14 NEW-YORK FAUNA. 
long-tailed mole. Lanneus, in his 12th edition, 1776, published his description of the Sorex 
cristatus. The following year, Erxleben gave the name of longicaudata to Pennant’s mole. 
We suppose that all these refer to the same species, Linneus having described from an 
injured specimen. In the third edition of the Synopsis, (possibly in the second, which we 
have not seen,) which was published under the title of the History of Quadrupeds, Pennant 
introduces the Linnean cristatus, with a deplorable figure, and adds his long-tailed mole 
with a figure scarcely superior to the other. From his account, it is apparent that he 
described an immature star-nose for the cristatus. In his Arctic Zoology, having in the 
interval received specimens from this country, he describes some additional particulars; of 
these the most important diagnostic character attributed to the cristatus, is “toes of the hind 
feet closely connected ;” and yet Desmarest, Op. cit. who has given a detailed description, 
expressly states “ Pieds de derriere, etc.” ‘* Hind feet with the toes deeply divided, all the 
toes free ;” and this accords with our own observations. ‘The account of the longicaudata by 
Desmarest, is evidently copied from Pennant by some culpably careless transcriber. 
From these observations, we would infer, Ist, that the crzstatus of Linneus is the only 
species yet discovered in this country, and is identical with the long-tailed mole of Pennant ; 
2d, that the name of eristatus is entitled to priority ; 3d, that if the name longicaudata ever 
appears in the systems, it must be attributed to Eraleben, and not to Pennant. 
The C. macroura of Harlan, although adopted, described in detail and figured by Rich- 
ardson, we cannot, after a careful comparison of descriptions, acknowledge to be a distinct 
species. It is well known that the tail undergoes, at certain seasons, changes in shape and 
bulk ; and species founded on such characters should be received with great reserve. We 
have specimens of the common star-nose differing in no respect from the macroura, except in 
its tail not being quite as much dilated as in the figure of Richardson. It is proper, however, 
to add, that we have not been enabled to examine the individual from which Dr. Harlan 
drew up his description; and his account purports to have been derived from a cabinet spe- 
cimen. 
The Star-nose burrows in moist places near the surface, forming elevated ridges like the 
Shrew-mole, and chambers for rearing their young. ‘These are most numerous near the 
borders of streams. When observed in confinement, they continually attempt to hide them- 
selves by digging, and the cartilaginous tendrils around their nose are in perpetual motion. 
Godman states that they feed readily on flesh, either raw or cooked, and exhibit no willing- 
ness to eat vegetable matter. 
The Star-nose is abundant throughout New-York, where it is occasionally called the 
Button-nose Mole. Its geographic limits are not yet established. It is, however, known at 
present to be found from Hudson’s Bay to Virginia. 
