WOOD-CHUCK OR GROUND-HOG. 23 



burrow, where sitting on their hind-feet in the manner of the Kangaroo, 

 they closely watch every intruder, retreating hastily into the hole at the 

 first notes of alarm sounded by the mother. 



The Wood-Chuck, in some portions of our countrj', exists in considerable 

 numbers, although it is seldom found associating with any of its o\vn 

 species, except while the young are still unable to provide for themselves, 

 until which period they are generally taken care of by both parents. 



When the young are a few months old, they prepare for a separation, 

 and dig a number of holes in the vicinity of their early domicile, some of 

 which are only a few feet deep, and are never occupied. These numer- 

 ous burrows have given rise to the impression that this species lives in 

 communities, which we think is not strictly the case. 



GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. 



We have found the Wood-Chuck in every state of the Union north-east 

 of South Carolina, and throughout the Canadas, Nova Scotia, and New 

 Brunswick. We have also a specimen from Hudson's Bay ; but perhaps 

 it is nowhere more plentiful than on the upper Missouri River, where we 

 found its burrows dug in the loamy soil adjoining the shores, as well as 

 in the adjacent woods. It is not found in the maritime districts either of 

 North or South Carolina, but exists very sparingly in the mountainous 

 regions of those states. We have also traced it along the eastern range 

 of the Rocky Mountains as far south as Texas. A Marmot exists in 

 California resembling the present species very nearly, but which will 

 probably prove distinct from the latter, a point which time and a greater 

 number of specimens must determine. 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



It will be observed that we have united A. monax with A. empetra, 

 and have rejected the latter as a species. This must necessarily follow 

 from the fact, that if there is but one species, the name monax having 

 been first given, must be retained. Schreber appears to have committed 

 the first error in describing from a yoimg specimen of a variety of A. mo- 

 nax and erecting it into a new species. The old authors followed, and 

 most of them being mere compilers, have constantly copied his errors. 

 Mr. Sabine (Transactions Linn. Soc, vol. xiii., part 2, p. 584,) described a 

 specimen existing in the British Museum, as A. empetra, which we, after 

 a careful examination, consider only a variety of A. monax. Mr. Sabine's 

 description of the latter species, is, as he informed us, compiled from va- 

 rious authors. Had he possessed a specimen, we think he would not 



