930 



MR. I. G. S. MONTAGU ON A COIiLECTION OF 



plan here adopted has been the tentative indication of these 

 relationships without final systematic grouping. 



It should be noted here that the work of collection in the 

 Inner Hebrides was greatly facilitated by the invariable courtesy 

 of the inhabitants. 



The writer further takes this opportunity to express his thanks 

 to M. A. C. Hinton, without whose generous advace the results here 

 described would largely have lacked their comparative value. 



Review of Sorex araneus forms from the Inner Hebrides. 



The satisfactorj'- description of the characters of the Hebridean 

 Common Shrews involves a general survey of those of Great 

 Biitain and of the most nearly related Continental forms. 



Dorsal Ventral 



Form. Colour. wash. Size. p^ . 



8. a. araneus. Continental Dark. Pale to dark. Various. Present. 



S. a. castaneus. British Southern Light. Pale to dark. Large. Present. 



S. a. castaneus. Scottish Highland Light. Pale to dark. Small. Present. 



Jura shrew Dark. Pale. Small. Present. 



Gigha shrew Dark. Pale. Small*. Present. 



Islay shrew Dark. Absent. Large. Absent. 



* With large cranial characters. 



It will be seen from the above table that no character can 

 be cited to distinguish the Jura and Gigha shrews from some 

 specimens of the Continental form. Continental S. a. araneus 

 includes forms exhibiting distinct local variation from the 

 typical ; a small form ranges from Denmark, through Northern 

 Germany and the JSTetherlands, into France; the large typical 

 form is found not only in Scandinavia but in Southern and 

 Eastern Germany ; shrews from the Harz Mountains and fi-om 

 South-Eastern Norway show a light ventral surface, the former 

 thus resembling the Jura and Gigha forms in both size and 

 colour. It should, moreover, be noted that the typical form of 

 S. a. castaneus is to be found only in the southern parts of Great 

 Britain, the shrew of the Scottish Highlands being readily dis- 

 tinguishable from it by its generally smaller size and smaller 

 skull. These forms all deserve systematic separation ; subspecific 

 status, however, would undoubtedly obscure their relationships 

 in such a manner as to render their present recognition inadvis- 

 able. It follows that the revision and satisfactory arrangement 

 of European shrews, as that of any other thoroughly examined 

 group, is impossible without a quadrinominal nomenclature. In 

 the absence of such a nomenclature the writer is unprepared 

 to make, and would certainly regard as unsatisfactory, an attempt 

 to distinguish systematically the forms of Jura and Gigha from 

 >S^. «. araneus. In a similar manner the maintenance of specific 

 status for the Islay shrew obscures its relationships, and the 

 writer accordingly reduces its status to a subspecific one. 



