AMEBIOAN BATS OP THE GENERA MYOTIS AND PIZONYX 167 



in the eastern part of its range as it has been with M. caZiformcus 

 in the west. As compared with Myotis lucifugus it is distinguishable 

 by smaller size, small foot, and the distinct keel on the calcar; as 

 compared with Myotis caZifo7'nicus, by longer thumb (wrist and 

 thumb together usually 8 to 8.5 mm. instead of 6.5 to 7 mm.), larger, 

 more flattened skull, larger teeth (except as compared with M. 

 califomicus mexicanus) and, in a general way, though not invariably, 

 by more glossy dorsal fur. 



In the east it was first recognized by Audubon and Bachman, who, 

 in 1842 described the animal as Vespertilio leibii on the basis of a 

 specimen sent by their correspondent Leib from Erie County, Ohio 

 (then Michigan). Their description brings out the characteristic 

 black ears and wings, long tail, very small feet, and small size as 

 compared with Myotis lucifugus^ which, under the name Vespertilio 

 virginianibs, they redescribed in the same paper. So little known 

 has the species remained in the region east of the Mississippi River 

 that the name leihii has been either lost sight of entirely or regarded 

 as a synonym of lucifugus. More recently (1913) the name Myotis 

 innnemana was given to the eastern race of the species on the basis 

 of specimens from Maryland and Vermont which Dr. E. W. Nelson 

 saw were not referable to Myotis lucifugus. 



In 1886 Dr. C. Hart Merriam redescribed the typical arid-plains 

 form as Vespertilio ciliolahrumi, and four years later he applied the 

 name melanorhinus to another race from Arizona. While ciliolabi^uim 

 has been currently recognized as a race of califomicus the name 

 melanorhinus has been placed in the synonymy of Myotis califomicus 

 califomicus. In 1893 H. Allen, apparently again noticing the con- 

 trast between Myotis suhulatus Tnelanorhinus and M. califomicus., 

 suggested the subspecific name henshawii for two specimens from 

 Wingate, N. Mex. Almost exactly the same thing happened 10 years 

 later when Elliot described his Myotis orinonvus from Lower Cali- 

 fornia. 



Not until 1918 were the characters which distinguish Myotis subu- 

 latus from Myotis califomicus clearly recognized. They were then 

 pointed out in detail, so far as the forms of the two species occurring 

 in California are concerned, by Mrs. Grinnell, who did not, however, 

 realize that the oHnoTnus of Elliot was a race of the species described 

 as subulatus by Say. 



This animal bears somewhat the same relation to Myotis calif or- 

 nicus that M. lucifugus bears to M. ywnanensis, in being slightly 

 larger of body, with often distinctly burnished instead of rather 

 constantly lusterless pelage, and in having a larger, flatter skull. 

 Furthermore, the contrast in ranges is similar, for while Myotis suhu- 

 latus and Myotis lucifugus extend as species quite across the conti- 

 nent, their lesser counterparts, M. califomicibs and M. yumamensis, 



