136 J. B. CLELAND. 
their numbers could be considered as constituting a ‘‘“mouse 
plague.’’ In Victoria the increase was first noted in Febru- 
ary and March in the North-western districts; whilst in 
South Australia the ‘‘mouse plague’’ was reported in 
March. In the latter State they had been noticed to be 
‘‘bad’’ in four or five towns, e.g., Port Broughton, Mun- 
doora, and Kybunga, during the previous season, and it 
was in this district that the increase first occurred. In 
Tasmania and Western Australia there was no undue preva- 
lence, whilst in Queensland the information available in- 
dicates that the Darling Downs district was affected. Dur- 
ing the winter, when the plague was at its height, the car- 
cases of destroyed mice were estimated in tons, the amount 
of grain actually consumed by them was large, whilst the 
havoe and destruction caused by their depredations were 
enormous. 
The Species of Mouse Responsible —A considerable num- 
ber of mice were from time to time submitted to me from 
various parts of New South Wales, either for the purposes 
of experimenting with various bagerial and other methods 
of destroying them, or for examination for disease. All the 
specimens so submitted were indistinguishable in general 
appearance from the common house mouse. ‘To make cer- 
tain as to the identification, examples were forwarded to 
Mr. Oldfield Thomas, of the British Museum, the world’s 
authority on rodents, for his opinion, and he has identified 
them as Mus musculus, the common house mouse. Mr. 
Heber A. Longman, of the Queensland Museum, whose work 
on Australian rodents is well known, has also kindly made 
detailed examinations of the skins and skulls of samples 
from four different localities (Temora, Gilgandra and 
Tocumwal amongst them), and has pronounced the mice 
all to be typical Mus musculus, though their external di- 
mensions showed more variability than usual. He also ex- - 
