diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39164-8.txt | 4802 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39164-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 66901 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39164-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 334718 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39164-h/39164-h.htm | 4916 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39164-h/images/i_001.jpg | bin | 0 -> 187147 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39164-h/images/i_001t.jpg | bin | 0 -> 74609 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39164.txt | 4802 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 39164.zip | bin | 0 -> 66864 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
11 files changed, 14536 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/39164-8.txt b/39164-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..eca1b69 --- /dev/null +++ b/39164-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,4802 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of +Utah, Vol. 1 No. 1, by Stephen D. Durrant + +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/license + + +Title: The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of Utah, Vol. 1 No. 1 + Kansas University Publications. + +Author: Stephen D. Durrant + +Editor: E. Raymond Hall + Donald S. Farner + Donald F. Hoffmeister + +Release Date: March 17, 2012 [EBook #39164] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE POCKET GOPHERS (GENUS *** + + + + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Diane Monico, and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net. Some images courtesy of The Internet +Archive. + + + + + + + + + + + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS +MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + +VOLUME 1 +1946-1950 + +EDITORS + +E. RAYMOND HALL +DONALD S. FARNER +DONALD F. HOFFMEISTER +H. H. LANE +A. BYRON LEONARD +EDWARD H. TAYLOR +ROBERT W. WILSON + +MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +LAWRENCE, KANSAS +1950 + + + + +MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +LAWRENCE, KANSAS + +PRINTED BY +FERD VOILAND, JR., STATE PRINTER +TOPEKA, KANSAS +1950 + +23-2413 + + + + +CONTENTS + + + 1. The pocket gophers (genus Thomomys) of Utah. By Stephen + D. Durrant. Pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text. August 15, 1946. + + 2. The systematic status of Eumeces pluvialis Cope, and + noteworthy records of other amphibians and reptiles from + Kansas and Oklahoma. By Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 85-89. August + 15, 1946. + + 3. The tadpoles of Bufo cognatus Say. By Hobart M. Smith. + Pp. 93-96, 1 figure in text. August 15, 1946. + + 4. Hybridization between two species of garter snakes. By + Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 97-100. August 15, 1946. + + 5. Selected records of reptiles and amphibians from Kansas. + By John Breukelman and Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 101-112. August + 15, 1946. + + 6. Kyphosis and other variations in soft-shelled turtles. By + Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 117-124, 3 figures. July 7, 1947. + + 7. Natural history of the prairie vole (Mammalian genus + Microtus). By E. W. Jameson, Jr. Pp. 125-151, 4 figures in + text. October 6, 1947. + + 8. The postnatal development of two broods of great horned + owls (Bubo virginianus). By Donald F. Hoffmeister and Henry + W. Setzer. Pp. 157-173, 5 figures in text. October 6, 1947. + + 9. Additions to the list of the birds of Louisiana. By + George H. Lowery, Jr. Pp. 177-192. November 7, 1947. + + 10. A check-list of the birds of Idaho. By M. Dale Arvey. + Pp. 193-216. November 29, 1947. + + 11. Subspeciation in pocket gophers of Kansas. By Bernardo + Villa R. and E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 217-236, 2 figures in + text. November 29, 1947. + + 12. A new bat (Genus Myotis) from Mexico. By Walter W. + Dalquest and E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 237-244, 6 figures in + text. December 10, 1947. + + 13. Tadarida femorosacca (Merriam) in Tamaulipas, Mexico. By + Walter W. Dalquest and E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 245-248, 1 + figure in text. December 10, 1947. + + 14. A new pocket gopher (Thomomys) and a new spiny pocket + mouse (Liomys) from Michoacán, México. By E. Raymond Hall + and Bernardo Villa-R. Pp. 249-256, 6 figures in text. July + 26, 1948. + + 15. A new hylid frog from eastern Mexico. By Edward H. + Taylor. Pp. 257-264, 1 figure in text. August 16, 1948. + + 16. A new extinct emydid turtle from the Lower Pliocene of + Oklahoma. By Edwin C. Galbreath. Pp. 265-280, 1 plate. + August 