200 
THE CAMAS RAT. 
and grasses, and makes burrows, extending long distances, but not very far 
beneath the surface of the ground, throwing up mole-hills in places as it 
comes to the surface. These animals are generally found to be in a certain 
degree gregarious, or at least a good many of them inhabiting the same 
locality, and more or less associated together ; and are said to be very 
common on the plains of the Multnomah river. 
Mr. Douglas informed Sir John Richardson that they may be easily 
snared in the summer. 
We believe that some of the Indians of those parts of Oregon in which 
this burrowing Rat exists eat them, but have no information concerning the 
peculiarities they exhibit, the number of young they produce at a time, or 
the depredations they commit on the fields and gardens of the settlers. 
In the Fauna Boreali Americana (p. 206), this pouched Rat (if we are 
not mistaken), is given as Diplostoma bulbivorum — Camas Rat — and under 
the impression that that name applies to our present animal, we have 
made the above remarks in relation to it. 
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. 
Specimens were obtained both by Douglas and Drummond, about the 
same period of time, in the vicinity of the Columbia river in Oregon. 
GENERAL REMARKS. 
On a visit to Europe we carried with us three specimens of pouched 
Sand-Rats, which we regarded as belonging to the same species, but being 
male, female, and young. Our object was to compare them with specimens 
taken from this country at the north and west by Richardson', Douglas, 
Drummond, and other naturalists. Richardson kindly showed us a 
specimen brought from the Columbia river by Douglas, which, as we 
thought, appeared to be of the same species as our own. As he was then 
preparing a monograph of this perplexing genus, we requested him to 
describe the species, and add it to his monograph ; he consequently gave 
it the above name. He however called another specimen which we had 
carried with us, Geomys Townsendii. We think his monograph was never 
published. 
We have united what he considered two species — Geomys Borealis and 
G. Townsendii — into one, having added the latter as a synonyme ; and we 
have rejected Diplostoma as a genus, not only because we conceive the 
characters on which it is founded to be the result of an unnatural disposi- 
tion of the pouches in the dried skins, but for the reason mentioned above, 
