﻿64 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA. 



species. 1 can not see, however, that they differ appreciably in form 

 (fig. 13d). 



Fur and color. — The fur is distributed as in true lucifugus. In color 

 it is evidently darker than that of the typical form, but the exact 

 differences can uot be determined from specimens in alcohol. Ears and 

 membranes blackish. 



Measurements. — See table, page 65. 



Specimens examined. — Total number 16, from the following localities: 



Alaska: Fort Wraugel, 1 (skin, Merriam coll.); Loriug', 4 (1 skin); Sitka, 8 

 (3 skins). 



British Columbia: Massett, Queen Charlotte Islands, 3. 



General remarlcs. — Myotis lucifugus alascensis is distinguishable from 

 both typical M. lucifugus and il7. lucifugus longicrus by its longer ears 

 and darker color. From M. lucifugus longicrus it differs further in its 

 much shorter tibia. 



MYOTIS LUCIFUGUS LONGICRUS (True). 



1886, Vespertilio longicrus True, Science, VIII, p. 588, Dec. 24, 1886. 



1893. Vesperiilio nitidus longicrus H. Allen, Monogr. Bats N. Am., p. 103. 



1893. Vespertilio albescens (melanic phase) H. Allen, Monogr. Bats N. Am., p. 92 (part). 



Type locality. — Puget Sound. 



Geographic distribution. — Boreal and Transition zones from Puget 

 Sound east to Wyoming; south at least to Arizona and southern Cali- 

 fornia, and probably much farther. 



General characters. — Similar to typical Myotis lucifugus, but larger 

 (length, 94 to 102 5 forearm, 37 to 40; tibia, 17.8 to 19), and with longer 

 tibia and proportionally shorter ear and forearm. 



Uars. — The ears are more rounded and proportionally slightly shorter 

 than in tyjjical M. lucifugus, the inner side of the conch usually more 

 hairy. Tragus as in M. lucifugus. 



The membranes and feet differ in no way from those of the true 

 M. lucifugus, except that the feet ai^pear shorter in proportion to the 

 tibiae. 



Ftir and color. — The fur shows no peculiarities in distribution. • In 

 color it is darker and duller than in the typical subspecies (especially 

 in specimens from northern California), but the difference is apparently 

 never very striking, while two skins from Arizona are indistinguishable 

 from specimens of lucifugus taken at Washington, D. C. 



SJctdl. — The skull of Myotis lucifugus longicrus does not differ appre- 

 ciably in size or form from that of true lucifugus. 



Teeth. — In dental characters Myotis lucifugus longicrus agrees closely 

 with tyiiical M. lucifugus. While there appear to be no constant and 

 important differences between the teeth of the two forms, the third 

 upper premolar averages slightly larger in longicrus, and there are 

 usually trifling differences in the relative sizes of the lower premolars 

 (fig. 14 c). 



Measurements. — See table, on page 65. 



