842 MONOGRAPHS OF NORTH AMERICAN RODENTIA. 
by Forster, who described a specimen from Churchill River as the “Quebec 
Marmot”, doubtfully referring it to Pennant’s Quebec Marmot, which is the 
Arctomys monax of recent authors, but generally wrongly referred to the 
Mus empetra of Pallas. Forster’s description shows clearly that his animal, 
as first stated by Richardson,* is identical with his S. parry. Hearne, 
during his long Arctic journey (1769-72), also met with it in the region west 
of Hudson’s Bay, and in his narrative of his travels, published in 1807, refers 
to it under the name “Ground Squirrel”. 
In 1778, Pallas described a Mus empetra, based on a specimen in the 
Leyden Museum from boreal America, which is unquestionably referable to 
the present species, subsequently (in 1825) described by Richardson under 
the name Arctomys parryi. His account of the size, form, proportions, and 
color are all applicable here, and not at all to Arctomys monax, to which 
his name has commonly of late been referred. A few years later (about 
1784), Pallas’s Mus empetra was redescribed by Schreber under the name 
Arctomys empetra. Schreber also gave of it a colored figure, made from a 
drawing of Pallas’s Mus empetra sent to him by Pallas himself. This figure, 
as no one can well doubt, is a fair representation of the Arctomys parryi of 
Richardson, the Spermophilus parryi of recent authors. Pallas cites, as a 
synonym of his Mus empetra, the Quebec Marmot of Pennant, and also the 
Quebec Marmot of Forster.t Pallas, in thus citing Pennant, referred an 
unquestionably distinct species to his Mus empetra, which complication was 
perpetuated by subsequent writers, who uniformly blended Pennant’s Quebec 
Marmot with Forster’s Quebec Marmot and Pallas’s Mus empetra. ‘The ani- 
mal described by Pallas, however, as already stated, is the Arctomys parryt 
of later authors, as is fully shown by the publication of his figure by Schre- 
ber, and as is also unquestionably evident from his description.t This is 
evident from the short tail, small size, and coloration, in these points the 
figure and description agreeing with no American species of the restricted 
* Parry’s 2d Voy. App. p. 318. 
t These citations, rendered by Pallas into Latin, are as follows:—‘‘ Marmota quebekana PENNANT, 
Syn. p. 270. Sp. 199, tab. 24, f 2, bona. Forster, Act. angl. vol. LXII, p. 378.” 
t Pallas’s description, from the specimen in the Leyden Museum, is as follows :— Magnitudo Caviw 
Pace, seu inter Marmotam & Citillum media; habitus plane Marmote vel Arctomyos ; longitudo circiter 
pedalis. Caput retusum, supra fusco-nigrescens, lateribus albicans. Dentes primores magni, nudati ub 
in Marmota, nec antice fulvi. Auricule parvee, subuuds, rotundate, vix pilo longiores. Verrue plures 
sparse, superciliares bisetw, paroticas bisete, pilis albidis distinctw, gularis uniseta. Corpus subtus 
totum artusque rofo-ferruginea; supra corpus fuscum, extremis piloram e gryseo-albicavtibus uudulato 
nebulosum. Pedes extremi brunneo nigri, unguibus fuseis ; palm@ sine vestigio pollicis. Cauda bipolli- 
caris cum dimidio, dorso concolor, apice nigrescens.”—( Nov. Spec. Glires, p. 75.) 
