326 MONOGRAPHS OF NORTH AMERICA RODENTIA. 
L. “campestris”. Some of them, however, bear the partially-erased name L. 
“americanus” of a prior determination. The skins, however, of these same 
specimens, are still labeled L. “americanus” or L. “americanus?” whenever a 
specific name is added, some being labeled simply “Lepus”. The L. “cam- 
pestris” of Hayden, referred to in his description of L. bairdi, belongs to 
this northern form, as does also the ZL. ‘campestris Bachman” of Dall, given 
in his nominal list of the Mammals of Alaska, as shown by his specimens still 
in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution. 
Respecting this application of the name campestris, Professor Baird 
writes me (under date of March 31, 1874) that he was “‘still not convinced that 
the Lepus virginianus of Richardson refers to the Townsend’s Hares of the 
Upper Missouri. The specimens described by Richardson”, he continues, 
“are of course too imperfect to permit any satisfactory description; and the 
dimensions given are probably too large. It is entirely out of the question 
for Richardson to have overlooked the occurrence of the northern variety of 
Lepus americanus, as it is found everywhere, from Fort Garry northward, is 
very common on the Saskatchewan, and constitutes a large portion of the food 
of the Indians in the regions traversed by him. It is particularly abundant 
about latitude 55°. In the many collections that we have had from the Hud- 
son’s Bay Territory, you will note the entire absence of any Hares resembling 
the townsend. If my supposition be correct, then, if you give a name to 
the grayish northern form of the American Hare, that should be campestris, 
and 'Townsend’s name be retained for the big Missouri River species.” 
As already noticed under the head of Lepus campestris, I consider Rich- 
ardson’s J. virginianus (subsequently named campestris by Bachman) to refer 
beyond question to the long-limbed, long-eared, and long-tailed Townsend 
Hares of the Upper Missouri, and can see no reason for presuming the meas- 
urements given as “probably too large”. Bachman certainly understood his 
name to apply to a long-eared, long-tailed Hare so like what he later named 
L. townsendi that he repeatedly states his conviction that they would prove 
to be the same, he having been at first erroneously informed that the ZL. 
iownsendi never became white. As to Richardson overlooking ‘the north- 
ern form of Lepus americanus”, he certainly did not do so, as he has described 
it in detail under that name, and especially refers to its importance to the 
Indians as an article of food, and their method of capturing this animal. 
Furthermore, he distinguishes the L. virginianus as a prairie species, while 
