42 REVISION OF AMERICAN MOLES— TRUE. vol.xix. 



tlip form of its molar teeth, but, as liis description of them agrees witli 

 the latter species, it is supijosablc that he was misled hy the descrip- 

 tions of V. Cuvier and Desmarest. He gives the whole number of teeth 

 as 40, or 4 in excess of the proper number. This was due to the addi- 

 tion of 4 "false molar" teeth to the dental formula, an error which 

 probably crept in unintentionally, as he states in another place that 

 "this species corresponds in the number and arrangement of its teeth 

 with the genus Scalops of F. Cuvier." The type (a skeleton) was pre- 

 sumably from Pennsylvania. 



The error in the dental formula of Harlan's Hcalopn pennnifh-anlcu led 

 Lesson, in 1SU7, to establish the genus Talpasorex for the reception of 

 the species. ^ 



The first reference to the common mole, under the name noAv used, 

 appears to be that in F. Cuvier's Avork on the teeth of mammals, pub- 

 lished in 1825.^ This is not quite in the regular form, as he gives 

 merely the name of the genus ScaJops in his systematic index, and 

 under it "Scalope aquatique, sorcx (((juatieus, Linn." 



The intention, however, was clearly to name the species ScaIo2)s 

 aquaticus, but this was not formally done, so ftir as I have been able to 

 ascertain, until 1829, when it occurs in Fischer's Synopsis Mammalinm. •' 



In 1842 Bachman published an admirable revision of the American 

 moles,^ in which he cleared up the synonymy of the s])ecies under con- 

 sideration, and corrected many misapprehensions prevailingatthattime. 



In 1853 Br. John L. LeConte attempted a revision of the American 

 moles on the basis of si)ecimens in the museum of the Philadelphia 

 Academy.'^ 



He considered that the genus ScnJops was not well founded, and 

 returned all the species to the genus Talpa, which he then proceeded to 

 divide into sections. These sections, one, two, and three, cover quite 

 exactly the genera Talpa, Scapaniis, and Scalops, respectively, as they 

 were currently adopted. With the first section, of which the ty])e 

 was T((}pa eiiropwn^ we have no concern. The second section contained 

 Talpa hrciccri, Talpa wnea, Talpa ton-nsendii, and Talpa twniala. Talpa 

 hreweri is the species recognized in this work as Parascalops hrea-cri 

 (Bachman), and the other s])ecies are supposed to be identical with 

 ^capanus toa-nsoidi, as will be more fully stated when considering that 

 genus. 



The third section contains, besides Scalojis aqnafiaifi, a species called 

 Talpa pcnnaniii, which, as LeConte states, "ai)pears to be the yelhuv 

 mole of Pennant."^ It is not based on this, however, but on a specimen 



1 Lesson. Maiiuel do Miuninalosie. 1827. p. 124. 



^V. Cnvier, Deuts dcs ^liuuniifi-res. 182.5. p. 251. 



sPajxe 241). 



" Boston .(onrn. \at. Hist., lY, 1842. p. 2G. 



sProc. Acad. Nat. Sci. I'liila., VI, 1853, p. 326. 



"If Pimnant's " yellow mole " were a valid species, LeConte's name wonld. of course, 

 Lave no standing, as the former i-eceived a Latin appellation long before LeConte's 

 paper appeared. 



