MAMMALS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY, 83 



of Bachman's new species in the Academy collection. This specimen was 

 labeled as being taken near Fastland, near Salem, New Jersey, and Dr. Har- 

 lan, who was apparently unable to withstand the temptation of affixing his 

 ■name to a new species, pigeon-holed Bachman's manuscript and himself de- 

 scribed the New Jersey specimen, under the name Mus paliistris. ... In 

 commenting on this obviously unfair treatment, Bachman states [Quadrupeds 

 of N. America, vol. 3, 1853, p. 216] that Dr. Harlan made use of the head of 

 the South Carolina specimen for an examination of the teeth. Harlan, how- 

 ever, makes no mention of Bachman's specimen beyond the brief remark just 

 quoted [see antea, under Salem Co. records], and the type locality of Ory- 

 zomys palustris is, therefore, New Jersey. It is true that the type is the only 

 specimen known to have been taken in the state, but in view of the recent 

 discovery by Messrs. Rhoads and Stone of Synaptoniys and Evotomys in 

 southern New Jersey, we may conclude our knowledge of the mammalogy ot 

 the region may receive still further additions." — Chapman, Bulletin Amer. 

 Mus. Nat. History, N. York, vol. 5, 1893, pp. 43, 44. See also Stone (Proc. 

 A. N. S., sup. cit.), who goes over the same historical ground, adding remarks 

 on the failure of Rhoads, up to that time, in rediscovering the rat in N. J. 

 and that for various reasons the identity of the Academy specimen was be- 

 coming more doubtful and with it the right of Oryzomys to a place in the 

 N. J. fauna. It should be stated that I made a careful search in 1892 for the 

 type specimen referred to without either finding it or any entry of it in the 

 catalogue. Harlan may have mislaid or lost the specimen, or disposed of it 

 in a manner no less questionable than his treatment of Bachman. — Rhoads. 



" The specimen in the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences which 

 Harlan used, was evidently without a skull and was supposed to have come 

 from Fastland, near Salem, New Jersey. If this locality was correct, the 

 specimen in question was probably not an Oryzomys at all. Anyway, Harlan 

 used the skull of Dr. Bachman's South Carolina specimen (as positively stated 

 by Bachman himself) in drawing up his description, and as the skull was of 

 course the important factor in determining the new species, it seems that 

 South Carolina must unquestionably be regarded as the type locality of Ory- 

 zomys palustris. ^^ — Bangs, Proceedings Boston Soc. Nat. History, vol. 28, 

 1898, p. 188, foot-note. 



Mr. Bangs' endeavor to transfer the type locality of this species to South 

 Carolina, in the light of the Warrington and Rhoads captures, now loses its 

 only possible claim to recognition. His remarks as to the use of the Carolina 

 skull by Harlan in no way invalidate Harlan's right to make, as was his in- 

 tention, the Salem specimen his type, no mention being made of the source 

 ■of the dental characters given in his description. Mr. Bangs' supposition that 

 the Salem type contained no skull is not provable, and Bachman's statement 

 that Harlan used the skull of his Carolina type in drawing up the characters 



