106 University of California Publications in Zoology [Vol. 27 
History . — This species was originally described by Cope in 1867 
from material said to have come from Fort Tejon, Kern County. Two 
specimens, formerly in the collection of the Department of Zoology 
of the University of California and now in the Museum of Vertebrate 
Zoology (nos. 8243, 8244), which were originally contained in one 
bottle and labeled Ft. Tejon were considered by Grinnell and Camp 
(1917, p. 132) as the probable types of this species. There is no 
associated evidence to indicate this. The original description men- 
tions a specimen, no. 4701 [U. S. National Museum], with John 
Xantus as the collector; so far as I know none of his material ever 
reached Berkeley. Van Denburgh (1916, p. 220) indicates that no 
trace of the type could then be found in the National Museum collec- 
tion and Dr. Leonhard Stejneger is quoted as saying that it has not 
been there in his time [since 1889?]. More than this, Lockington 
(1880, p. 295) quotes Cope as saying (some time between 1876 and 
1880) that the specimen reported from northern Lower California 
was then 1 ‘ the only one now known to be extant. ’ ’ 
Range . — The exact area occupied by this species is still in doubt. 
It seems to be a form confined to the western flank of the Sierra 
Nevada. It has been recorded definitely north to Alta, Placer County, 
3600 feet (Grinnell and Camp, 1917, p. 134), in Eldorado County 
(Stejneger and Barbour, 1917, p. 14), in Yosemite Valley, 4000 feet 
(two specimens in Mus. Vert. Zool.), at North Fork, Madera County, 
3000 feet, and Dalton River, Fresno County (Mus. Vert. Zool.), Giant 
[not Grant] Forest, Sequoia National Park, 6000 feet, and 4 miles 
southwest of Nelson, Tulare County, 6300 feet (Grinnell and Camp, 
loo. cit.). There are records for three stations to the south of those 
mentioned, all of which need confirmation. These are Fort Tejon 
(Cope, 1867, pp. 210-211), ‘ ‘ Cape St. [= San] Lucas, in Lower Cali- 
fornia, and . . . from near San Diego, at the northern end of that 
peninsula” (Cope, 1889, p. 151). Van Denburgh (1916, pp. 220-221) 
inquired into the basis of these southern records and finds the first 
“ exceedingly dubious” and that the other two “need confirmation.” 
He is undoubtedly correct in assuming that Cope’s remark “I have 
seen one from near San Diego” refers to an individual reported by 
Lockington (1880, p. 295) as having been secured in Lower Califor- 
nia, 75 miles southeast of San Diego, as Cope is said by Lockington 
to have passed upon the identification. 
