116 
JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY 
A BAT NEW FOR CALIFORNIA 
Through the courtesy of H. E. Wilder, two specimens of Corynorhinus rajineb- 
quii townsendii (Cooper) have come into my possession. They are Nos. FX 18 
and GX 54 of my collection. Both are males, the first taken April 14, 1918, and 
the second taken August 3, 1919, at Carlotta, Humboldt County, California, by 
Mr. Wilder. Dr. Joseph Grinnell, of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, has 
been good enough to examine these specimens and concurs in the subspecific 
determination. This form has not, I believe, been hitherto detected within the 
confines of California. — Donald R. Dickey, Pasadena^ California. 
A CORRECTION 
In the November issue of this magazine (Journ. Mamm., vol. 2, p. 234) 
I referred a mongoose from Kentucky to Herpestes griseus E. Geoffroy. In doing 
so I had compared the Kentucky animal with specimens from the West Indies 
previously identified as griseus. Dr. Glover M. Allen has very kindly called to 
my attention that the mongoose now so common in certain of the West Indies is 
not H. griseus, but H. birmanicus. More careful examination of the specimens 
from the West Indies used as the comparative material shows that they are 
birmanicus. The mongoose from Kentucky should therefore be referred to 
Herpestes birmanicus Thomas. — Hartley H. T. Jackson, Biological Survey: 
Washington, D. C. 
A BROWN RAT KILLS A RATTLER 
The following observation on Rattus norvegicus was made by two friends of the 
writer, Messrs. Martin and Otting, at their camp on the Colorado River above 
Austin, Texas, July 15, 1921, and would seem to deserve record in this Journal. 
In the middle of the hot afternoon the rat was seen in the short, dry grass some 
twenty feet from the tent. Instead of scampering for cover as usual at the 
slightest sound emanating from human presence, the rat engaged in peculiar 
antics which attracted further attention. Closer inspection disclosed the fact 
that a mortal combat was in progress between the rat and a two-foot rattlesnake. 
Curiously enough, a second rat sat nearby so intent upon the rattler that it, too, 
was entirely oblivious of extraneous noises. 
When first seen the serpent had already received two wounds some eight or 
ten inches from the tip of the tail, apparently through the backbone, for the 
caudal extremity was paralyzed. The rattler struck repeatedly at the rat, some- 
times missing because of the agility of the latter, sometimes knocking it over on 
its side, but never closing upon it with its fangs. Occasionally the rat would 
leap over the snake’s head and inflict skin wounds upon its antagonist. Finally, 
after about ten minutes of this give-and-take fight, in which the rat panted tre- 
mendously in the broiling sun, the rattler drooped its head for a moment as if to 
rest; whereupon the rat leaped upon the snake like a flash and won the battle 
by a single gash of its sharp incisors into its head, the snake wilting instantly. 
The rat was then dispatched with a shotgun. The snake was a diamond rattler 
{Crotalus atrox) and had two rattles and a “button.” 
