188 PROCEEDINGS : BOSTON SOCIETY NATURAL HISTORY. 
Type locality. South Carolina (probably in the vicinity of 
Charleston) 4 
The rice-field mouse is common in all suitable places in eastern 
Georgia, shading southward gradually towards Oryzomys palustris 
natator. Thus, specimens from Ossabaw Island are slightly larger 
than those from North Carolina, but differ little otherwise; speci¬ 
mens from St. Mary’s are of the size of those from Ossabaw, but 
begin to approach 0. natator in color; while specimens from New 
Berlin and Burnside Beach, Florida, are perhaps nearer subspecies 
natator than true- palustris , though good intermediates. 
The rice-field mouse, while perhaps preferring fresh and salt- 
marshes as its abode, is by no means confined to such places. I 
have caught it in dry old fields, heavy swamps, and hummocks, and 
even on sand hills. It swims well and is common in the great salt¬ 
water marshes of the St. Mary’s River, where it makes its nests in 
the grass as Bachman describes. 
I have specimens from Hursman’s Lake, Ossabaw Island, Cumber¬ 
land Island, and St. Mary’s, Georgia, and New Berlin and Burnside 
Beach, Florida. (Those from the last two places are not typical.) 
0 
Oryzomys palustris natator Chapman. 
Oryzomys palustris 7iatator Chapman, Bull. Amer. mus. nat. 
hist., 1893, vol. 4, p. 43-46. 
Type locality. Gainesville, Florida. 
Chapman’s rice-field mouse ranges over northern, western, and 
middle Florida, south on the east side of the peninsula to about 
Oak Lodge and on the west certainly to Citrus County, the southern 
extremity of the peninsula being occupied by 0 . palustris coloratus , 
described below. 0 . palustris natator is easily distinguished from 
0. palustris typicus , being of larger size with longer tail, heavier 
pelage, and richer coloring. The skull of 0. palustris natator 
besides its larger size shows strong characters when compared with 
that of O. palustris typicus. In 0 , palustris natator the upturned 
x The specimen in the collection of the Academy of natural sciences, which Harlan 
used, was evidently without a skull, and was supposed to have come from Fastland, near 
Salem, New Jersey. If this locality was correct, the specimen in question was probably 
not an Oryzomys at all. Anyway Harlan used the skull of Dr. Bachman’s South Carolina 
specimen (as positively stated by Bachman himself) in drawing up his description; and 
as the skull was of course the important factor in determining the new species, it seems 
that South Carolina must unquestionably be regarded as the type locality of Oryzomys 
palustris. Mr. Oldtielcl Thomas writes that the type of Arvicola oryzivora is extant in 
the British Museum. 
