NO. 1101. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 87 



Kennicott considered the species not abundant in Illinois, but records 

 it from Cook County.^ 



No specimens were reported to Dr. J. A. Allen from Iowa, but lie 

 regarded it as doubtless occurring in the eastern i)art of the State.^ 



Lapham stated in 1853 that there was a specimen from Milwaukee, 

 Wisconsin, in the Museum of the Natural History Association at Mad- 

 ison,-* and Strong states that its range includes the i^rairie region of 

 the southern and central portions of the State.'' 



There is a specimen of the star-nosed mole (So. 964) from Hinckley, 

 Minnesota, in the Museum of the Geological Survey of Minnesota.^ 

 according to the list of specimens published in the report of that survey. 



We come now again to the outlying districts. Eichardson includes 

 the species among those which "may occur" in his Limestone Tract, 

 but only in the southern portion. This portion of the tract is practi- 

 cally equivalent to Manitoba. He did not obtain any specimens from 

 thence." 



Mr. Thompson writes regarding Manitoba: "Mr. Hines informs me 

 that he has seen specimens of this mole taken within our province."' 

 The exact points at which these specimens were seen is not mentioned. 



So far as specimens are concerned, there is no evidence that the 

 species is found anj-where in the United States west of the Missis- 

 sippi (with one possible exception of Fort Eipley, Minnesota)," though, 

 as we have seen. Dr. J. A. Allen considered its occurrence in eastern 

 Iowa probable. 



Prof. Erwin H. Barbour has written me regarding the occurrence of 

 the species in Nebraska as follows: 



The star-nosed mole has been reported to uje repeatedly. However, I have never 

 seen one. Students have I'eiiorted it«8o frequently that I think its occurrence in the 

 State is reasonably sure. 



I have encountered a few positive statements in the literature, which, 

 if correct, render it necessary to extend the range of the star-nosed 

 mole to the Pacific Coast, as Dobson has done. On theoretical grounds, 

 I am strongly of the belief that these several records must be incorrect, 

 though a demonstration in a matter of this kind is hardly to be made, 



1 Trans. 111. State Agricultural vSociety. 



2Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., XIH, 1870, p. 187. 



3 Trans. Wis. Agric, Soc. II, 1853, p. 338. 



••Geology of Wisconsin, I, 1883, p. 438. 



'' Fourteenth Report Geol. Survey Minn., 1886, p. 142. See also Ames in Bull. Minn. 

 Acad., 1874, p. 69. 



•> Fauna Bor. Amer., p. xxvii. 



'Thompson, Mammals of Manitoba, p. 21. 



^Fort Ripley, Minnesota, is on the east side of the river in some maps and on 

 the west side in others. The land office map of 1892 indicates a town of this name 

 on the east side and a fort on the west side. The single specimen in the collection 

 probably came from the vicinity of the fort, and hence from the west side of the 

 river. 



