MUUIDiE— SIOMODONTES— n. LEUCOPUS GOS8YPINU8. 



77 



ranking nearly with sonoriensis as to the degree of geographical (Hffercntiation 

 that it has sustained. 



The propriety of this step will appear in still stronger light aflcr exam- 

 ination of the so-called " Hesperomys cognatus" of LeConte and 13aird, which 

 we are now prepared to discuss. Apart from the ])ublished accounts of the 

 two authors just named, our material is, first, tiiree dried specimens, labeled 

 "cognatus" in what we presume to be Major LeContc's own handwriting, as 

 it is the same as that upon his other types now in our possession ; secondly, 

 five dried and several alcoholic specimens referred to this species by Baird, /. c. 

 The latter will be first noticed. •". 



Two of these, Nos. 673 and 905, from North and South Carolina, respect- 

 ively, are precisely like leucopus in every respect, except that the tails of both 

 are much less distinctly bicolor than usual in leucopus. Out of our series, 

 however, of unquestioned and unquestionable leucopus, we can precisely match 

 this feature. The other three specimens are from Mississippi (Nos. .')62, 583, 

 586). They are all in wretched condition, having been skinned out of alco- 

 hol. One of them, 562, is not half grown (body, 2.25; tail, 1.42, &c.); it is 

 dark lead-color, and from the shortness of the tail represents sonoriensis, if 

 anything different from leucopus. The second is nearly grown, but still in the 

 mouse-gray pelage ; the tail is 2.50 to a body of 3.00, and therefore not shorter 

 in proportion than in leucopus; and the tail is very sharply bicolor. The third 

 appears grown, but the colors are indeterminable, from immersion in alcohol 

 and from loss of most of the fur ; the tail is plainly bicolor ; the proportions 

 are just as in an average of leucopus. We must confess that, even if there 

 were a species "cognatus" distinct from leucopus, we do not see how these 

 five specimens could be taken to represent it Much as we regret our decision, 

 we must say that they are all unquestionably leucopus. 



The remaining specimens (alcoholic) we cannot distinguish even as a 

 tangible variety of leucopus. 



Major JjcConte's types do not seem to have been in Professor Baird's 

 hands when the article on the Mammals of North America was being pre- 

 pared ; and the latter had to guess at the former's meaning — a difficult matter 

 indeed, since Major LeContc's description amounts to exactly notiiing. Of 

 his three specimens, one of them (from Illinois), we find to our great surprise, 

 is an example of H. trAchiganensis, pure and simple ! (Head and body, 2.90 ; 

 tail, 1.90, sharply bicolor ; hind foot, 0.66 ; &c.) The other two, Nos. 4708, 



"I 



