122 BULLETm 43, UXITET) STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



acceptance of this conclusion ^vonld leave the species wliicli is here 

 described unnamed. Unfortunately no one caii definitely tell what the 

 Yespertilio geor(/ianus really is, if we put aside the testimony of Major 

 Leconte, who sent the original material to I^^r. Cuvier for study ( Vide 

 Monograph of 1864, p. 37). 



This species was named Scotopldlus georgkunis in the first edition of 

 this Monograph. The assignment to Scotophilus has been explained on 

 page 111. The specific name was derived from the paperof ]Maj. Leconte, 

 in ■which it was claimed that while the number of the teeth was that 

 characteristic of Yespertilio, the back was described in the following 

 language: "Dark plumbeus above tipi^ed with bright rufous, the hair 

 so arranged that the pelage appears varied with black, particularly on 

 the upper part of tlie back.'' No other bat than the one under dis- 

 cussion has fur so colored; so it is evident that some other species rhau 

 a member of the genus Yespertilio was intended. The statement re- 

 garding the teeth was erroneous. I was favored with an opportunity of 

 examining a collection of bats which had been named by ^laj. Leconte, 

 and the bat identified by me at the time of writing the monograph as 

 Scotopliihis f/eorgianus, is undoubtedly the same as the one named 

 Yespertilio georgianus by Maj. Leconte. 



The following passage from the Monograpli is apropos to the present 

 statement: 



This Bpecies lias lieon but imperfectly described by tlie authors above cited. Fr. 

 Cuvier's diagnosis is quite iucomplete, and Avoiild be nndistinguishable from that 

 of the smaller form of V. gryphus had it not been that, from having sent the author 

 the specimen from which the description was taken, Maj. Leconte was familiar with 

 the type, and afterwards gave a more exact description of the animal in the work 

 above cited. He, liowever, was himself in error in some particulars, especially in 

 making the dentition similar to that of V. snbuhitus ( T'. firyphns), and in asserting 

 that the last false molar of the npper jaw was bi-emarginated. I have Itefore me a 

 large series of specimens, some of which have jSIaj. Leconte's name attached, but in 

 none of them have I found any internal basal bi-emarginato c\isp as described by him. 



Dr. Bachmau's descripticm of F. monficola applies well to S. r/eorgianus, excepting 

 in the measurements, which, in the case of the ear and tragus, are entirely too small 

 in proportion to the size of the body. I have an alcoholic specimen, marked V. 

 moHiicola, in the same handwriting as some other si)ecimens ])urported to have been 

 labeled by Dr. Bachman, which is beyond doubt S. tieorf/hnins ( V. <iror<j)anui<), the 

 ear and tragus being of the usual size. 



Yespertilio carolinensis Geoft". (Annales du Museum, ISOG, YIII, fig., 

 pi. 48) is figured as having two premolars in the upper jaw. Temminck 

 (Mammalogie) gives five molars in each jaw. This fact woTild separate 

 the species from Yespertilio and place it in Yesperxgo. The figure of 

 the head (Fig. 1, pi. 59) is quite compatible Avith that of Yesperngo. 

 Geoffroy (/. c.) and Desraarest (Manunalogie, 1820, 13(>), however, both 

 speak of its resemblance to Y. mvrinus. The writer last named also 

 speaks of its resembling Y. heclsteinii, Leisler, a species not known when 

 Geoffroy framed his description. 



Temminck, for some reason not given, claims that his Yespertilio car- 

 olinensis resembles Y. serotinus^ and thus indicates its relation to the 



