6 



NOETH AMEEICAN FAUITA. 



[No. 37. 



name applied to the species — Mus monax Linnaeus.^ While the figure 

 is wholly unrecognizable, the description is sufficiently clear to war- 

 rant the use of the name bestowed by Linnaeus. 



Erxleben, in 1777, named the Canadian woodchuck (now recog- 

 nized as a subspecies of monax) "Glis^' canadensis,^ and Pallas in the 

 following year renamed it " Mus^^ empetra,^ both descriptions being 

 based on the Quebec marmot" of Pennant.* Blumenbach, in 1779, 

 named the genus Marmota,^ and Schreber the following year intro- 

 duced the name Arctomys monax on a plate evidently copied from 

 Edwards's figure of The Monax."® Schreber's generic name, though 

 of later date than Blumenbach's, received general acceptance and 

 continued in common use for the marmots until the early years of the 

 present century, when the name Marmota was restored as the proper 

 appellation of the genus. ^ In 1788, Gmehn proposed the name 

 Arctomys pruinosa,^ based on the hoary marmot of Pennant, and 

 this name was used for that animal until 1888, when Tyrrell showed 

 that it had been incorrectly appUed and proposed to use in its place 

 Arctomys caligata Eschscholtz, first described in 1829.^ 



Sabine, in 1822, published an account of the American marmots, 

 recognizing three species: monax, empetra { = canadensis), and prui- 

 nosa { = caligata)}^ His descriptions of monax and pruinosa were 

 copied from previous authors, but that of empetra was drawn from 

 a specimen in the British Museum, and furnished apparently the 

 first correct description of any American marmot. The first accurate 

 drawing of an American species is that of the Canadian M^oodchuck 

 pubfished by Kichardson in the Fauna BoreaH-Americana (1829). 



In 1836 Kjng, recognizing clearly that pruinosa of Gmehn was 

 not applicable to the hoary marmot, but overlooldng Eschscholtz's 

 name caligata, proposed the name Arctomys oJmnaganus for a marmot 

 of this group obtained in southern British Columbia, and gave a very 

 full and accurate description and a good figure of the animal, drawn 

 from a hving specimen which he sent to the Zoological Gardens in 

 London.^^ His name, however, was not accepted by zoologists, and 

 pruinosa continued in use for many years. The specimen taken by 

 King was seen by Audubon in London, and furnished the basis of his 



iThe use of the name "monax" by both Catesby and Edwards independently (Edwards states that he 

 had never seen an account of the animal) indicates that it came from the vernacular— a theory which is 

 strengthened by the fact that the animal is still called "moonack" in parts of southern Virginia. 



2 Erxleben, J. C. P. Syst. Anim., Mamm., 1777, p. 363. 



3 Pallas, P. S. Nov. Spec. Glir., 1778, p. 74. 



« Pennant, Thomas. Syn. Quad., 1771, p. 270, Plate 24, fig. 2. 



sBlumenbach, J. F. Handb. der Naturgeseh., I, 1779, p. 79. 



e Schreber, J. C. D. von. Saugthiere, pi. ccviii, 1780; text, IV, 1782, p. 737. 



7 Trouessart, E. L. Cat. Mamm., Suppl., 1904, p. 343. 



sGmelin, J. F. Syst. Nat., I, 1788, p. 144. 



9 Tyrrell, J. B. Proc. Can. Inst., 3d Ser., VI, 1888, p. 88. 

 10 Sabine, Joseph. Trans. Linn. Soc. London, XIII, 1822, pp. 579-591. 

 "King, R. Narr. Journ. to Shores of Arctic Ocean, II, 1836, pp. 232-248. 



