diff options
Diffstat (limited to '33710.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 33710.txt | 1455 |
1 files changed, 1455 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/33710.txt b/33710.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d2b07f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/33710.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1455 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic +Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores, by E. Raymond Hall and Keith R. Kelson + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores + +Author: E. Raymond Hall + Keith R. Kelson + +Release Date: September 12, 2010 [EBook #33710] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK COMMENTS ON THE TAXONOMY *** + + + + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +Comments on +the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution +of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores +and Carnivores + +BY + +E. RAYMOND HALL and KEITH R. KELSON + + +University of Kansas Publications +Museum of Natural History +Volume 5, No. 25, pp. 319-341 +December 5, 1952 + + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +LAWRENCE +1952 + + + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS, MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + +Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, A. Byron Leonard, Edward H. Taylor, +Robert W. Wilson + +Volume 5, No. 25, pp. 319-341 +December 5, 1952 + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +Lawrence, Kansas + +PRINTED BY +FERD VOILAND, JR., STATE PRINTER +TOPEKA, KANSAS +1952 + + + + +Transcriber's Note: Words and phrases printed in bold are marked +with ~; i.e., ~This is bold.~ + + + +Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Some North +American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores + +BY + +E. RAYMOND HALL and KEITH R. KELSON + + +In preparing maps showing the geographic distribution of North American +mammals we have found in the literature conflicting statements and +questionable identifications, which have led us to examine the +specimens concerned with results as set forth below. Our studies have +been aided by a contract (NR 161-791) between the Office of Naval +Research, Department of the Navy, and the University of Kansas. +Grateful acknowledgment is made to the persons in charge of the several +collections of mammals consulted for permission to examine and study +the specimens therein. + + +~Didelphis marsupialis californica~ Bennett + +From Cuernavaca, Morelos, Hooper (Jour. Mamm., 28:43, February 1, 1947) +lists a specimen, as he says, on purely geographic grounds, as of the +subspecies _Didelphis mesamericana tabascensis_. We have examined this +specimen, an unsexed skull-only, which falls within the range of +individual variation of _Didelphis marsupialis californica_ and refer +the specimen to that subspecies. + + +~Didelphis marsupialis etensis~ J. A. Allen + +From El Muneco, Costa Rica, Harris (Occas. Papers, Mus. Zool. Univ. +Michigan, no. 476:7, October 8, 1943) lists as _Didelphis richmondi_ a +specimen ([Male], No. 67550 U.M.). Our examination of the specimen +shows it to be within the range of individual variation of populations +that have been referred to _D. m. etensis_ from adjoining areas. We +identify the specimen as _Didelphis marsupialis etensis_. + + +~Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis~ J. A. Allen + +From Minatitlan, Veracruz, J. A. Allen (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., +14:168, June 15) listed a specimen under the name _Didelphis +marsupialis_ [in the trinomial sense] instead of under the name +_Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis_, which would be expected, on +geographic grounds, to apply. The specimen is No. 78123, U.S. Nat. +Mus., Biol. Surv. Coll. Our examination of the specimen reveals that it +is within the range of individual variation of _Didelphis marsupialis +tabascensis_ and we identify the specimen as of that subspecies. From +Yaruca, Honduras, Bangs (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 39:157, July, 1903) +doubtfully listed as _Didelphis yucatanensis_ a specimen, No. 10611, +M.C.Z. Our examination of the specimen indicates that it is within the +range of variation expectable in _Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis_, +known from surrounding areas, and we identify the specimen as +_Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis_. + + +~Didelphis marsupialis virginiana~ Kerr + +J. A. Allen (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14:166, May 28, 1901) and A. +H. Howell (N. Amer. Fauna, 45:20, October 28, 1921) have identified +four skulls from Sylacuga, Alabama, as _Didelphis virginiana pigra_. +The two subspecies _virginiana_ and _pigra_ are not known to differ +cranially. We have, however, examined the skulls which are Nos. +44057-44060 in the U.S. Nat. Mus., Biol. Surv. Coll. Because they are +from a place north of other localities (Auburn and Greensboro, Alabama) +from which the subspecies _virginiana_ has been recorded, and within +the geographic range of _virginiana_, we identify the specimens as +_Didelphis marsupialis virginiana_. + +Sycamore Creek (synonymous with Fort Worth), Texas, is a place from +which J. A. Allen (_op. cit._:173) recorded a specimen as _Didelphis +marsupialis texensis_. This specimen (No. 24359/31765 U. S. Nat. Mus., +Biol. Surv. Coll.) is in the black color-phase. There are only a few +white hairs on the hind feet, and the basal fourth of the tail is +black. The black phase occurs all through the range of the species _D. +marsupialis_ and our examination of the specimen reveals no characters +by which it can be distinguished from _D. m. virginiana_ of the +surrounding region and we accordingly identify the specimen as +_Didelphis marsupialis virginiana_. + + +~Didelphis marsupialis pigra~ Bangs + +Davis (Jour. Mamm., 25:375, December 12, 1944) was one writer who +presented evidence that _Didelphis virginiana_ (through its subspecies +_virginiana_ or _pigra_ or both) was only subspecifically distinct from +the species _Didelphis mesembrinus_ (= _D. marsupialis_) through the +subspecies _texensis_. Davis, however, did not actually employ a name +combination that would enforce his conclusion and he remarked that he +had not seen specimens which showed actual intergradation in the color +of the toes. As the remarks below will show, Davis (_loc. cit._) was +correct in his supposition that J. A. Allen had seen such specimens. + +Deming Station, Matagordo, and Velasco, Texas, are three places from +which J. A. Allen (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14:162, May 28, 1901) +listed specimens as _Didelphis virginiana_. The specimens concerned are +in the Biological Surveys Collection of the U.S. Nat. Museum and bear +catalogue numbers as follows: Deming Station, 32430/44266, 32432/44268, +32433/44269; Matagordo, 32431/44267; Velasco, 32812/44833. In each +specimen the tail is shorter than the head and body. The specimen from +Velasco is semi-black, has the basal tenth of the