42 BULLETIN 144, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



which they show, from M. lucifugus. There is a strong probability, 

 however, that they represent the animal which Ognev has recently 

 described from Vladivostok as Myotis daubentonii usswie7isis,^ and 

 in the absence of more complete evidence we prefer not to regard 

 their presence in Kamchatka as undoubted proof that an American 

 bat has extended its range into the Old World. 



Nomenclature. — Without doubt the earliest tenable name for this 

 species is lucifugus LeConte (1831) as pointed out by Miller (1897). 

 The original description, though all too general and brief, applied 

 well enough to this bat, and in a more amplified account, LeConte 

 (1855) made it appear reasonably probable that the species was the 

 common short-eared Myotis of the eastern United States, though he 

 supposed that his specimens represented two animals, one of which 

 he wrongly took to be the same as Say's Vespertilio suhulatus. The 

 British Museum now possesses a skin of the species (No. 7.1.1.534, 

 formerly No. 4741, U. S. Nat. Mus.), received by Tomes many 

 years ago from the Smithsonian Institution. There is no question as 

 to the identity of this specimen, and the original record in the cata- 

 logue of the United States National Museum shows that it came 

 directly from LeConte. It was entered as Vespertilio lucifugv^s, but 

 unfortunately without indication of locality. Several writers subse- 

 quently characterized supposed new species which can be no other 

 than this bat. Among these forms are three described by F. Cuvier 

 in 1832 {Vespertilio gryphus, V. salarii^ and V. crassus), all from 

 " New York ; " the first and second sent to Paris by Milbert, the last 

 by Lesueur. The essential parts of the descriptions are much alike, 

 and seem in all probability to refer to slight variations in the same 

 species, allowing for a discrepancy in giving &t^assus only two pre- 

 molars. Temminck's Vespertilio carolii^ from Philadelphia and New 

 York, is unquestionably a Myotis as shown by the number of teeth; 

 and the rest of the description fits M. lucifugus perfectly. Green's 

 F. domestieus and Audubon and Bachman's V. virginianus appear 

 also to be the same. An immature specimen with supposedly peculiar 

 characters served as the basis for H. Allen's Vespertilio affinis, but an 

 examination of the type specimen proves that the name is a synonym 

 of lucifugus. LeConte's incorrect identification (1855) of an indi- 

 vidual variation in the short-eared species lucifugus with the Ves- 

 pertilio suhulatus of Say was the cause of much confusion among 

 subsequent authors (H. Allen, 1864, and Dobson, 1878, excepted). 

 Thus the blanket name " Vespertilio suhulatus " came to be used 

 rather indiscriminately for the two common small brown bats of the 

 eastern United States until the specific distinctness of Myotis luci- 

 fugus and M. " suhulatus " ( = 3/. keenii septentnonalis of the pres- 

 ent paper) was finally made clear by Miller in his review of 1897. 



» Journ. Mamm., vol. 8, p. 146, May 12, 1927. 



