PLEISTOCENE VliRTEBRATES FROM CUMBERLAND CAVE 11 



from B. shnplicidens Cope (1899, pp. 219-220). The longitudinal 

 profile of the lower border of the mandible varies in the series of jaws 

 from a smooth curve, as in the Conard Fissure specimen figured by 

 Brown, to a margin distinctly angulate below M3. The variation, 

 however, does not appear to be greater than in living Blarina brevi- 

 cauda, although modern specimens show a greater tendency toward a 

 sharper angulation below M3. Furthermore, there is an average 

 difference in the form of the large lower incisor, wliich in the fossil 

 shrew is less turned upward at the point than is usual in living species. 

 As noticed by Brown, the crowns of the teeth show })igment as in more 

 recent specimens. 



Order CHIROPTERA 

 Family VESPERTILIONIDAE 



EPTESICUS cf. GRANDIS (Brown)» 



The hvrge vespertihonid Eptesicus is represented in the collection by 

 13 skull poi'tions and 55 mandibular rami. About half the lower jaw 

 specimens are exceptionally well preserved, and one pair of rami was 

 associated with a nearl}' complete skull. 



The two best-preserved Cumberland Cave skulls (U.S.N.M. 

 nos. 12432 and 12433) are distinctly larger than the living bat Epiesicus 

 juscu^, in which respect they resemble E. J. grandis from the Conard 

 Fissure. Brown considered liis form a subspecies of E.fuscus, but the 

 characters outlined by him suggest that the form might well deserve 

 full specific rank. Furthermore, if the Cumberland Cave form is 

 conspecific \\Ai\\ the Arkansas Pleistocene type, as seems evident, 

 additional characters are to be seen in the crania of the better-preserved 

 skulls from Maryland. 



As in E. grandis, the Cumberland Cave form shows the following 

 difi'erences from E.fuscvs: Skull larger, ridges and depressions on the 

 dorsal surface of rostrum usually more pronounced, width of zygoma 

 greater, teeth somewhat larger than average, depth of masseteric 

 fossa slightly greater, condyle on mandible relatively larger, antero- 

 internal basal cusp on P4 better developed, and mandible of greater 

 relative depth. Additional characters not determinable in the Conard 

 Fissure material but present in the Cumberland specimens include a 

 wider brain case, greater separation of the occipital condyles, and 

 slightly larger bullae. The only difl'erence observed between the 

 specimens from the two localities is that the upper canine in the 

 Maryland form is slightly smaller. However, the number of speci- 

 mens in which this tooth is preserved is very limited in both collec- 

 tions, and the canine in recent individuals shows a noticeable variation 

 in size. 



> Brown, 1908, pp. 174-175, pi. 15. 

 16541—38 2 