tail black and there +is no white on the ears or tail. The specimen from Matagordo is +grayish, has the basal fifth of the tail black, ears black, the right +hind foot black, but there is some white on the toes of the left hind +foot and on each of the forefeet. Of the three specimens from Deming +Station, all are in the gray color-phase. The first has the tail black +only as far from the base as there is hair and there is considerable +whitish on the hind toes. The second specimen has the basal fifth of +the tail black and a slight amount of whitish on the hind toes. The +third specimen has the basal third of the tail black and the toes are +all black. In the sum total of their characters the specimens mentioned +above are referable to _Didelphis marsupialis pigra_. These five +specimens, and indeed the three from Deming Station alone, show +intergradation in coloration of the feet between _Didelphis marsupialis +texensis_ and _Didelphis virginiana pigra_. Probably there is three-way +intergradation here at Deming Station in that _D. v. virginiana_ +immediately to the north is involved. The specimens mentioned above, +along with the information recorded by Davis (_loc. cit._) and other +authors (for example, J. A. Allen, _loc. cit._, and Bull. Amer. Mus. +Nat. Hist., 16:249-279, August 18, 1902), give basis for arranging the +North American _Didelphis_ as follows: + + _Didelphis marsupialis virginiana_ Kerr. + + 1792. _Didelphis virginiana_ Kerr, Animal Kingdom, p. 193, type + locality Virginia. + + _Didelphis marsupialis pigra_ Bangs. + + 1898. _Didelphis virginiana pigra_ Bangs, Proc. Boston Soc. + Nat. Hist., 28:172, March, type from Oak Lodge, opposite Micco, + Brevard Co., Florida. + + _Didelphis marsupialis texensis_ J. A. Allen. + + 1901. _Didelphis marsupialis texensis_ J. A. Allen, Bull. Amer. + Mus. Nat. Hist., 14:172, June 15, type from Brownsville, + Cameron County, Texas. + + _Didelphis marsupialis californica_ Bennett. + + 1833. _Didelphis Californica_ Bennett, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, + p. 40, May 17, type probably from northwestern part of present + Republic of Mexico. + + 1924. _Didelphis mesamericana mesamericana_, Miller. Bull. U.S. + Nat. Mus., 128:3, April 29, 1924, and authors. Type locality, + northern Mexico. (_Did[elphys]. mesamericana_ Oken, Lehrbuch d. + naturgesch., pt. 3, vol. 2, p. 1152, 1816, along with other + names from Oken 1816, is judged to be unavailable under current + rules of zoological nomenclature.) + + _Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis_ J. A. Allen. + + 1901. _Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis_ J. A. Allen, Bull. + Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14:173, June 15, type from Teapa, + Tabasco. + + _Didelphis marsupialis yucatanensis_ J. A. Allen. + + 1901. _Didelphis yucatanensis_ J. A. Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. + Nat. Hist., 14:178, June 15, type from Chichenitza, Yucatan. + + _Didelphis marsupialis cozumelae_ Merriam. + + 1901. _Didelphis yucatanensis cozumelae_ Merriam, Proc. Biol. + Soc. Washington, 14:101, July 19, type from Cozumel Island, + Yucatan. + + _Didelphis marsupialis richmondi_ J. A. Allen. + + 1901. _Didelphis richmondi_ J. A. Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. + Hist., 14:175, June 15, type from Greytown, Nicaragua. + + 1920. _D[idelphis], m[arsupialis], richmondi_, Goldman, + Smithsonian Misc. Coll., 69(5):46, April 24. + + _Didelphis marsupialis etensis_ J. A. Allen. + + 1902. _Didelphis marsupialis etensis_ J. A. Allen, Bull. Amer. + Mus. Nat. Hist., 16:262, August 18, type from Eten, Piura, + Peru. + + _Didelphis marsupialis battyi_ Thomas. + + 1902. _Didelphis marsupialis battyi_ Thomas, Novitates + Zoologicae, 9:137, April 10, type from Coiba Island, Panama. + + _Didelphis marsupialis particeps_ Goldman. + + 1917. _Didelphis marsupialis particeps_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. + Soc. Washington, 30:107, May 23, type from San Miguel Island, + Panama. + + _Didelphis marsupialis insularis_ J. A. Allen. + + 1902. _Didelphis marsupialis insularis_ J. A. Allen, Bull. + Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 16:259, August 18, type from Caparo, + Trinidad. + +In listing the subspecific names given immediately above we are aware +of the possibility that a thorough study of the geographic variation in +_Didelphis marsupialis_ may contract or expand the list of recognizable +subspecies. We are aware also that Hershkovitz (Fieldiana: Zoology, 31 +(No. 47):548, July 10, 1951) has arranged several of the subspecific +names listed immediately above as synonyms of _Didelphis marsupialis +californica_ Bennett. We have not employed his arrangement because he +has not given proof that the currently recognized subspecies are +indistinguishable. + + +~Caluromys derbianus canus~ (Matschie) + +Matschie (Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu +Berlin, Jahrgang 1917, p. 284 (for April), September, 1917) applied the +name _Micoureus canus_ to a specimen on which the locality was no more +precise than Nicaragua. Comparison of Matschie's description with +specimens in the United States National Museum (including the holotype +of _Philander centralis_ Hollister and referred specimens of _Philander +laniger pallidus_ Thomas) reveals that Matschie's specimen was +intermediate in coloration between the other two kinds of woolly +opossums named above and that there is nothing distinctive, in the +specific sense, in the cranial measurements which Matschie published +(_op. cit._). _M. canus_, therefore, may be merely an intergrade +between the two previously named woolly opossums (_C. d. centralis_ and +_C. d. pallidus_), an individual variant of a previously named kind, +say, _C. d. pallidus_, or a valid subspecies. If it is a recognizable +subspecies, it probably comes from somewhere in the eastern half of +Nicaragua. As a means of handling the name, _Micoureus canus_ Matschie, +we tentatively place it as a subspecies of the species _Caluromys +derbianus_. The name may, therefore, stand as _Caluromys derbianus +canus_ (Matschie), with type locality in Guatemala. + + +~Caluromys derbianus fervidus~ (Thomas) + +Elliott (Field Columb. Mus. Nat. Hist., Publ. No. 115, Zool. Ser., 8:5, +1907) lists as _Caluromys laniger pallidus_ a specimen from Honduras +that was acquired for the Field Columbian Museum (= Chicago Natural +History Museum) by purchase from Ward's Natural Science Establishment +of Rochester, New York. On August 4, 1951, in the Chicago Natural +History Museum, we found in the catalogue of the collection of Recent +mammals an entry for a male _Caluromys_ bearing catalogue number 6 and +listed as from "San Pedro Sula [Honduras]. From Wards. Mounted". In the +collection of study specimens there is no specimen from Honduras that +was purchased from Ward's, mounted or unmounted. In the sealed, +glass-fronted, exhibit cases of mammals on display there is one, and +only one, _Caluromys_. It is presumed to be specimen No. 6. This +specimen is not _C. d. pallidus_ because it is too dark. It could be +_Caluromys derbianus fervidus_ and we tentatively refer it to that +subspecies. + + +~Caluromys derbianus pallidus~ (Thomas) + +From Puntarenas, Costa Rica, Harris (Occas. Papers Mus. Zool. Univ. +Michigan, 476:7, October 8, 1943) listed as _Caluromys laniger +centralis_ a female, skull and skin, No. 62702 in the Museum of Zoology +of the University of Michigan. We have examined this specimen, the +color of which is darker than in some other specimens of _C. d. pallidus_ +but lighter than that of specimens of _C. d. centralis_ (for example, +specimens from Turrialba, Costa Rica) and on basis of color we refer No. +62702 to _Caluromys derbianus pallidus_. + + +~Scalopus aquaticus aereus~ (Bangs) + +Bangs' (Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 10:138, December 28, 1896) name +_S. a. aereus_ was based on a single specimen that shows more than an +average amount of coppery color. Jackson (N. Amer. Fauna, 38:52, +September 30, 1915) and subsequent authors accord full specific rank to +the specimen under the name _Scalopus aereus_. Blair (Amer. Midland +Nat., 22:98, July, 1939) recorded, from the type locality of _Scalopus +aereus_, normally colored individuals of _Scalopus aquaticus pulcher_ +Jackson. Previously, Scheffer (Kansas State Agric. College, Exp. Bull., +168:4, August 1, 1910) reported that in his examination of 100 +individuals of _Scalops_ [= _Scalopus_] _aquaticus_ from Manhattan, +Kansas, there were two individuals "that were suffused all over with +rich golden brown." Because our examination of the type specimen of +_Scalops texanus aereus_ Bangs reveals no features additional to +coppery color that differentiate _aereus_ from other individuals of +_Scalopus aquaticus pulcher_ Jackson (Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, +27:19, February 2, 1914) we conclude that Jackson's name and Bangs' +name (_Scalops texanus aereus_) apply to the same subspecies. Bangs' +name has priority and the correct name, therefore, for the populations +of moles that in recent years have been designated as _Scalopus aereus_ +Bangs and _Scalopus aquaticus pulcher_ Jackson will be _Scalopus +aquaticus aereus_ (Bangs). This name combination was previously used by +Miller (U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull., 79:8, December 31, 1912). + + +~Scalopus aquaticus australis~ (Chapman) + +Quay (Jour. Mamm., 30:66, February 14, 1949) recorded _Scalopus +aquaticus_ from Springhill Plantation, 10 miles south-southwest of +Thomasville, Georgia. He stated that the specimens were intermediate +between the subspecies _S. a. australis_ and _S. a. howelli_, but did +not refer the specimens to either subspecies. The locality whence the +material was obtained is approximately half way between the geographic +ranges, as previously known, of _S. a. australis_ and _S. a. howelli_ +(see Jackson, N. Amer. Fauna, 38, September 30, 1915). + +The specimens recorded by Quay probably are two females in the +Cleveland Museum of Natural History bearing Catalogue Nos. 18136 and +18262 and labeled as from Springhill Plantation, Thomas County, +Georgia. We have examined these specimens and find that they resemble +_S. a. howelli_ in narrowness across the upper tooth-rows, but that +they resemble _S. a. australis_ in length of tail (22, 24), in +shortness of maxillary tooth-row (9.5, 9.5), and in convex dorsal +outline of the skull. Accordingly, we refer the specimens to _Scalopus +aquaticus australis_. + + +~Sorex cinereus cinereus~ Kerr + +In his revision of the American long-tailed shrews, Jackson (N. Amer. +Fauna, 51, vi + 238, 13 pls., 24 figs., July 24, 1928) referred +specimens of _Sorex cinereus_ from Tyonek, Cook Inlet, Alaska, to the +subspecies _S. c. cinereus_ (_op. cit._: 46) and one specimen from +Chester Creek, Anchorage, Alaska, to the subspecies _S. c. hollisteri_ +(_op. cit._: 56). Thus, the geographic ranges of the two subspecies +would seem to overlap around the northern shores of Cook Inlet. In an +attempt to resolve this seemingly anomalous distribution, we have +examined pertinent materials in the Biological Surveys Collection, U.S. +National Museum. We agree with Jackson (_op. cit._) that the series of +specimens from Tyonek is readily referable to _S. c. cinereus_. To our +eye, however, the specimen, No. 232691, from Anchorage is referable to +_Sorex cinereus cinereus_, rather than to _S. c. hollisteri_. The +reference is made on the basis of the darker color, especially of the +underparts. In this specimen, other characters that distinguish the two +mentioned subspecies are not apparent, probably because it is +relatively young; the teeth show only slight wear. + + +~Sorex trowbridgii humboldtensis~ Jackson + +In his account of the long-tailed shrews, Jackson (N. Amer. Fauna, +51:98, July 24, 1928) listed under specimens examined of _Sorex +trowbridgii montereyensis_ four specimens from 7 mi. N Hardy, Mendocino +Co., California. Under his account of the subspecies _S. t. humboldtensis_, +however, he (_op. cit._:97) mentions that specimens (seemingly the same +four) from 7 mi. N Hardy "have shorter tails than typical representatives +of _humboldtensis_, but in color and cranial characters they are similar +to this [_humboltensis_] subspecies." We conclude, therefore, that the +specimens mentioned were inadvertently listed as _S. t. montereyensis_ +and are _Sorex trowbridgii humboldtensis_. This conclusion is supported +by the fact that the locality concerned, 7 mi. N Hardy, is within the +geographic range assigned to _S. t. humboldtensis_ by Jackson (_op. +cit._:97); his southern records of occurrence of _S. t. humboldtensis_ +are Sherwood and Mendocino, both in Mendocino County, California. Our +conclusion is further supported by Grinnell's (Univ. California Publ. +Zool., 40(2):80, September 26, 1933) statement of the range of _S. t. +montereyensis_ as "from southern Mendocino County south...." + + +~Blarina brevicauda churchi~ Bole and Moulthrop + +Kellogg (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 86:253, February 14, 1939) tentatively +referred specimens of the short-tailed shrew from the mountainous parts +of eastern Tennessee to the subspecies _Blarina brevicauda talpoides_, +with the remark that they were unlike specimens of that subspecies +obtained in eastern and southern West Virginia. Subsequently, Bole and +Moulthrop (Sci. Publ. Cleveland Mus. Nat. Hist., 5:109, September 11, +1942) named the subspecies _Blarina brevicauda churchi_ with type +locality at Roan Mountain, North Carolina. We have examined the +specimens in the U.S. National Museum recorded by Kellogg (_loc. cit._) +from the following localities: Shady Valley, 2900 ft. (Catalogue No. +267182); Holston Mtn., 4 mi. NE Shady Valley, 3800 ft. (Nos. +267176-267178, 267180, and 267181); Holston Mtn., 3 mi. NE Shady +Valley, 3000 ft. (No. 267179); Roan Mtn., (Nos. 267469-267475); Mt. +Guyot, 6300 ft. (No. 267183); 4-1/2 mi. SE Cosby, 3300 and 3400 ft. +(Nos. 267184 and 267185); and Snake Den Mtn., 3800 ft. (No. 267186). +Among named kinds of _Blarina brevicauda_, we find these specimens to +resemble most closely _Blarina brevicauda churchi_ and so refer them. +They are