w 



n 





it 



rlit' 



i; : 





mi 



In, 



"ii.; 



204 MONOGRAPHS OF NOKTH AMERICAN RODENTIA. 



fARVICOLA mCHARDSONI of And. & Baob. . . ,, . i , 



Large Northern Mendow Moase. 



"Ankola riparius Oiid", npud KicnARDSON, Fn. Bor.-Am. 1889, i, 120. (Not of Ord.) 

 Anicota rkhardtoni, DeKay, N. Y. ZooI. i, 1842, 91.— AuD. & Bach., Q. N. A. 1853, iii, Iftl, pi. oxxxv, f. i 

 (bnsc'd on Riebnrdson'ti nnlnial).— Baikd, M. N. A. 1857, 551 (eatno as the foregoing). 



Selecting a number of the very largest skins in the collection, we can 

 see that they noticeably surpass the average of United States riparius, and 

 stand at, if not beyond, the maximum of tlie latter. But this is true of only 

 a small proportion of our lot ; the others shade insensibly down to tlie aver- 

 age of riparius ; and all these largest ones are accompanied by others of much 

 less stature, taken living side by side, and (lertainly not specifically different. 

 The difference in the whole series, moreover, is not greater than we demon- 

 strate in the case of unquestionable A. xanthognathus. 



All the remarks we have offered under head of A. xanthognathus have 

 been based upon unquestionable examples of that form. But, af^er elimin- 

 ating these, we find a considerable number of specimens that are precisely 

 like ordinary xanthognathus, yet have no trace of the chestnut ciieeks. They 

 are clearly not referable to ordinary riparius, and are equally far removed from 

 the small var. borealis. 



We puzzled long over these before we were led, we believe correctly, to 

 refer them to xanthognathus. Among Mr. Kennicott's extraordinarily full 

 series of xanthognathus we found here and there a skin showing no chestnut 

 c.ce's, yet which lie had labeled with his autograph "xanthognathus". This 

 excited our suspicion ; for we had noted with pleasure that, of the many hun- 

 dred mice of all sorts contributed to the collection by this eminent naturalist, 

 not one had been labeled by him of which there was the sligiitest doubt, and 

 hi;! labeling has proved in every case correct. There is little if any doubt 

 that xantlwgnathus, under certain conditions, does not acquire the chestnut 

 cheeks — in short, that a certain proportion of s|)ecimens shade into riparius. 

 This goes far to show that the two forms are not specifically distinct. We 

 tabulate below these doubtful skins. It will be seen liy the measurements 

 that they represent an animal at and beyond the maximum of ordinary riparius 

 in size, with comparatively shorter members; and the skins show a certain 

 undefinable coloration and condition of pelage which assures us they belong 

 nearer xanthognathus than riparius ; but their positive determination is to us 

 at present impossible. 



•'1 Afiii 



3«!>^f- 



