188 



GRAY BABBIT. 



TRANSLATION. 



In Hudson's Bay, Canada, and 

 New England, it changes in au- 

 tumn this short summer hair into a 

 long silky fur, white from the roots, 

 and only the border of the ears and 

 the tail preserve their colour, (Pen- 

 nant, Kalm.) 



In the Southern parts, his colour, 

 even in the coldest winters, remains 

 unchanged, (Kalm.) He might, 

 therefore, be properly called the 

 half changing hare. 



same species, he quoted Kalm as 

 authority for its existence as far 

 south as Florida. 



The Gray Rabbit does not change 

 in this manner. He meant by this 

 to show that whilst this species be- 

 came white in winter, the border of 

 the ear and upper part of the tail 

 underwent no change. 



ScHKEBER, never having been in 

 America, had to compile his account 

 of its habits from others. It is easi- 

 ly seen that in this he was misled 

 by FoRSTER, who misunderstood 

 Kalm ; the latter having here re- 

 ferred to the Gray Rabbit, which 

 never changes its colour. 



Dekay conceives Schreber to have described the Gray Rabbit, from the 

 abundance of the species ; but the Northern hare, where it does exist, is 

 not less abundant. In particular localities in the Northern States, it is 

 more frequently met with than the Gray Rabbit in the Middle or Southern 

 States. 



Hearne says that on the south side of Anawed Lake they were so 

 plentiful, that several of the Indians caught twenty or thirty of a night 

 with snares ; and at Hudson's Bay, where all the specimens first brought 

 to Europe were procured, it is represented as very abundant. 



We think we have now shown that Schreber's account of L. nanus — 

 its size, length of legs, the black margin around the ear, its change of 

 colour, and his references to authors all prove explicitly that he had no 

 reference to the Gray Rabbit, but described the Northern hare. 



His name must therefore stand as a synonjone of L. Americanus, which 

 is to be somewhat regretted, as although the name itself is very objec- 

 tionable, his description of that species appears to us the best that was 

 given, from its first describer, Foester, down to the time of Richardson, 

 whose description is so accurate that nothing need be added to it. 



