SCOTOPHILUS. 33 



gum. This slight omission I think in nowise affects the diagnosis, 

 any more than the fact that the neglect of naturalists for a long 

 time to notice the minute premolar behind the canine of the upper 

 jaw of L. cinereus and noveboracensis would affect the identity 

 of those species. 



Tenmiinck's species, V. ursinus and the V. j^^^^^iops of Rafi- 

 nesque, I consider to be the same as the one under consideration. 

 It would appear strange that these two forms should be united, 

 when the bicolored hair of the first, as described by Temminck, 

 would at once separate it from the unicolored fur of the second.^ 

 Major Leconte has indeed separated them ; but in the individuals 

 labelled by him, now before me, I have not been successful in 

 observing any such difference as those mentioned above. I have, 

 therefore, taken V. iirsiJiun to be a true synonym of S. fuscus, 

 and the form mentioned hj Temminck as the V. phaiops, Raf., to 

 be a species that has not been observed in jS^orth America, and is 

 probably a member of another fauna. 



In the memoir above noticed. Major Leconte has made a laud- 

 able effort to identify the species, the result of the labors of Euro- 

 ropean authors, and thus relieve this subject of its intricate 

 synonomy. With this object in view, he has dwelt upon and de- 

 veloped points not mentioned by the original describers. Thus, in 

 speaking of the shape of the outer border of the ear, he says : — 



" The fuscus has the ear somewhat triangular, very concave 

 on the outer edge, and emarginate near the tip. 



" The u7-t;i7ius ear oval, entire ; that is to say not at all emargi- 

 nate, the orillon acinaciform and obtuse. 



" The p)haiops ear somewhat triangular, sinuous or bi-emargi- 

 nate on the outer edge, orillon oblong, blunt. 



" The caroU has the ears ovate, emarginate behind almost from 

 the tip to the base, and the orillon lanceolate, blunt, rounded at 

 the point, a little curved on the posterior edge." 



While acknowledging that these differences may exist, I do not 

 consider them to be constant. In a species so extensively dis- 

 tributed — and in a family so well known for its Protean tenden- 

 cies — as that to which S. fuscus belongs, slight and variable 

 changes, confined entirely to the parts of the ear, are hardly 

 sufficient data for these separations. 



' Vide Appendix. 



