76 MONOGRAPHS OF NORTH AMERICAN RODENTIA. 
HESPEROMYS LEUCOPUS GOSSYPINUS (LeC.). 
Hesperomys gossypinus, LECoNTE, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. vi, 1853, 411 (Georgia).—Batrp, M.N. A. 
1857, 469 (Georgia and South Carolina).—ALLEN, Bull. Mus. Comp. ZoGl. ii, 1870, 180 (lorida). 
Hesperomys (Vesperimus) leucopus gossypinus, COUES, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1874, 179. 
Hypudeus gossypinus, LECONTE, MeMurtrie’s Cuvier, i, 434, app.—AuD. & Bacu., Q. N. A. i, 305 (in text ; 
consider it as a var. of leucopus). 
Dracnosis.—H. staturd H. leucopum excedens (A-poll.), caudd breviore 
fere unicolore, pedibus majoribus (subpoll.), coloribus obscurioribus. 
Hasiratr.—sSouth Atlantic States. Kansas? 
Mouse larger than H. leucopus (some four inches long), with a shorter 
tail, but little paler below than above; hind feet nine-tenths of an inch; fur 
of the upper parts dark rusty-brown, and of the under parts not pure white. 
The few specimens below enumerated show some tangible differences 
from ordinary deucopus, as expressed in the foregoing paragraphs. Besides 
averaging in stature a dimension that dewcopus very rarely attains, the tail is 
absolutely shorter than in the average of that species, and therefore propor- 
tionally still less. It is, moreover, nearly unicolor in some specimens; in 
others, however, it is evidently, but not sharply, bicolor. The hind feet are 
about 0.90 long, a dimension that Jdeucopus only reaches in exceptional 
cases. The general colors are much darker, and, perhaps, never of the bright 
fulvous of typical Zewcopus ; it is much as if the darker dorsal wash of deuco- 
pus was spread over all the upper parts. Correspondingly, the under parts 
are dull soiled whitish, or white with an ashy-gray hue. 
Our specimens are obviously too few for a final conclusion, and we have 
been much perplexed to determine how to treat this form. All the seven below 
given are distinguishable at a glance from deucopus ; but our suspicion is very 
strong, indeed, that if we had, say fifty instead of seven examples, some of them 
would be indistinguishable from dewcopus, and others would show indissoluble 
connection. This was the mature opinion of Audubon and Bachman, who 
say :—‘‘ We were for several years disposed to regard it as distinct, and have, 
not without much hesitation, and after an examination of many hundred speci- 
mens, been induced to set it down as a variety only.” Mr. Allen (Z. c.) allows 
the name to head his paragraph, but expressly states his belief that it is not 
a valid species, both in this place and in a previous paper (Bull. Mus. Comp. 
Zool. i, 1869, 229). Under the circumstances, we judge that nature will be 
the more faithfully reflected to consider H. gossypinus as a variety of leucopus, 
