzle of tcraiius. The skulls are larger than typical texauns. as might be 

 expected. Two skins exhibit the rusty sutfusion on the breast very strongly. Three 

 adults, measured wiien fresh, give average dimensions as follows: Total length, 

 157.7 mm. ; tail, 30 mm. ; hind foot, 20.7 nun. 



Northern Louisiana appears to bo a region of intergradcs of typical (niu<tticus from 

 around the southern extremity of the Alleghanics, iexaniia from the southwest, and 

 iiuuhrinitti from the north. 



