VESPERTILIO. 47 



crdssus, Fr. Cuv. ; V. ferrugineus, V. erythrodactylus, Temm. ;' 

 V. megalotis, V. phaiops, V. melanotis, V. cyanopterus, V. mydax, 

 Raf. ;* V. virginianus, V. leihii, Bachman.^ 



We cannot do better here than introduce the remarks of Major 

 Lecoute, inserted at the close of his Observations quoted above, 

 relative to these species : — 



" Of bats described by others, the following with but one ex- 

 ception, I have never seen. Dr. Bachman, in the eighth vol. 

 Jour., mentions four species. V. monticola, he says, resembles 

 Say's bat ; what species he calls by that name I cannot discover. 

 V. virginianus seems to be the V. humeralis of Rafinesque. I 

 have not seen this last for several years, and therefore cannot 

 pronounce definitely concerning it. The V. leihii and V. cali- 

 fornicus are equally unknown. Of M. Rafinesque's species, it 

 is impossible to determine the following ; there is good reason to 

 doubt, however, whether they are distinct from others which are 

 well known : V. cyanopterus, V. melanotis, V. calcaratus, V. 

 phaio2:>s (afterw^ards described in his 'Annals of l^ature, 'No. 1, as 

 his Eptisecus melanops) ; V. megalotis, V. mystax (afterwards 

 called, in the Journal de Physique, Yol. LXXXYIII, p. 417, 

 Hyperodon mystax and Eptisecus melas). M. Cuvier's V. salarii 

 may be the fuscus, and his subjlavus the carolinensis ; his crassus 

 likewise I cannot determine. M. Temminck's V. erythrodactylus, 

 Temm. Vol. II, p. 235, remains amongst those unknown to me." 



Svich are the conclusions of an accomplished naturalist ! After 

 careful study he can only conjecture what might have been the 

 meaning of his authors. Rafinesque, with whom rests the greater 

 part of the blame of this faulty and careless observation, seems to 

 have been utterly regardless of the existence of specific characters. 

 Many of his descriptions are mere words, seldom conveying any 

 definite impression to the mind ; and if they are so far successful, 

 it is rarely a correct one. But the work of this eccentric natural- 

 ist was excusable when compared with that of F. Cuvier. This 

 gentleman had received from Major Leconte a collection of Xorth 

 American Bats, the new species of which he described.^ But so 

 carelessly was this work performed that out of his descriptions, 

 six in number, the donor could recognize but two — V. georgianvs 

 and V. gryphus, the latter being a synonym of S. fuscus. The 



' Vide Appendix (for all these descriptions). 2 Yide Appendix. 



