510 OTOPTERUS. 



Otopterus calif ornicus Elliot, Syn. N. Am. Mamm., F. C. M. Pub., 

 11, 1901, p. 420. Zool. Ser. Id. Mamm. Middle Amer. & W. 

 Indies,. F. C. M. Pub., iv, Pt. 11, 1904, p. 653. Zool. Ser. 

 California Large-eared Bat. 



Type locality. Old Fort Yuma, San Diego County, California. 



Geogr. Disir. Southern California into Lower California, Mexico. 



1230. Otopterus mexicanus (Saussure). 



Macrotus mexicanus Sauss., Rev. Mag. Zool. 2me Ser., xii, i860, 



p. 486. 

 Otopterus mexicanus Elliot, Mamm. Middle Amer. & W. Indies, 



F. C. M. Pub., IV, Pt. II, 1904, p. 653. Zool. Ser. 



Saussure's Large-eared Bat. 



* 



Type locality. District of Yautepec, near Cuautla, State of More- 

 los, Mexico. 



Geogr. Distr. Tres Marias Islands, State of Jalisco, south to 

 States of Mexico and Oaxaca, Mexico. 



1231. * Otopterus bocourtianus (Dobson). 



Macrotus bocourtianus Dobson, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 4th Ser., 



1876, p. 436. 

 Macrotus mexicanus J. A. Allen, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. N. Y., 



1891, p. 179. 

 Otopterus bocourtianus Elliot, Mamm. Middle Amer. & W. Indies, 



F. C. M. Pub., IV, Pt. II, 1904, p. 654. Zool. Ser. 

 Bocourt's Large-eared Bat. 



Type locality. Vera Paz, Guatemala. 



Geogr. Distr. Southern Mexico and Guatemala. 



1232. Otopterus bulleri H. Allen. 



Macrotus bulleri H. Allen, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc, xxviii, 1890, 

 p. 73. Elliot, Mamm. Middle Amer. & W. Indies, F. C. M. 

 Pub., IV, Pt. II, 1904, p. 654. Zool. Ser. 



*Mr. J. A. G. Rehn in his Monograph of the genus Otopterus, Proc. Acad. 

 Nat. Scien. Phih, 1904, p. 437 (erroneously called by him Macrotus), makes 

 Dobson 's species a synonym of O. mexicanus, and retains O. bulleri as a race 

 of the last named. Dr. J. A. Allen, in a "Note on Mexican Species of Otop- 

 terus," Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. N. Y., 1904, p. 235, after a careful examina- 

 tion, decides that O. bocourtianus is a good species, and that O. bulleri should 

 become a synonym of O. mexicanus. Here we have two diametrically opposed 

 opinions entertained by two naturalists working independently of each other, 

 and in view of the impasse thus created, it seems best to consider the two 

 forms distinct species, as they have heretofore been by most investigators, 

 especially as the specimens in this Museum appear to sustain that view of 

 the case. Although not a matter of supreme importance, it will, however, 

 probably require, after the decisions mentioned above, a consensus of opin- 

 ions among manunalogists before the question at issue shall be satisfactorily 

 settled. 



