The Hawaiian Rat. 9 



Peak's description leaves much to be desired, as he merely 



says, " so like the common Brown or Norway Rat, M. decu- 



manus of naturalists, that they might be pronounced a diminutive 



variety " His plate, while it differs in certain proportions 



and colors, and in the hair on the tail and forearms, from Mr. Stokes' 

 specimens, is probably not a very reliable representation of the 

 specimen from which it was drawn and should not be given too 

 much consideration. 



Peale also described, at greater length, another species Mus 

 vitiensis from Fiji. 



The types of M. cxulans and M. vitiensis (Nos. 3730 and 3731, 

 Colin. United States National Museum) , kindly loaned me through 

 the courtesy of Mr. G. S. Miller Jr., curator of mammals, are old 

 dismounted specimens of an almost uniform yellowish brown color 

 above and below. They were probably immersed in spirits before 

 mounting, and this together with long exposure to light has prac- 

 tically ruined them for purposes of comparison, and they are with- 

 out skulls. 



The hair appears longer and more bristly than in the Hawaiian 

 specimens, especially in the case of M. exulans, while the scales 

 on the tail in vitiensis are larger and more conspicuous. In each 

 of the types there appears to be more hair on the tail than in the 

 Hawaiian animal. 



Mr. Edgar R. Waite ( 1897) ' has discussed the Pacific native rat 

 and follows current opinion that specimens from the various Poly- 

 nesian islands are all referable to one species, for which of course he 

 adopts the name Mus exulans Peale. He had, however, no series 

 of specimens before him, so that his interesting paper by no means 

 settles this question. He does, nevertheless, give a good descrip- 

 tion of a specimen from Funafuti Atoll and figures the skull, which, 

 if the figure is accurate, is broader than that of the Hawaiian ani- 

 mal. Waite does not mention the dark color of the under side of 

 the feet, which is very characteristic of all Mr. Stokes' specimens, 

 while the number of foot-pads in the two do not coincide. 



In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the original descriptions 

 of Peale's species and the lack of recent material from these other 

 island groups, no satisfactory results can be reached as to the 

 relationship of the native rats of the several Pacific islands. It 



'Mammals, Reptiles and Fishes of Funafuti, Mem. Aust. Mus., Ill, 174, 

 pi. viii, figs, \a-\f. [259] 



