AMERICAN BATS OF THE GENERA MYOTIS AND PIZONYX 79 



corded (Rhoads, 1894) were collected by Mr. W. S. Dickinson in 

 1892 at Tarpon Springs, Florida, and were identified by Harrison 

 Allen as Vespertih'o gryphus {^Myotis lucifugus). Three years 

 later Rhoads, noticing that its dense, lusterless, dull-colored fur was 

 unlike that of northern Myotis lucifugus^ separated the Florida ani- 

 mal as a subspecies, under the name austroriparius. 



He then submitted his material to Miller who saw that the two 

 skins, one of them the type, pertained to immature individuals and 

 that the specimens in alcohol did not differ appreciably, except in 

 their short fur and dull color, from true M. lucifugus. Believing 

 that the pecularities of the series were all due to immaturity and 

 the effects of alcohol Miller placed Khoads' name in the synonymy 

 of lucifugus^ where it has remained until now. The animal was next 

 collected by Hahn in Indiana, but was confused by him with Myotis 

 '''' suhulatu^'''' { = M. keenii septentnondlis) . This error was detected 

 by Allen while examining Hahn's material, now in the United States 

 National Museum, during the preparation of this monograph. The 

 characters, when once seen, were so obvious that we unhesitatingly 

 drew up a description of Hahn's bat as a new species. It remained 

 thus until the manuscript was nearly ready to go to press, when, 

 fortunately, Mr. Copeland sent us his series of twelve skins of adults 

 from Bird Key, Tampa Bay, south of Tarpon Springs. Study of 

 this material soon showed two things: that the austroriparius of 

 Rhoads was specifically distinct from Myotis 1/acifugus, and that 

 the animal was identical with the bat subsequently taken in Indiana 

 by Hahn. 



When he placed the name austroriparius in the synonymy of 

 Myotis lucifugus Miller called attention to the likelihood that Le- 

 Conte's animal might prove to be the same as the one described by 

 Rhoads, should the latter ever be shown to possess distinctive char- 

 acters.^*^ This possibility has not yet been disposed of, as we still 

 have no knowledge as to the forms of Myotis actually occurring in 

 southern Georgia. It may be said, however, that LeConte has written 

 nothing in either of his descriptions of Vespertilio lucifugus which 

 points toward the present animal, and also that the only known 

 specimen that can be reasonably supposed to have been determined 

 by LeConte (see p. 44) is a typical example of Myotis lucifugus 

 hicifugus as now understood. 



^« North Amer. Fauna, No. 13, p. 21, October 16, 1897. 



