24 
BIAMMALS OF LEICESTERSHIRE AND RUTLAND. 
BANK-VOLE. Microtus glareolus (Schreber). 
“Eed Field-Vole.” 
In my “Notes on the Vertebrate Animals of Leicestershire,” published in 
the ‘Zoologist,’ 1885, I wrote (p. 219): — “I have not yet met with this 
species in lieicestershire, but it doubtless occurs, as Mr. Ingram, writing on 
7th Feb., 1885, and enumerating the Mice and Voles, says, ‘and another 
also short tailed, but of a light fox-coloured skin.’ ” 
Since then, this animal has, as I imagined it would, turned up quite 
commonly at Belvoir, from whence I received, through the kindness of John 
K3’der, several specimens : i.e., out of nine Field-Voles sent to me on 2nd 
and 3rd Jul}', 1885, four were of the rarer species, which, with others, were 
exhibited on the 6th, at a meeting of the Zoological Section, “ E,” of the 
Leicester Literary and Philosophical Society, and upon which I made the follow- 
ing remarks, afterwards published at p. 27 of the Transactions of the Society 
Oct., 1886,* and in the ‘Zoologist,’ 1888, pp. 65-6: — 
“ I should not imagine this species to he veiy rare, but to be merely 
confounded with the other Vole. Colour I found to be of little aid in dis- 
criminating one from the other, especially when not full}' adult, and I do not 
think the hard-and-fast colour-test, as laid down by Bell, to be of the least 
assistance. The external points which struck me as being of importance were : 
1. Tail of greater length than m the common Field- Vole, A. agrestis, being 
about one-half the length of the body. 2. Tail more hairy above and ivhiter 
below than in A. agrestis. 3. The paws are whiter, or not so dusky as those 
of A. agrestis-, the bare parts around the mouth are also a little whiter, or 
purer in tone, and of greater extent. 4. A slightly purer, or more silvery grey 
tint (certainly not white as stated b}' Bell), pervades the abdomen, than in 
A. agrestis ; and, lastly, the fur is everywhere longer, and a trifle finer, than 
in A. agrestis, but the chestnut colour on the back is not so marked a difference 
between the two species, as stated. 
“ Internall}', all is perfect!}' clear, and if the greater length and less breadth 
of the skull is not quite so easily seen, the presence of double roots to the 
molars, leaving out the pattern of the cusps, distinguishes it at once from A. 
agrestis — which, in common with the Water-^'ole, has rootless molars.” 
I have also found its lower jaw with teeth, and other remains, in the 
stomachs of a pair of Tawny Owls from Newtown Linford, in Dec., 1885. 
Family MYOXIDJ2. 
COMMON DOEMOUSE. Muscardinus avellanarius (Linnaeus). 
“ Hazel-Mouse,” “ Tufted-tail Mouse.” 
Eare. — Harley wrote : — “ Not common. IMet with in a small wood which 
* “On tlie Occurrence of a Mammal, hitherto Unknown as inhabiting Leicestershire. By 
Montagu Browne, F.Z.S. (Read before Section E).” 
