140 THE ZOOLOGIST. 



namely, Arvicola arvalis, and, as it was important to him to dis- 

 cover whether this was so, he telegraphed to Athens as follows: — 

 " Before I start with my assistant, I should like to be certain that 

 the Field Vole in question is Arvicola arvalis. The species is 

 very important, as I have only established the action of the 

 bacillus in Arvicola arvalis. Please enquire in Athens, and let 

 me know." 



The reply he received was as follows : — " It is Arvicola arvalis, 

 called Campagnol in French." 



Although this determination subsequently proved to be erro- 

 neous, the species in question appeared to be equally susceptible 

 to the action of the virus, as did the German examples of 

 A, arvalis and the Scottish examples of A, agrestis, upon which 

 Prof. Loeff ler experimented in his laboratory at Greifswald. 



On reaching the field of his operations in Thessaly, as he 

 tells us in his Report (cf, Zool. 1892, p. 314), he " perceived, at 

 the first glance, that the Thessalian Field Vole was undoubtedly 

 different from our A. arvalis. It was considerably larger, paler 

 in colour, with large shining eyes, and a very short tail. It had 

 a much more vigorous and rat-like appearance than our Field 

 Vole." 



M. Gennadius, at this stage of the proceedings, remarked that, 

 the scientific determination of the species was rather difficult, and 

 that the Thessalian Field Vole exhibited several of the characters 

 of A, arvalis, but that it might possibly be A. Savii, 



It was of some interest, therefore, to settle the question, and 

 with this object I wrote to Prof. Loeff ler, to whom (with the co- 

 operation of Mr. Robert Service, of Maxwelltown, Dumfries) I 

 had forwarded two consignments of live Scottish Voles, A. agrestis, 

 begging him to procure specimens of the Thessalian Vole, and 

 forward them in spirits, for examination, to Mr. Oldfield Thomas, 

 at the Natural History Museum, South Kensington. In due time 

 specimens arrived, and upon careful examination and comparison 

 it was found that they were referable to none of the species above 

 named, but were identical with A. Giintheri of Danford and 

 Alston, described by them in 1880 from Asia Minor.* 



This unexpected result is of much interest ; for it is curious 

 that a European species, so common as to overrun and devastate 

 large tracts of country in Eastern Thessaly, should have 



* Proc. Zool. Soc. 1880, p, 50, pl.V. 



