1896.] GEOGRAPHICAL RACES OF THE COMMON FIELD VOLE. 599 
cement-spaces, with four inner and three outer angles. It is 
interesting that this variation should occur in a species in which 
the presence of five cement-spaces in the second upper molar (as 
distinguished from four in nearly all other Voles) is characteristic. 
The specimen in which the variation occurs is now in my 
collection (no. 75). It is a very large male, and was killed by 
Mr. J. Lewis Bonhote, at Jerkin in Norway, on July 28, 1895. 
2. On the Existence in Europe of Two Geographical Races, 
or Subspecies, of the Common Field Vole. By G.E. H. 
Barretr-Hamizron, F.Z.8. 
[Received May 18, 1896.] 
I wish to call attention to the existence in Europe of two 
distinct forms of the Common Field Vole (Microtus agrestis, Linn.). 
My own attention was first drawn to this fact on the receipt of 
some Voles, which Mr. J. Lewis Bonhote was good enough to collect 
for me in Norway. These Voles, although differing externally, 
especially in size, and in cranial characters from English specimens, 
possess dental characters which are identical with those of the 
Common Field Vole as found in England. 
The existence of these two forms appears to have been noticed 
so long ago as 1841, in which year Jenyns! described as a new 
species (thus confirming the opinion of William Thompson of 
Belfast, to whom he wished to give the credit of the discovery) 
under the name of Arvicola neglectus, Thompson, some Voles 
collected by Thompson in Perthshire and Inverness-shire. Writing 
in 1841° and 1847* De Selys-Longchamps made the suggestion 
that M. agrestis and M. neglectus might be only local races of the 
same species, but preferred to regard the two as distinct until 
their characters could be further studied. He stated that 
M. agrestis was to be found in Sweden and Norway, from Scania 
to 66 degrees of north latitude, but not in the high mountains; 
and that it was also reported from Denmark and Finland. J. 
neglectus, on the other hand, had a more southern distribution, 
embracing England, Scotland, Belgium, France north of the 
Seine and west of the Moselle, and possibly the Pyrenees. In 
1856 Dehne reported it from Saxony; but subsequent writers, 
including Blasius*, Fatio’, and Bell®, have regarded it as a variety 
of M. agrestis, although the latter recognized the difference 
between the two forms, for however distinct the extreme forms of 
* Ann. of Nat. Hist. vol. vii. pp. 270-274 (1841). 
* Bull. Acad. Sci. Bruxelles, Sept. 1841. In this paper the differences 
between M. agrestis and M. arvalis, formerly confused, appear to have been first 
clearly pointed out. 
3 Revue Zoologique, Oct. 1847, pp. 305-312. 
4 Saugethiere Deutschlands, pp. 369 & 372 (1857). 
5 Les Campagnols du Bassin du Léman, p. 70 (1867). 
6 British Quadrupeds, ed. 2, p. 326 (1874). 
