96 
Rose, Everton, Stankavich, and Walke 
Table 4. A comparison of the results of small mammal studies conducted in the 
Dismal Swamp, based on Handley (1979), recent studies [Handley’s 1953 in 
Handley (1979), Breidling et al. 1983, Rose 1981a], and the present studies. 3 
Percent of 
Species 
1895-1906 1953-1981 
Present 
studies 
Total 
total 
individuals 
So rex longirostris 
14 
16 
44 
74 
10.03 
Blarina brevicauda 
37 
19 
65 
121 
16.40 
Crypt otis parva 
1 
2 
5 
8 
1.08 
Oryzomys palustris 
16 
0 
1 
17 
2.30 
Reithrodontomys humulis 
16 
1 
76 
93 
12.60 
Peromyscus gossypinus 
29 
0 
0 
29 
3.93 
Peromyscus leucopus 
78 
40 
60 
178 
24.12 
Ochrotomys nuttalli 
36 
19 
34 
89 
12.06 
Sigmodon hispidus 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0.27 
Micro tus pennsylvanicus 
7 
6 
26 
39 
5.28 
Microtus pinetorum 
4 
0 
4 
8 
1.08 
Synaptomys cooperi 
21 
7 
40 
68 
9.21 
Mus musculus 
7 
3 
2 
12 
1.63 
Total individuals 
266 
113 
359 
738 
Total species 
12 
9 
12 
o • 
Dice (1940) caught four Peromyscus leucopus and two P. gossypinus near 
Lake Drummond in 1933. 
DISCUSSION 
The results of our three studies substantially advance our under- 
standing of the distribution and abundance of Dismal Swamp mammals. 
One species, S. h. virginianus, was recorded in the swamp for the first 
time, and P. g. gossypinus probably is now absent. Thus, the total 
remains at 12 species of small mammals, as in the 1895-1906 period 
(Table 4). However, we now have information about mammals in 
nonforested habitats as well as large sample sizes for several species. 