readily distinguishable from specimens of _B. b. kirtlandi_, +that occurs farther north in the same mountain range, by larger size +and longer tail. Incidentally, in the specimens that we have examined, +we do not find that _B. b. churchi_ is darker colored than other +subspecies of _Blarina brevicauda_; _B. b. churchi_, to us, is +indistinguishable in color from _B. b. kirtlandi_. Bole and Moulthrop +(_op. cit._) thought that _B. b. churchi_ was notably darker than other +subspecies from adjoining areas. + + +~Blarina brevicauda carolinensis~ (Bachman) + +Blair (Amer. Midland Nat., 22(1):99, July, 1939) referred specimens of +the short-tailed shrew from the Arbuckle Mountain area of Oklahoma to +_Blarina brevicauda hulophaga_ and specimens from Mohawk Park, Tulsa +County, Oklahoma, to _B. b. carolinensis_. Later Bole and Moulthrop +(Sci. Publs. Cleveland Mus. Nat. Hist., 5:108, September 11, 1942) saw +two of the specimens from Mohawk Park and assigned them to _B. b. +hulophaga_. According to the most recent published account, therefore, +_B. b. hulophaga_ would seem to have a peculiarly discontinuous +geographic range. We have examined the material seen by Blair and by +Bole and Moulthrop (Nos. 75946, 75947, 75643, Mus. Zool. Univ. +Michigan) in an attempt to form our own judgment as to their +subspecific identity. The teeth of No. 75946 are well worn, whereas the +teeth of the other two are scarcely worn. We are unable to distinguish +No. 75946 from topotypes of _B. b. carolinensis_ by size, color, or +cranial features. The two younger specimens are smaller and paler, but +do not agree with the description of _B. b. hulophaga_. The +nearly-complete narrow, white girdle of No. 75947 is clearly an +individual variation. We assign the animals to _Blarina brevicauda +carolinensis_ (Bachman) as did Blair (_loc. cit._). + + +~Blarina brevicauda minima~ Lowery + +Bailey (N. Amer. Fauna, 25:207, October 24, 1905) identified as +_Blarina brevicauda carolinensis_ one specimen from Joaquin and two +specimens from Big Thicket, 8 mi. NE Sour Lake, both localities in +eastern Texas. Strecker and Williams (Jour. Mamm., 10:259, August 10, +1929) later recorded the specimens again under the same name. The +subsequent naming of _B. b. plumbea_ from Aransas National Wildlife +Refuge, Aransas County, Texas (Davis, Jour. Mamm., 22(3):317, August +14, 1941) and _B. b. minima_ from Louisiana (Lowery, Occas. Papers Mus. +Zool., Louisiana St. Univ., 13:218, November 22, 1943) leaves the +identity of the specimens from eastern Texas in doubt. We have examined +the following specimens in the Biological Surveys Collection, U.S. +National Museum: No. 117372, from Joaquin; No. 136407, from 7 mi. NE +Sour Lake; and No. 136788, from 8 mi. NE Sour Lake. We judge these to +be the specimens referred to by Bailey (_loc. cit._). We find that they +are indistinguishable from specimens of _Blarina brevicauda minima_ and +they seem to differ from _B. b. plumbea_ in being chestnut rather than +plumbeous in color and in lacking the highly-arched posterior border of +the palate. They are easily distinguished from _B. b. carolinensis_ by +their chestnut, rather than slaty-black, color and small size. They are +distinguishable from _B. b. hulophaga_, to which they might conceivably +be referred on geographic grounds, by their color and small size. We +refer them to _Blarina brevicauda minima_ Lowery. + + +~Spilogale angustifrons angustifrons~ A. H. Howell + +In his "Revision of the skunks of the genus Spilogale" (N. Amer. Fauna, +26, November 24, 1906) A. H. Howell identified certain specimens in the +United States National Museum as follows: + + _Spilogale leucoparia_, [Male] sad. 55585 from Tulancingo, Hidalgo + (_op. cit._:21). + + _Spilogale gracilis_, [Male] sad. 88154 from San Sebastian in + Jalisco, [Male] ad. 79017 from Lagos in Jalisco, [Male] ad. 47177 + from Patzcuaro in Michoacan (_op. cit._:23). + + _Spilogale ambigua_, [Male] ad. 35667/20437 from Barranca Ibarra in + Jalisco, [Male] yg. 120101 from Ocotlan in Jalisco (_op. cit._:25). + +Hall and Villa (Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist, 1:448, December +27, 1949) inferred that No. 47177 from Patzcuaro was instead referable +to _Spilogale angustifrons angustifrons_. Our examination of No. 47177 +and of each of the other specimens mentioned by catalogue number +immediately above leads us to conclude that they all are of one +species, and that, among named kinds of _Spilogale_, they should be +referred to the subspecies _Spilogale angustifrons angustifrons_ +Howell. + +Our examination of all of the specimens that Howell (_op. cit_.) +identified as _Spilogale [angustifrons] angustifrons_ reveals that +none of the specimens from the type locality had attained full adult +stature; the holotype is a subadult and the other specimens from the +type locality are even younger. The small size of these specimens from +the type locality seems to have misled Howell into thinking that they +were taxonomically distinct from the larger specimens--those from +Jalisco, Michoacan and Hidalgo--that he identified as other kinds. + + +~Spilogale gracilis gracilis~ Merriam + +In the genus _Spilogale_ four specific names, concerning the status of +which we have been uncertain, are listed below in the order of their +appearance in the literature. + + 1890. _Spilogale gracilis_ Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, 3:83, + September 11, type from bottom of canyon, Grand Canyon, Arizona. + + 1890. _Spilogale leucoparia_ Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, 4:11, + October 8, type from Mason, Mason County, Texas. + + 1891. _Spilogale phenax arizonae_ Mearns, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. + Hist., 3:256, June 5, type from near Fort Verde, Yavapai County, + Arizona. + + 1897. _Spilogale ambigua_ Mearns, Preliminary diagnoses of new + mammals ... from the Mexican boundary line, p. 3, January 12 + [reprinted in Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 20:460, December 24, 1897], + type from summit of Eagle Cliff Mtn., 2 mi. S of Monument No. 5 of + Emory's Survey which, according to Miller (U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull., + 128:134, April 29, 1924), is "Eagle Mountain, Chihuahua, Mexico, + about four miles south of Dona Ana County, New Mexico." + +In 1906 (N. Amer. Fauna, 26:1-55, 10 pls., November 24) A. H. Howell's +"Revision of the skunks of the genus Spilogale" was published and the +four names listed above were retained by him as applying to four +species (not subspecies). His map (_op. cit._, pl. 1) showing the +geographic distribution of the four kinds looks reasonable enough at +first inspection and does not indicate any overlapping of the +geographic ranges of the species in question, but if a map be made by +plotting the localities of occurrence recorded by Howell (_op. cit._), +for specimens examined by him, a notably different geographic +distribution is shown. For one thing the geographic ranges of +_gracilis_, _leucoparia_, _arizonae_ and _ambigua_ coincide over a +considerable part of Arizona. Also, specimens collected in recent +years from Arizona and adjoining areas do not readily fit into the +"species" recognized by Howell; some specimens are structurally +intermediate between two or more of these species and other specimens +combine the diagnostic characters ascribed to two or more of the +alleged species. For these and other reasons a re-appraisal of the +application of the names mentioned above long has been indicated. + +Before re-appraising the names it is pertinent to recall that Howell's +paper in 1906 on _Spilogale_ was only the second revisionary paper +that he prepared. It was prepared by a man who at that time lacked +much taxonomic experience, and who held to a morphotype concept. +Howell worked under the guidance, in the literal sense, of Dr. C. Hart +Merriam. The concept of species and subspecies held by Merriam +fortunately was recorded by him (Jour. Mamm., 1:6-9, November 28, +1919). Merriam's reliance on degree of difference and his disregard of +intergradation were naturally (and necessarily, we think, in Howell's +work in 1906) adopted by Howell. For example, of six specimens from +Point Reyes in west-central California, a place less than ten miles +from the type locality of _Spilogale phenax phenax_, Howell (_op. +cit._:33) assigned one specimen to the subspecies _Spilogale phenax +latifrons_! _S. p. latifrons_ occurs in Oregon and in northern +California--no nearer than 200 miles to Point Reyes. Howell's +assignment of this specimen to _S. p. latifrons_ was not a _lapsus_, +as persons with the modern (geographic) concept of a subspecies would +be likely to suppose. Howell's assignment of the one specimen to _S. +p. latifrons_ and the other five specimens to _S. p. phenax_ was +intentional, as he told one of us (Hall). He explained that he relied +upon the morphological characters of the individual animal instead of +upon the morphological characters of a population of animals. To him, +therefore, there was nothing inconsistent in his procedure in 1906. +Also, variation that was the result of difference in age and variation +that was the result of individual deviation were not understood, or at +least not taken into account, by Howell in 1906, nor by Merriam in +1890. For example, Merriam selected the most extensively white +specimen available to him for the holotype of _Spilogale leucoparia_. +He, and Howell in 1906, used the extensiveness of the white areas of +that particular specimen (see fig. 3, pl. 2, N. Amer. Fauna, 26, 1906) +as a character diagnostic of the "species" _S. leucoparia_ although +each of the authors had available two other specimens of _S. +leucoparia_ from the type locality, and all of the other referred +specimens in the United States National Museum, that were less +extensively white than the holotype. The _individual specimen_ was the +primary basis for the species or subspecies and one selected specimen +alone often was used in making comparisons between a given named kind +and some other species or subspecies. Also, be it remembered, degree +of difference, and not presence or absence of intergradation, was the +basis on which subspecific _versus_ specific rank was accorded to a +named kind of animal. Howell wrote on the labels of some specimens of +_Spilogale_ "not typical" when the individuals differed from the type +specimen in features that owe their existence to individual variation, +and he wrote the same words on the labels of other specimens that had +not yet developed mastoidal crests because the animals were not yet +adult. + +Anyone who examines the specimens that Howell used will do well to +bear in mind the circumstances noted above concerning Howell's paper +of 1906; otherwise the reasons for Howell's identifications of certain +specimens can not be understood. + +We have examined and compared the holotypes, and other specimens used +by Howell. While doing so we have borne in mind the degree of +individual variation well shown by each of several series of specimens +(for example, that in six adult males, from the Animas Mountains of +New Mexico, recorded by V. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 53:339, 1932) and +age variation (for example, that shown in specimens of _S. interrupta_ +from Douglas County, Kansas). The degree of each of these kinds of +variation, although considerable, is not extraordinary. That is to +say, the variations are of approximately the same degree as we +previously have ascertained to exist in _Mephitis mephitis_ and in +_Mustela frenata_, two species that are in the same family, +Mustelidae, as _Spilogale_. As a result of our comparisons, we +conclude, first that the four names mentioned at the beginning of this +account all pertain to one species, and second that the three names +_S. gracilis_, _S. p. arizonae_ and _S. ambigua_, and probably also +_S. leucoparia_, were based on individual variations in one +subspecies. _S. gracilis_ has priority and will apply; the other names +are properly to be arranged as synonyms of it, as follows: + + 1890. _Spilogale gracilis_ Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, 3:83, + September 11. + + 1890. _Spilogale leucoparia_ Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, 4:11, + October 8. + + 1891. _Spilogale phenax arizonae_ Mearns, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. + Hist., 3:256, June 5. + + 1897. _Spilogale ambigua_ Mearns, Preliminary diagnoses of new + mammals ... from the Mexican boundary line, p. 3, January 12. + +Some information in support of the above arrangement, along with some +other observations on _Spilogale_, are as follows: The type specimen +of _Spilogale gracilis_ bears on the original skin-label in the +handwriting of Vernon Bailey, the collector, the statement that the +tail was imperfect. The recorded measurements of 400 for total length +and 142 for length of tail, therefore, are presumed to be subject to +correction. This presumption and the further circumstance that other +specimens from Arizona and New Mexico are as large as specimens of +comparable age and sex that we have examined from Nevada and Utah of +_Spilogale gracilis saxatilis_ Merriam, indicate that _S. g. +saxatilis_ differs less from the allegedly smaller _S. g. gracilis_ +than was previously thought. Nevertheless, from north to south (for +example, from northern Nevada to southern Arizona) there is an +increase in extent of white areas at the expense of black areas of the +pelage. As a result, the lateralmost white stripe in _S. g. saxatilis_ +averages narrower (and often is wanting) than in _S. g. gracilis_. The +absence, or narrowness, of the lateralmost white stripe seems to be +the principal basis for recognizing _S. g. saxatilis_, just as the +tendency to narrow rostrum in Coloradan specimens seems to be the +principal basis for recognizing _Spilogale gracilis tenuis_ A. H. +Howell. Both _S. g. saxatilis_ and _S. g. tenuis_ are "poorly" +differentiated from _S. g. gracilis_ and from each other. + +The holotype of _Spilogale ambigua_ Mearns is slightly smaller than +other adult males of comparable age, and the braincase, relative to +its width, is slightly deeper than in the average adult male. These +variations, nevertheless, are within the range of individual +variation, as also are those characterizing the holotype of _Spilogale +phenax arizonae_ Mearns. The latter specimen is an adult male, with +much inflated mastoidal bullae, nearly straight dorsal profile on the +skull, relatively shallow braincase, and only slightly worn teeth. + +The holotype of _Spilogale leucoparia_ Merriam, as pointed out above, +is an extreme example of the extensiveness of the white areas of the +pelage at the expense of the black areas. This feature occurs more +often in the southwestern desert areas of the United States than it +does farther north. In addition to the extensiveness of the white +markings, the other two characters allegedly distinctive of _S. +leucoparia_ are broad and much flattened braincase and great degree of +inflation of the mastoidal bullae. Although these three mentioned +features do distinguish _S. leucoparia_ from _S. indianola_ to the +eastward, they seem not to set _S. leucoparia_ apart from _S. +gracilis_ to the westward. For example, in Arizona some specimens are +extensively white and some others have the braincase flattened and the +mastoidal bullae much inflated. V. Bailey (N. Amer. Fauna, 53:339, +1932) refers to a specimen ([Male], No. 147252 USBS) from the head of +the Rio Mimbres in New Mexico in which, as our comparisons show, the +inflation of the mastoidal bullae exceeds that of any Texan specimen +of _S. leucoparia_, the holotype included. Also, at the type locality +of _S. leucoparia_, subadult male No. 188467 USNM and adult male No. +188468 USNM are narrower across the mastoidal region than is the +holotype. In summary and review, specimens from the eastern part of +the range heretofore ascribed to _S. leucoparia_ nearly all have much +inflated mastoidal bullae whereas less than half of the specimens of +_Spilogale_ from western New Mexico and Arizona have these bullae as +greatly inflated; but, in No. 147252 from the head of the Rio Mimbres +of New Mexico the inflation of the bullae is more extreme than in any +specimen that we know of that has been referred to _S. leucoparia_. + +If intergradation occurs between _Spilogale gracilis gracilis_ and +_Spilogale indianola_ and between one or both of these kinds on the +one hand and _Spilogale interrupta_ on the other hand, central Texas +would be a logical place to collect intergrades. We suppose that such +intergradation will be found to occur and that eventually _Spilogale +putorius_ will be the specific name to apply to all of the Recent +subspecies of spotted skunks. Until proof of such intergradation is +forthcoming we employ current nomenclature. + + +~Spilogale gracilis microdon~ A. H. Howell + +A. H. Howell (N. Amer. Fauna, 26:31, November 24, 1906) listed as +_Spilogale arizonae martirensis_ one specimen ([Female] sad.-yg., +145886 USBS) from Comondu, which is the type locality of _S. +microdon_. Our examination of [Female] No. 145886 convinces us that it +is referable to _S. microdon_. + +Examination of the materials used by Howell (_op. cit._) reveals that +there is an increase in size of animal and its skull from within the +geographic range of _S. g. martirensis_ southward to Cape St. Lucas +which is the type locality of _S. lucasana_. Specimens of _S. +microdon_, which so far has been recorded only from Comondu, the type +locality, are, as would be expected, intermediate in size between _S. +g. martirensis_ and _S. lucasana_. The differential characters of +these three named kinds of _Spilogale_ are principally those of size, +and we can see no characters judged to be of more than subspecific +worth. Consequently the named kinds should stand as: + + _Spilogale gracilis martirensis_ Elliott; + + _Spilogale gracilis microdon_ A. H. Howell; + + _Spilogale gracilis lucasana_ Merriam. + + +~Spilogale gracilis microrhina~ Hall + +When Hall (Jour. Mamm., 7:53, February 15, 1926) named as new +_Spilogale phenax microrhina_, he did not mention specimens previously +recorded by A. H. Howell (N. Amer. Fauna, 26:32, November 24, 1906) as +_Spilogale phenax_ from San Bernardino Peak (57026 USBS), La Puerta +(99580 USBS), Dulzura (55848, 56173, 56873, 33693/45728, 36291/48656 +and 36292/48657) in southern California. On geographic grounds these +specimens would be expected to be _S. g. microrhina_ although +geographically slightly outside the area that could be delimited by +Hall's (_op. cit._) marginal record-stations of occurrence. Our +examination of the pertinent specimens reveals that they are +_Spilogale gracilis microrhina_. The localities from which the +specimens came are, respectively, the northeasternmost, easternmost +and southernmost occurrences so far listed for the subspecies. + + +~Conepatus mesoleucus mearnsi~ Merriam + +Examination of the holotypes of _Conepatus filipensis_ Merriam, +_Conepatus pediculus_ Merriam, _Conepatus sonoriensis_ Merriam, and +_Conepatus mesoleucus mearnsi_ Merriam, and other specimens of the two +kinds last named, convinces us that all are the same species and that +the names should stand as follows: _Conepatus mesoleucus filipensis_ +Merriam (type locality, Cerro San Felipe, Oaxaca); _Conepatus +mesoleucus pediculus_ Merriam (Sierra Guadalupe, Coahuila); and +_Conepatus mesoleucus sonoriensis_ Merriam (Camoa, Rio Mayo, Sonora). + +One method of designating the ages of individuals in _Conepatus_ is +to recognize four categories from younger to older, as follows: 1) +juvenile--retaining one or more deciduous teeth; 2) young--sutures +open and clearly to be seen between bones of the facial part of the +skull; 3) subadult--skull of adult form, but lacking sagittal and +lambdoidal crests and retaining faint traces of sutures between facial +bones; and 4) adult--sutures obliterated, lambdoidal ridge high and +temporal ridges (of females) or sagittal crest (of males) prominent. + +On this basis of designating age, the holotype of _C. pediculus_ is +young and nearer the juvenal than the subadult stage. Its small size +is partly the result of its youth. Other than its small size we find +no characters to distinguish it from _C. m. mearnsi_. Unfortunately no +young male of _C. m. mearnsi_ of the same age as the holotype of _C. +pediculus_ is available. Also, from the general area of the Sierra +Guadalupe, Coahuila, only the one specimen of _Conepatus mesoleucus_ +(the holotype of _C. m. pediculus_) is known. Consequently, we can not +yet prove that some young males of _C. m. mearnsi_ are as small as the +holotype of _C. pediculus_. Because of this lack of proof we +tentatively recognize the subspecies _Conepatus mesoleucus pediculus_ +instead of placing the name _Conepatus pediculus_ in the synonomy of +_Conepatus mesoleucus mearnsi_. + +The holotype of _C. sonoriensis_ is a young female, older than the +holotype of _C. pediculus_, and approximately midway between the +juvenal and subadult stages. + +The holotype of _C. filipensis_ is an adult male. + +We suppose that _C. mesoleucus mesoleucus_ Lichtenstein and _C. +mesoleucus mearnsi_ Merriam on the one hand, and _Conepatus leuconotus +leuconotus_ Lichtenstein and _C. l. texensis_ Merriam on the other +hand will be found to intergrade, in which event the name _Conepatus +leuconotus_, having page priority over _Conepatus mesoleucus_, will +apply to the species. Proof of complete intergradation is not yet +available. The one difference between the two that prevents our +uniting them as subspecies of one species is the larger size of _C. l. +leuconotus_ and _C. l. texensis_. Measurements of the smallest adult +male and female available to us of _C. l. texensis_ and of the largest +adult male and female of _C. m. mearnsi_ are given below. + +Where the geographic ranges of the two species approach one another +the only taxonomically significant difference detected by us is in +size, _C. leuconotus_ being larger than _C. mesoleucus_. Other +characters that are useful in separating the two alleged species now +are known to vary geographically in a fashion that indicates only +subspecific status for the two kinds. For example, three specimens +from Laredo, Texas (previously recorded by V. