38 BE VISION OF AMERICA N MOLES— TE VE. vol. xix. 



as the fact tliat no specimens are now known does not preclude their 

 being obtained liereafter. 



It wouhl seem improbable that anyone who had examined one of 

 these moles could mistake its identity, considering the very peculiar 

 character of the nasal appendage. If mistakes have occurred, it must 

 have been through faulty field notes or lapses of memory. 



One of the records referred to is that of Woodhouse. In the zoology 

 of Sitgreave's Zuni and Colorado Eiver Expedition, he remarks of the 

 species: "This animal is very common in the Indian Territory.'' ' 



He does not support this positive statement by mention of any locali- 

 ties, and there were no specimens of the mole sent to the Smithsonian 

 Institution with the mammals of the expedition. As no specimens have 

 been taken within 500 miles of the Territory, the record would seem to 

 need confirmation. 



The records relating to the Pacific Coast are equally positive. Eich- 

 ardson, in an addendum to the report on the mammals of the Fauna 

 Boreali Americana, introduces Condylura macroura Harlan ( = (7. cm- 

 tata) with the following remark: 



Since the greater part of the preceding sheets were printed off, Mr. David Douglas 

 has presented me -with a specimen of this remarkable animal, procured by him on 

 the banlvS of the Cohimbia.- 



There can be no doubt that this specimen was a Condylura., and if 

 there is an error in this case it must be in the record of the locality. 

 Douglas was on the Pacific Coast for three years, and had ami)le oppor- 

 tunities to obtain rarities, but he also crossed the continent going and 

 returning, and may have picked up this specimen in southern Canada or 

 in the vicinity of Hudson Bay. This is, however, entirely an assumption. 



Another record occurs in Cooper and Buckley's Natural History of 

 Washington Territory, as follows: 



In 1852 I saw a A'ery large star-nosed mole which had been killed at Orleans Bar on 

 Klamath River. — G[ibbs]. 



Dr. Cooper saw at Vancouver, "\V. T., in 1853, a decayed specimen which hiid the 

 appearance of having a radiated excrescence on the nose, but, being crushed and 

 nearly destroyed, the specimen was unfit for preservation.^ 



In this second instance, Dr. Cooper may of course have been mistaken 

 regarding the identity of his specimen, as it was in such bad condition, 

 but Gibbs's statement is quite as positive as Pichardson's. It is to be 

 regretted that Gibbs did not specify where he saw the specimen he 

 mentions. 



The doubt which I throw on these Pacific Coast records is based (1) 

 on the fact that if accepted it is necessary to suppose that an area of 

 1,200 or 1,400 miles in diameter in the middle of the range is uninhab- 

 ited; (2) that no spe<;imens from the Pacific Coast are to be found in 



'Sitgreave's Zuni and Colorado E. Exp., p. 43. 

 •Fauna Bor. Amer.. Mammalia, p. 284. 



'Cooper and Suckley, Natural History of Wash. Ter., 1860, chapter 3 (by Suckley 

 & Gibbs), p. 108. 



