i6o VESPERTILIONID^— MYOTIS 



To come to details ; in spite of scarcity of information, Harting, 

 who collected the available data up to i8S8 {Zoologist, 1888, 161-166), 

 was able to cite occurrences in Somerset, Dorset, Hampshire with 

 Wight (see also More, Joiirn. cit., 1894, 148; Wadham), Sussex, Kent, 

 Essex, Cambridge, Northampton, Warwick, Worcester, Stafford, and 

 one or two other counties (see also Cocks, Journ. cit., 1906, 186) to be 

 more particularly noticed. Millais added Devon, Berkshire, Surrey, 

 and Middlesex, but without details; Aplin, Oxford {Journ. cit., 1901, 

 315; 1904, 311); Oldham, Derby {Joiuni. cit., 1889, 68-69), ^"*^ 

 Lancashire {Journ, cit., 1890, 349); and Clark Cornwall. Many of 

 the above are bare records only, the distribution of the bat not 

 having been worked out ; but for a few counties there is more 

 detailed information, as, for instance, for Cheshire and Derby, where 

 Coward and Oldham find it widely distributed ; Somerset (see 

 also Zoologist, 1907, 193), Gloucester, and Wiltshire, where Jenyns 

 (quoted by Harting) found it commoner than P. pipistrellus at Bath, 

 and Charbonnier and Lloyd Morgan report similarly from the dis- 

 trict around Bristol ; Shropshire as noticed above ; Yorkshire, where, 

 as already shown, it is one of the commonest species ; and Essex, 

 where Laver, who has seen it wherever he has looked for it, believes it 

 to be much more plentiful than is generally supposed. These records, 

 added to the fact that in Wales it has been taken in Carnarvon 

 (Oldham, Zoologist, 1896, 255), is probably not uncommon in Denbigh 

 (Oldham, Journ. cit., 1906, 70), is very likely the most abundant 

 bat of Merioneth (Caton Haigh, Journ. cit., 1887, 294), and has a 

 general reputation for being not uncommon in the north of the princi- 

 pality (Caton Haigh, Journ. cit., 1887, 144), probably indicate a wide 

 distribution. But the reports from East Anglia are strangely 

 different, since Jenyns, in contrast to his experience at Bath, 

 comments upon its rarity ; and Caton Haigh, Rope, and South- 

 well have quite failed to find it in Lincoln, Suffolk, or Norfolk. 

 The bat m»ay clearly be regarded as common in all worked counties 

 of England and Wales, except those in the east, to at least as far 

 north as the York and Durham boundary, and the remaining counties 

 will probably be added to the list in due course ; they are Hereford, 

 Leicester, Rutland, Buckingham (where Cocks, although unable to pro- 

 duce a specimen, is sure that it occurs), Hertford, Bedford, Huntingdon, 

 Nottingham, Montgomery, Radnor, Brecknock, Cardigan, Pembroke, 

 Carmarthen, Glamorgan, Monmouth, Anglesey, and Flint. 



The distribution in the north of England may be treated separately. 

 So far as I know, no records exist for Westmorland or Northumber- 

 land ; Durham has but one, and that not so satisfactory as might be 

 (see Harting, op. cit., 165), but Macpherson mentions four for Cumber- 

 land, including one near the Scottish border. 



