1897.] The Pocket, or Pouched Gopher. 119 
however, it is shown that fully as great an amount of work is 
done by this animal during the day, especially in the early 
morning, as is done at night. 
It is also observed by the same author, that “in the spring 
many of them leave their holes and travel above ground.” In 
only two cases do I recollect having observed this animal 
traveling in this way. 
In one instance (during an open winter) an individual of 
this species was found by me traveling through the snow in 
February. At another time, an individual was observed (dur- 
ing a cold winter) traveling aimlessly about over the deep 
snows, during the latter part of February or the first of March. 
In both cases, these Gophers were observed near Rockford, 
Iowa. 
Dr. C. Hart, Merriam, chief of the Division of Ornithology 
and Mammalogy of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, whose 
exhaustive and attractive works on the Pocket Gophers and 
other subjects in natural history entitles his statements to the 
highest consideration, says, regarding the general belief exist- 
ing that the Pocket Gopher use their cheek pouches to “ cart 
dirt” from their burrow’s. ‘These cheek pouches are used 
exclusively in carrying food, and notin carting dirt as is often 
erroneously supposed.” (See p.17; North American Fauna ; 
“Monographical Revision of the Pocket Gophers).” 
Mr. Vernon Bailey, another eminent naturalist of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, says, regarding the same subject. 
“ Although it is commonly supposed that the pouches are used 
for carrying dirt out of the holes, the fact is they are never used 
for this purpose. “In examining the pockets of more than a 
hundred specimens caught in traps I could find no evidence 
that they had been filled with earth. Occasionally specks of dirt 
from roots clung to the hairy inner surfaces, nothing more. 
If the pouches had been filled with earth, the short hairs would 
inevitably retain some of it. Furthermore, Gophers shot in 
the very act of pushing dirt from their holes had none in their 
3 The statements of this author are doubtless eminently correct, when applied 
to the species in the region he had under consideration (Elk River, Sherburne 
County, Minnesota); although apparently not applicable to the same species in 
the regions considered in this paper: 
