2 University of Michigan 



the literature, and interviews with trappers and local natural- 

 ists. To increase the reliability and usefulness of the list only 

 those records are included that the writer believes to be free 

 from doubt, and the nature of the data for each species is 

 given. The "specimens" referred to are in the Museum col- 

 lection, the "observations"' refer to live specimens or fresh 

 skins seen by the writer or Alexander G. Ruthven, and the 

 "records" are the reliable references in the literature, the re- 

 ports of well-informed obsen^ers, and the specimens pre- 

 served in other collections. Hie data is summarized by coun- 

 ties, and for convenient reference a base map giving the politi- 

 cal boundaries is added. Observations and records are omit- 

 ted when they are for counties from which specimens have 

 been secured and deposited in the Museum collection. 



It should be pointed out that, while there are doubtless in 

 the Michigan fauna other species than those listed, quite as 

 important as possible additions to the list is complete informa- 

 tion on the distribution within the state and the habits of 

 even the most common forms. This is a profitable field oi 

 study for local naturalists, as the data to he secured is indis- 

 pensible to a proper understanding of the mammalian fauna 

 rti the state. 



In the literature the following species have been erroneous- 

 ly reported from Michigan: CitcUus franklinii (Sabine), 

 Reithrodontomys humilis (Aud. & Bach.), Geomys busariiis 

 (Shaw), Mustcla alleghefiiensis (Rhoads), Mitstela longicaii- 

 da Bonaparte, Microtus ochrogaster (Wagner), Miistela 

 cicognanii richardsonii (Bonaparte). It should also be stated 

 that the latest study of the woodchucks (Howell, A. H., Proc. 

 Biol. Soc. Wash., XXII, pp. 13-18) recognizes three forms in 

 Michigan, Marmota monax, M. inona.v rufescens and M. 

 monax canadensis. Previous to this revision all Michigan 

 specimens were referred to M. monax, so that it is not possible 

 to distribute the records among the subspecies with certainty. 

 The writer has arranged the records according to geographic 

 probabilities, grouping them under the subspecies which have 

 been taken in the general region. 



