140 Univt rsity of California Publications in Zoology [Vol. 10 



caMfornicus, yumam nsis, and longicrus have also been found, 

 shows distributional ground for considering orinomus as distinct 

 a type as either of these. The evidence at hand is meager, con- 

 sisting chiefly in the fact that where orinomus was obtained in 

 iinisl numbers (Garnet Queen Mine, Santa Rosa Mountains) no 

 other Myitis was taken. As far as the facts have appeared, they 

 point to its occupying a zonal position perhaps separate from 

 thai of any of the other species, namely, high Upper Sonoran, 

 and this in a semi-arid fauna] division. 



The material from Lower California is insufficient for a satis- 

 factory basis of comparison, which might lead to detection of 

 slight differences from the northern representative. The two 

 skins arc slightly darker than the California series. There is 

 no doubt that both series belong to one species, though there is 

 possibility of subspecific distinction. 



It seems strange that this little bat has been so long over- 

 looked. It is quite probable that it has been repeatedly confused 

 with other species, as in the ca.se of our specimen from Doble, 

 in the San Bernardino Mountains (no. 6941), which had been 

 previously lumped in with Myotis 1. l<>n</i<rits (see Grinnell, 

 1908, p. 158) ! It is possible, of course, that some earlier name 

 will be found to be applicable. Hut Miller (1897, pp. 20-38) 

 appears to have satisfactorily disposed of all of the many names 

 proposed by II. Allen, these including all the synonyms which 

 seem to require consideration in this connection. 



The manuscript of the present paper was submitted, together 

 with two specimens of the bat in question, to Mr. Gerrit S. 

 Miller. Jr.. who writes us in part as follows: 



" I have never seen Elliot's M. orinomus, so that I am unable to confirm 

 your identification. The animal that you have sent is quite different from 

 any of t he recognized species in our collection [that is, United States 

 National Museum], though I find a skull from Dulzura, California (no. 

 35660), which evidently belongs to the same animal. 



"Vnu will notice that in my account of if. ealifornicus, I speak of con- 

 si. lerable variation in size. I was always puzzled by the Dulzura series 

 which now proves to consist of the two species; but at the time of writing 

 my monograph I was unable to come to any positive conclusion." 