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, +25:205, October 24, 1905--Nos. 24839/32237, 24840/32238 and +24842/32245 USBS), bridge the gap in color pattern between _C. l. +texensis_ to the east and _C. m. mearnsi_ to the west. _C. l. +texensis_ characteristically has the white stripe terminating +anteriorly in an obtuse angle, and on the hinder back the area of +white is restricted to a narrow line or is wanting. _C. m. mearnsi_ +characteristically has the white stripe truncate anteriorly and +approximately as broad on the hinder back as on the shoulders. In the +specimens from Laredo, the young female, No. 24842, has the white +nearly truncate anteriorly (pointed in the other two specimens, adult +females). In No. 24839 the area of white on the hinder back is only +slightly restricted in width (noticeably restricted but present in the +other two specimens). + +The proof of intergradation, or the lack of it, between the two +alleged species, _Conepatus mearnsi_ and _Conepatus leuconotus_, would +seem to be profitably sought by obtaining specimens along the Rio +Grande in Texas between the Blocker Ranch ("50 miles southeast of +Eagle Pass") and Laredo. + +Measurements illustrating the size difference between the two alleged +species are as follows: + + TABLE 1. Measurements of _Conepatus_ from Texas + + Column Heading Legend: + + Col. A: [Male] ad. 186455 USNM, Mason, Texas. Type + Col. B: [Male] ad. 31970/24575 USBS, Blocker Ranch, Texas + Col. C: [Female] ad. 126241 USBS, 8 mi. S Langtry, Texas + Col. D: [Male] ad. 47122 USBS, Brownsville, Texas. Type + Col. E: [Male] ad. 45132/33129 USBS, Brownsville, Texas + Col. F: [Male] yg. 45900/33865 USBS, Brownsville, Texas + Col. G: [Female] ad. 47121/34865 USBS, Brownsville, Texas + Col. H: [Female] ad. 24839/32237 USBS, Laredo, Texas + Col. I: [Female] ad. 24840/32328 USBS, Laredo, Texas + Col. J: [Male]? sad. 16651 AMNH, Kingsville, Texas + + ============================================+========================== + C. mesoleucus mearnsi | C. leuconotus texensis + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- + | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- + Total | 633 | ... | 610 | 800 | 920 | 770 | 670 | 685 | 700 | ... + length | | | | | | | | | | + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- + Length | ... | ... | 269 | 360 | 410 | 300 | 250 | 220 | 260 | ... + of tail | | | | | | | | | | + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- + Length | 72[1]| 75[1]| 71 | 74 | 70 | 90 | 65 | 78 | 80 | ... + of hind | | | | | | | | | | + foot | | | | | | | | | | + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- + Condylo- | 72.0 | 72.8 | 64.5| 83.5| 78.9| 78.2| 72.0| 75.7| 74.5| ... + basal | | | | | | | | | | + length | | | | | | | | | | + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- + Zygomatic | 51.3 | 50.1 | 43.4| 55.3| 76.8| ... | 48.3| 49.0| 48.0|50.3 + breadth | | | | | | | | | | + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- + Mastoidal | 41.0 | 44.2 | 37.0| 47.3| 78.2| 43.7| 40.5| 40.5| 40.7| ... + breadth | | | | | | | | | | + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- + Length | 28.9 | 29.8 | 31.8| 28.9| 28.0| 25.8| 32.7| 55.3| 30.4|29.9 + of upper | | | | | | | | | | + tooth-rows| | | | | | | | | | + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- + Outside | 7.3 | ... | 6.1| 8.5| 53.2| 7.5| 7.5| 6.6| 7.7| 7.6 + length | | | | | | | | | | + of P4 | | | | | | | | | | + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- + Outside | 7.8 | 7.0 | 6.7| 9.2| 52.7| 8.4| 8.3| 7.6| 9.3| 9.1 + length | | | | | | | | | | + of M1 | | | | | | | | | | + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- + Breadth | 7.6 | 7.0 | 6.5| 9.3| ... | 8.6| 8.2| 7.9| 9.4| 8.2 + of M1 | | | | | | | | | | + ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- + + [1] Measured dry. + + +~Conepatus mesoleucus venaticus~ Goldman + +When Goldman (Jour. Mamm., 3:40, February 10, 1921) named _C. m. +venaticus_ from Arizona he did not mention material which Merriam +(Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 15:163, August 6, 1902) had recorded +from Ft. Verde, Arizona, under the name _Conepatus mesoleucus +mearnsi_. This material seems to be specimens in the American Museum +of Natural History of which the two oldest specimens are as follows: +No. 2486/1921, male, adult, from Box Canon, 20 mi. S Ft. Verde; No. +2487/1922, female, subadult, from Verde River, Arizona. Pertinent +measurements of these specimens are, respectively, as follows: +condylobasal length, 72.4, 68.8; zygomatic breadth, 50.0, 44.2; width +of braincase at constriction behind zygomata, 36.4, 33.8; mastoidal +breadth, 44.3, 38.4. Comparison of these measurements with those given +for _C. m. venaticus_ (Goldman, _loc. cit._) reveals that the +specimens concerned agree in narrowness of skull with _C. m. +venaticus_ (_C. m. mearnsi_ is relatively wider) and it is on this +basis that we refer the specimens to _Conepatus mesoleucus venaticus_. + + +~Urocyon cinereoargenteus costaricensis~ Goodwin + +J. A. Allen (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 20:48, February 29, 1904) +listed two specimens of gray fox from Pozo Azul, Costa Rica, as +_Urocyon guatemalae_. Goodwin, in his "Mammals of Costa Rica" (Bull. +Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 87(5):271-474, December 31, 1946) did not +mention any material from Pozo Azul. We have examined the skull of the +adult female (No. 19208 AMNH) taken on July 17, 1902, at Pozo Zul +[sic], by M. A. Carriker and find it to be indistinguishable from +other specimens of _Urocyon cinereoargenteus costaricensis_ to which +subspecies we therefore refer the specimen. + + +~Canis lupus griseoalbus~ Baird + +In 1823 Sabine (No. V, Zoological Appendix, p. 654, _In_ Narrative of +a journey to the shores of the Polar Sea ... xvi + 768, 30 pls., 4 +maps, 1823, London, by John Franklin) applied the name _Canis +Lupus-Griseus_ to the gray wolf in the vicinity of Cumberland House, +Saskatchewan. On the following page (p. 655) he employed the name +_Canis Lupus-Albus_ for a white wolf obtained at Fort