108 BULLETIN 144, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



ized the " Northern form " as " Vespertilio gryphus septentrionalis^'' 

 wrongly attributing to Allen the new name which he thus established. 

 Later in the same year, Miller, again recognizing the animal as a 

 distinct species, restored the specific name subulatus^ but called atten- 

 tion to the fact that, while there was no doubt as to the identity of 

 the bat which Harrison Allen had in hand in 1864, the contrary was 

 true with regard to the one originally named by Say in 1823. After 

 quoting Say's description in full Miller says (1897, p. 36) : 



While there is nothing in this account that refers unquestionably to the 

 longer eared of the two species of Myotis inhabiting the eastern United States, 

 the name has passed current for this animal so long that, after careful con- 

 sideration of all the evidence, I am unwilling to substitute for it Trouessart's 

 name septentrionalis, the only one unequivocally based on the species. Say's 

 Vespertilio subulatus came from the Arkansas River, near the present town 

 of La Junta, Colorado. The bats of this region are not well known, but at 

 present Myotis evotis, M. californicus ciliolabrum, and M. lucifugus longicrus 

 are the only members of the genus Myotis which may confidently be expected 

 to occur there. From the known range of Myotis subulatus to the north and 

 west, however, its regular occurrence in Colorado is' by no means impossible. 

 * * * I am merely continuing the usage of the past thirty-four years, not, 

 however, without grave misgivings that the reasons for so doing are in reality 

 unsound. 



Miller supposed that the eastern long-eared Myotis might occur in 

 southeastern Colorado. It is still possible that such is the case; but 

 thirty years of collecting since his paper was published have failed 

 to prove that the animal's range extends nearer to the type locality 

 of Vespertilio subulatus than Arkansas, Missouri, and North Dakota. 

 Furthermore it can easily be shown that Say's description contains 

 statements which are not applicable to this animal but which dis- 

 tinctly indicate a species whose range is known to include eastern 

 Colorado, namely the small bat described as Vespertilio ciliolabrum. 

 by Merriam in 1886. The eastern long-eared Myotis is a definitely 

 brown animal, somewhat lighter and more yellowish below than on 

 the back ; Say's bat was " dull cinereous " above and " yellowish- 

 white " below. These expressions do not apply to the subulatus of 

 Harrison Allen and subsequent authors, but they might readily have 

 been based on specimens of " ciliolabnmi " and notably on an individ- 

 ual from Colorado Springs which Warren recorded in 1910.^^ By 

 a curious accident Warren misidentified his specimen as an example 

 of the eastern long-eared Myotis. Consequently he called it Myotis 

 subulatus, thinking that he had the subulatus of Harrison Allen, 

 Dobson, and Miller. Actually he had Say's original subulatus, the 

 animal to which we now restore this long-misapplied name. Troues- 



" Mnminals of Colorado, p. 275. 



