:v 'm 





i; ' 



M, 



70 



MONOGllAPUS OF NORTH AMEBICAN RODENTIA. 



f 1 



ii i 



u\ 



I I 



. ■ 



'1-H 



Ii 



IIESPEROiMYS LEUCOPUS GOSSYPINUS (LeC). 



thuperomyii gonypinm, LkCdntr, I'roc. Acnil. Nat. 8cl. Plilla. vi, I%>3, 411 (ClmrRia).— Baird, M. N. A. 



18.'i7, 4C!) (Gi'orKiu nml Huiith Carolina).— Allkn, Bull. Miia. Conip. Zoiil. ii, 1H70, 180 (Florida). 

 Ilvfpnomijn ( IVi/Krimuii) leumpua gommiiiiuii, CoL'CS, I'ror. Acad. Nat. S<:i. I'liila. li^4, I'D. 

 Ui/puilaiu gouiyplnyt, LkContk, McMiirtriu'H Ciivler, I, 4;)4, app.— AuD. &, B.icil., Q. N. A. i, 305 (in text; 



couBiilcr it a.t a vur. of Iruropuf), 



Diagnosis. — //. staturd II. kucopum cxcedens (A-poU.), caudd breviore 

 fere unicolore, pedil/us nwjoribus (subimll.), color ibus obscurioribus. 



Habitat. — South Atlnnlic States. Kansas? 



Mouse larger than //. leucopus (some four inches long), with a shorter 

 tail, but little paler below than above ; liind 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 diflcrences 

 from ordinary leucopus, as expressed in the foregoing paragraphs. Besides 

 averaging in stature a dimension that leucopus very rarely attains, the tail is 

 absolutely shorter than in the average of that species, and therefore ])ropor- 

 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 leucopus only reaches in exceptional 

 cases. The general colors are much darker, and, ])erhaps, never of the bright 

 fulvous of typical leucopus; it is much as if the darker dorsal wash of leuco- 

 pus was spread over all the upper parts. Correspondingly, the under parts 

 ore dull soiled whitish, or wiiite 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 arc distinguishable at a glance from leucopus ; but our suspicion is very 

 strong, indeed, that if we had, say fifty instead of seven examples, some of them 

 would be indistinguishable from leucopus, and others would show indissoluble 

 connection. This was the mature opinion of Audubon and Bachman, who 

 say: — "We were for several years disjMJsed to regard it as distinct, and have, 

 not without much hesitation, and aileran examination of many hundred speci- 

 mens, been induced to set it down as a variety only." Mr. Allen (/. 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 previoi.s paper (Bull. Mus. Comp. 

 Zool. i, 1861), 229). Under the circumstances, we judge that nature will be 

 the more faithfully reflected to consider H. gossypinua as a variety of leucopuSf 