Enterprise, +Northwest Territories. In 1937 Goldman (Jour. Mamm., 18(1):45, +February 14) did not consider the wolves of the Cumberland House +region to be sufficiently different from animals from surrounding +areas to warrant nominal separation for them and he placed the name +_Canis lupus griseus_ Sabine as a synonym of _Canis lupus +occidentalis_ Simpson. Anderson (Jour. Mamm., 24(3):386, August 17, +1943) revived Sabine's name _griseus_ and assigned to _Canis lupus +griseus_ an extensive geographic range in central Canada. Later, +Goldman (Part II, Classification of wolves, p. 395 and 424, _In_ The +Wolves of North America, American Wildlife Institute, May 29, 1944) by +implication, again arranged _griseus_ of Sabine as a synonym of _Canis +lupus occidentalis_ and pointed out (_op. cit._:395) that, in any +event, the name _griseus_ is preoccupied by _[Canis] Griseus_ +Boddaert, 1784 [= _Urocyon cinereoargenteus_ (Schreber), 1775]. Still +later, Anderson (Bull. 102, Nat. Mus. Canada, p. 54, January 27, 1947) +again recognized the subspecies formerly known as _Canis lupus +griseus_ Sabine, and, because of Boddaert's prior usage of _[Canis] +griseus_, renamed the subspecies _Canis lupus knightii_. It appears, +however, that there is an earlier name available for this subspecies. +Goldman (_op. cit._, 1943:395) points out that "apparently combining +the names _Canis (Lupus) griseus_ and _Canis (Lupus) albus_ of Sabine +... as _Canis occidentalis_ var. _griseo-albus_, Baird [Mammals, +Repts. Explor. and Surv. for R. R. to Pacific Ocean, Washington, p. +104, vol. 8, (1857) July 14, 1858] seems to have entertained a +somewhat composite concept of a widely ranging race varying in color +from 'pure white to grizzled gray.' No type was mentioned and the name +does not appear to be valid or clearly assignable to the synonomy of +any particular race." We agree with Goldman that Baird's concept was a +composite one, but Baird's name, _Canis occidentalis_ var. +_griseo-albus_, was clearly based on the primary names of Sabine +(_griseus_ and _albus_), of De Kay (_occidentalis_), of Maxmillian +(_variabilis_, a synonym of _Canis lupus nubilis_) and of Townsend +(_gigas_, a synonym of _Canis lupus fuscus_). Nevertheless, the name +_griseo-albus_ was applied to, among others, the subspecies of wolf +the type locality of which is at Cumberland House, Saskatchewan, and, +by restriction, the name _Canis lupus griseoalbus_ Baird is available +for the subspecies and, of course, antedates _Canis lupus knightii_ of +Anderson (_op. cit._, 1947:54). It might be argued that Baird did not +intend to propose a new name, but that he did so is a _fait accompli_. +_Canis lupus albus_ Sabine, 1823, is not available since it is +preoccupied by _C[anis]. Lupus albus_ Kerr (Animal Kingdom, Class I, +Mammalia, p. 137, 1792), a name applied to the wolf of the Yenisei +region of Siberia. + +The name and synonomy of the wolf of central Canada should stand as +follows: + + +~Canis lupus griseoalbus~ Baird + + 1858. _Canis occidentalis_, var. _griseo-albus_ Baird, Mammals, + Repts. Explor. and Surv. for R. R. to Pacific Ocean, Washington, + vol. 8, p. 104 (1857), July 14, 1858, based on _Canis Lupus-Griseus_ + Sabine 1823 from the vicinity of Cumberland House, Saskatchewan. + + 1823. _Canis Lupus-Griseus_ Sabine, No. V, Zool. App. p. 654, _In_ + Narrative of a journey to the shores of the Polar Sea ... by John + Franklin (_nec [Canis] Griseus_ Boddaert, Elench. Anim. p. 97, + 1794, a synonym of _Urocyon cinereaorgenteus_ (Schreber), + Saeugethiere, p. 92, 1775). + + 1943. _Canis lupus griseus_, Anderson, Jour. Mamm., 24(3):386, + August 17. + + 1947. _Canis lupus knightii_ Anderson, Bull. 102, Nat. Mus. + Canada, p. 54, January 24. (A renaming of _Canis Lupus-Griseus_ + Sabine, 1823.) + +The name _Canis Lupus-Albus_ Sabine, 1823 (_nec C[anis]. Lupus albus_ +Kerr, Animal Kingdom, p. 137, 1792) should, of course, be retained as +a synonym of _Canis lupus mackenzii_ Anderson as arranged by Anderson +(Bull. 102, Nat. Mus. Canada, p. 55, January 24, 1947). + +When Anderson (_op. cit._:54) recognized the subspecies _Canis lupus +knightii_ [= _C. l. griseoalbus_] he made no mention of a specimen of +wolf from Norway House, Manitoba, which Goldman (_op. cit._, 1944:427) +had referred to _C. l. occidentalis_, but the subspecific identity of +which was placed in doubt by Anderson's action. We have examined the +specimen, No. 115995, in the Biological Surveys Collection, U.S. +National Museum, and have compared it with specimens, including +topotypes, of _C. l. occidentalis_ and _C. l. hudsonicus_. The +specimen fits the description of _C. l. griseoalbus_ and differs from +_C. l. occidentalis_ in its long and narrow incisive foramina, larger +skull, more nearly straight frontal profile (not markedly concave), +and slightly higher coronoid processes. Other differences alleged to +obtain between these two subspecies offer no assistance in the present +case. The specimen from Norway House differs from _C. l. hudsonicus_ +in larger size of skull and stouter, blunter, postorbital processes, +the posterior borders of which turn less abruptly inward. In brief, +among currently recognized subspecies, the specimen from Norway House +seems best referred to _Canis lupus griseoalbus_ Baird. + + +~Canis niger rufus~ Audubon and Bachman + +Goldman (Part II, Classification of wolves, p. 486, _In_ The wolves of +North America, American Wildlife Institute, May 29, 1944) referred two +specimens of the red wolf from Reeds Spring, Missouri, to the +subspecies _C. n. gregoryi_. Leopold and Hall (Jour. Mamm., 26(2):143, +July 19, 1945) referred wolves from 5 mi. N Gainesville and from 3 mi. +N Thomasville, both localities in Missouri, to _C. n. rufus_. The +identification of Leopold and Hall was made on the basis of the small +size of their specimens and they did not have the advantage of +comparative material. The locations of these and other records of +occurrence in Missouri and Arkansas suggest that the specimens from +Reeds Spring might be better referred to _C. n. rufus_, the more +western subspecies. An examination and comparison of the two specimens +from Reeds Spring, Nos. 244127 and 244527, Biological Surveys +Collection, discloses that they are intergrades between _C. n. rufus_ +and _C. n. gregoryi_. They resemble _C. n. rufus_ in small size and +cranial characters, but are more nearly _C. n. gregoryi_ in the +darker, less brightly rufescent color of the pelage. Being, in this +case, more strongly influenced by the size and cranial features than +by the color, we consider the animals from Reeds Spring best referred +to _Canis niger rufus_. + + +_Transmitted July 15, 1952._ + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Comments on the Taxonomy and +Geographic Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores, by E. Raymond Hall and Keith R. Kelson + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK COMMENTS ON THE TAXONOMY *** + +***** This file should be named 33710.txt or 33710.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/3/7/1/33710/ + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |