624 MONOGRAPHS OF NORTH AMERICAN RODENTIA. 
Geomys borealis, Ricu., Rep. Brit. Assoc. for 1836, vi, 1837, 150, described on p. 157. (“ Saskatchewan.” )— 
Bacum., Jouin. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1839, 103. (Originally described from Richardson’s 
type, “Columbia R.,” marked ‘ Pseudostoma borealis, Rich.”)—DrKay, N. Y. Fn. 1842, 
92. (Compiled from Bachman.)—Scurnz, Synop. Mamm. %i, 1845, 136. (Compiled from 
Bachman.) 
Ascomys borealis, WAGN., Suppl. Schreb. iii, 1843, 391. (Compiled.) 
Saccophorus borealis, Gray, List Br. Mus. 1843, 149 (“ Canada;” mere mention, with some wrong syno- 
nyms).—Munir, P. Z. S. 1870, 80 (as host of @strus). 
Pseudostoma borealis, “ Ricu. MSS.”—Aup. & Bacu., Q. N. A. iii, 1853, 198, pl. 142. (Description and fig- 
ure apparently from the original specimens.) 
Thomomys borealis, BAIRD, Mamm. N. A. 1857, 396, pl. 22, figs. 2a-c. (Account from types of “ borealis” 
and “townsendii”, in Mus. Phila. Acad., with which a Californian specimen is considered 
probably identical.)—Nerws., P. R. R. Rep. vi, 1857, 5 (rests on the Californian specimen 
just mentioned). 
Geomys townsendii, “ Ricu. MSS.”—Bacum., Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1839, 105. (‘Columbia R.” 
Described as distinet from “ borealis”, with much hesitation, entirely in deference to Rich- 
ardson.)—Ricu., Zobl. Voy. Blossom, 1839, p. 12*.—DrkKay, N. Y. Fn. 1842, 92. (Compiled 
from Bachman.)—Scn1nzZ, Synop. Mamm. ii, 1845, 137. (Compiled.) 
Ascomys townsendii, WAGN., Suppl. Schreb. iii, 1843, 391. 
Geomys unisulcatus, Gray, “ Br. Mus.”—Gray, l. ¢. 
Thomomys rufescens, Maxim., Noy. Act. Acad. Ces.-Leop. xix, pt. i, 1839, 383; Arch. f. Naturg. 1841, pt. ii, 
42; ibid. 1861, —; Verz. Siing. N.-Am. Reise, 1862, 149, pl. 4, f. 5 (penis-bone). (In the last 
quotation, the generic name is spelled “'Tomomys”.) (Missouri region.)—Scn1nz, Synop. 
Mamm. ii, 1845, 134 (exclusive of the synonym Oryctomys bottw, Eyd. & Gerv.). (Compiled 
from Maximilian; California erroneously assigned as the locality.)—Barrp, Proc. Acad. 
Nat. Sci. Phila. vii, 1855, 335; M. N. A. 1857, 397. (Redescription of specimens from 
“ Nebraska”, i. ¢., Dakota; Forts Pierre, Randall, and Union.)—Batrp, P. R. R. Rep. x, 1859, 
Gunnison’s and Beckwith’s Routes, Mamm. p. 8, pl. 10, f. 1 (the same).—STEVENSON, U. S. 
Geol. Sury. Terr. for 1870, 1871, 462 (Wyoming).—Ames, Bull. Minn. Acad. i, 1874, 70 (cata- 
Jogued upon presumption of its occurrence in Minnesota).—ALLEN, Proc. Bost. Soc. xvii, 
1874, 43 (Yellowstone River); Bull. Ess. Inst. vi, 1874, 56, 61, 65 (rather supposed than 
known to be this species). 
Geomys rufescens, LECONTE, Proc. Acad, Nat. Sci. Phila. vi, 1852, 161. (Redeseribed from types of ‘ bore- 
alis” and “ townsendii”, in Philadelphia Academy, marked “‘ Columbia River ”.) rs 
Ascomys rufescens, WAGN., Suppl. Schreb. iii, 1843, 387. 
Geomys (Thomomys) rufescens, GIEBEL, Siiug. 1855, 530. 
Thomomys “ fulvus”, MERR., Ann. Rep. U. 8. Geol. Sury. Terr. for 1872, 1873, 665. (Nec Woodh.) 
Dracnosis. —Coloration almost exactly that of the house-rat (AZus decu- 
manus )—sometimes assuming a more reddish phase,-occasionally blackish- 
plumbeous ; tail and feet white, and much of the chin, throat, and breast 
white in irregular patches, where the fur is white to the base. No sooty- 
blackish about the mouth-parts; no obvious distinction in color between the 
pouch and its surroundings; no strongly-pronounced reddish-brown on the 
under parts; general tone of coloration never decidedly tawny. Ears set in 
a small blackish area. Length, 6 to 8 inches; tail, 3 inches or less, decidedly 
less than half the length of head and body ; fore and hind feet (claws included) 
approximately equal to each other, 1.10 to 1.25; longest fore claw little less 
than the length of the rest of the hand, about 0.50. Mamme, 6 pairs—2 pairs 
inguinal, pectoral, and axillary, respéctively. In some specimens, however, 
one or two pairs apparently fail to develop, generally the axillary ones. 
