382 



THE AMEBIC AN NATURALIST [Vol. XLIX 



that the "true" series is black, gray gray belly, gray white belly 

 and non-agouti (instead of yellow). 



The race of white-bellied mice that I have kept for several 

 years does not correspond in all respects to Ciienot's description 

 of those that he has studied. His account of them in 1908 6 is as 

 follows : 



La Souris reste pise sm- le tins, mais le ventre prend une teinte blane 

 roussatre, avcc 1111 bmnpiet de poils plus roux entre les deux pattes de 

 devant. et une bordure un pen plus rousse sur les flancs; elle resemble 

 d'une facon frappante a Mus sylvaticus, L. 



Again in 1911 7 Cuenot says : 



La premiere differe de la Souris grise sauvage par la teinte du ventre, 

 qui, au lieu d'etre gris-clair, est blanc roussatre, avec un bouquet de 

 poils roux entre les deux pattes de devant et une bordure un peu plus 

 rousse sur les flancs; eette Souris a souvent de gros yeux saillants, de 

 sorte qu'elle ressemble d'une facon frappante au Mulot (Mus sylvat- 

 icus, L.). 



In my race of white-bellied mice there is not a bouquet of rus- 

 set hairs between the front legs, and I have not observed that the 

 eyes are large and protruding more than occurs at times in other 

 mice. At present, however, I have two old mice that were re- 

 cently found that have a tuft of faint russet hairs between the 

 forelegs. Whether we have "here still another allelomorph, or 

 whether a particular genetic constitution makes apparent the 

 bouquet in conjunction with the white-bellied factor, remains to 

 be worked out. While it seems probable that Cuenot 's type of 

 white-bellied mouse and that which I have studied are the same, 

 it is not certain that such is the case until further work has been 



Cuenot has not published as yet any conclusive evidence to 

 show that the gray mice with white belly belong to the series of 

 allelomorphs, although it is true he states that this type is allelo- 

 morphic to the three other types. Finally, I should like to add 

 that I am far from wishing to appear to minimize the importance 

 of Cuenot 's work, and it is now evident that he should have 

 received full credit for his recognition of the allelomorphic 

 nature of the four factors in question. I still think, nevertheless, 