16, 1948. + + 17. Pliocene and Pleistocene records of fossil turtles from + western Kansas and Oklahoma. By Edwin C. Galbreath. Pp. + 281-284, 1 figure in text. August 16, 1948. + + 18. A new species of heteromyid rodent from the Middle + Oligocene of northeast Colorado with remarks on the skull. + By Edwin C. Galbreath. Pp. 285-300, 2 plates. August 16, + 1948. + + 19. Speciation in the Brazilian spiny rats (Genus + Proechimys, Family Echimyidae). By João Moojen. Pp. 301-406, + 140 figures in text. December 10, 1948. + + 20. Three new beavers from Utah. By Stephen D. Durrant and + Harold S. Crane. Pp. 407-417, 7 figures in text. December + 24, 1948. + + 21. Two new meadow mice from Michoacán, México. By E. + Raymond Hall. Pp. 423-427, 6 figures in text. December 24, + 1948. + + 22. An annotated check list of the mammals of Michoacán, + México. By E. Raymond Hall and Bernardo Villa-R. Pp. + 431-472, 2 plates, 1 figure in text. December 27, 1949. + + 23. Subspeciation in the kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ordii. By + Henry W. Setzer. Pp. 423-573, 27 figures in text, 7 tables. + December 27, 1949. + + 24. Geographic range of hooded skunk, Mephitis macroura, + with description of a new subspecies from Mexico. By E. + Raymond Hall and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. 575-580, 1 figure + in text. January 20, 1950. + + 25. Pipistrellus cinnamomeus Miller 1902 referred to the + genus Myotis. By E. Raymond Hall and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. + 581-590, 5 figures in text. January 20, 1950. + + 26. A synopsis of the American bats of the genus + Pipistrellus. By E. Raymond Hall and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. + 591-602, 1 figure in text. January 20, 1950. + + Index pp. 605-638. + + + + +The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) +of Utah + +BY + +STEPHEN D. DURRANT + + +University of Kansas Publications +Museum of Natural History + +Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text +August 15, 1946 + + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +LAWRENCE +1946 + + + + +The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) +of Utah + +BY + +STEPHEN D. DURRANT + + +University of Kansas Publications +Museum of Natural History + +Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text +August 15, 1946 + + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +LAWRENCE +1946 + + + + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS, MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + +Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, Donald S. Farner, +Donald F. Hoffmeister + +Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text. + +Published AUGUST 15, 1946 + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +Lawrence, Kansas + +PRINTED BY +FERD VOILAND, JR., STATE PRINTER +TOPEKA, KANSAS +1946 + +21-2786 + + + + +The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of Utah + +By + +STEPHEN D. DURRANT + +Contribution from the Department of Biology, University of Utah, +and the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. + + + + +INTRODUCTION + + +The history of pocket gophers of Utah begins with J. A. Allen's mention +in 1874 of mounds of these animals. For them he employed the name +"_Thomomys rufescens?_" (1874:65). Actual specimens were reported upon +a year later by Elliot Coues (1875:251, 256), who used the name +_Thomomys talpoides_ for specimens from "Utah" but later in the same +paper listed specimens from Provo as _Thomomys talpoides bulbivorus_. +Even as the great variation in Utah pocket gophers has been perplexing +to modern workers, so it was also to Coues seventy years ago who left +the problem with the statement that animals from Provo "exhibit among +themselves such variations that their labelling becomes a matter of +indifference"! In the same year in another report, Coues and Yarrow +(1875:112) used the name _Thomomys talpoides umbrinus_ for animals from +Provo. In 1877, Coues again referred these same animals to _Thomomys +talpoides bulbivorus_, using the name _umbrinus_ for the animals of +only southern Utah (Coues, 1877:627, 628). The two names _Thomomys +bottae_ and _Thomomys talpoides_, now applicable to gophers in Utah, +were synonomized under the name _Thomomys talpoides bulbivorus_ by +Coues (1875:256; 1877:627). After this beginning only three other +papers, all by J. A. Allen, appeared in the next twenty years. They +were reports on collections of mammals made by Walter W. Granger and +Charles P. Rowley. One of these contained the description of _Thomomys +aureus_. Likewise, in the ensuing twenty years there were only three +papers, one in 1901 by C. Hart Merriam in which he described _Thomomys +uinta_, one by Allen (1905:119), and Vernon Bailey's (1915) "Revision +of the pocket gophers of the genus _Thomomys_" in which he summarized +the information then available on these animals within the state. +Barnes (1922 and 1927) reprinted the information summarized by Bailey. +Since 1927 approximately twenty-five papers, mostly taxonomic, have +been published in which reference is made to Utah gophers, and +especially since 1930 much information has been accumulated about the +distribution and speciation of this genus within the state. + +Specimens to the number of 1,045 have been available for this study. +Whereas Bailey (_loc. cit._) listed only four kinds belonging to four +different species, thirty-five kinds are now known from Utah. Seven of +these are herein described as new. The thirty-five kinds are found to +belong to only two instead of four full species. + +Inasmuch as the literature is scattered and since names have been +applied in different ways at different times, I have attempted to give +a synonomy as complete as possible for each form found within the +state. + +The bibliographies of Hayward (1936 and 1941) and Miller's (1924) "List +of North American mammals" have been of great use. + +Capitalized color terms in the accounts are after Ridgway, Color +Standards and Color Nomenclature, Washington, D. C., 1912. + +In the lists of specimens examined, the localities are listed by +counties from west to east, beginning at the northwestern corner of the +state, and within each county from north to south. When two localities +are on the same latitude, the westernmost is listed first. + + I am deeply indebted to Professor R. V. Chamberlin, of the + University of Utah, for encouragement and support in my + investigation. I also acknowledge critical assistance in the + preparation of this paper from Professor E. Raymond Hall of + the University of Kansas. For the loan of specimens I am + grateful to the following: Clinton G. Abbott and Lawrence M. + Huey, Natural History Museum of San Diego, San Diego, + California; Harold E. Anthony and J. Eric Hill, American + Museum of Natural History, New York City, New York; Seth B. + Benson, Museum of Vertebrate Zoölogy, University of + California, Berkeley, California; William H. Burt, Museum of + Zoölogy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; J. + Kenneth Doutt, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; + Ross Hardy, Dixie Junior College, St. George, Utah; C. Lynn + Hayward and Vasco M. Tanner, Brigham Young University, + Provo, Utah; H. H. T. Jackson and Viola S. Schantz, United + States Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. National Museum, + Washington, D. C.; Remington Kellogg and Alexander Wetmore, + U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C.; J. S. Stanford, + Utah State Agricultural College, Logan, Utah. + + Unless otherwise indicated, specimens are in the Museum of + Zoölogy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. In lists + of specimens examined, abbreviations are employed as + follows: + +(A. M. N. H.) American Museum of Natural History. +(N. H. M. S. D.) Natural History Museum of San Diego. +(M. V. Z.) Museum of Vertebrate Zoölogy, University of California. +(U. M.) Museum of Zoölogy, University of Michigan. +(C. M.) Carnegie Museum. +(R. H.) Collection of Ross Hardy. +(B. Y. U.) Brigham Young University. +(U. S. N. M.) United States National Museum. +(U. S. A. C.) Utah State Agricultural College. +(K. U.) Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. + +[Illustration: FIG. 1. Map showing the distribution of species and +subspecies of pocket gophers in Utah.] + +Guide to subspecies: + + 1. _T. t. gracilis_ + 2. _T. t. wasatchensis_ + 3. _T. t. oquirrhensis_ + 4. _T. t. uinta_ + 5. _T. t. pygmaeus_ + 6. _T. t. ravus_ + 7. _T. t. ocius_ + 8. _T. t. moorei_ + 9. _T. t. fossor_ + 10. _T. t. parowanensis_ + 11. _T. t. levis_ + 12. _T. b. aureiventris_ + 13. _T. b. robustus_ + 14. _T. b. minimus_ + 15. _T. b. nesophilus_ + 16. _T. b. stansburyi_ + 17. _T. b. albicaudatus_ + 18. _T. b. bonnevillei_ + 19. _T. b. centralis_ + 20. _T. b. sevieri_ + 21. _T. b. convexus_ + 22. _T. b. tivius_ + 23. _T. b. contractus_ + 24. _T. b. lenis_ + 25. _T. b. levidensis_ + 26. _T. b. osgoodi_ + 27. _T. b. howelli_ + 28. _T. b. wahwahensis_ + 29. _T. b. dissimilis_ + 30. _T. b. aureus_ + 31. _T. b. birdseyei_ + 32. _T. b. virgineus_ + 33. _T. b. planirostris_ + 34. _T. b. absonus_ + 35. _T. b. alexandrae_ + + + + +GENUS =Thomomys= Wied + + +All pocket gophers of Utah belong to the genus _Thomomys_. There are +only two species within the state, _Thomomys bottae_ with twenty-four +subspecies and _Thomomys talpoides_ with eleven subspecies. + +Due to marked mutational capacities and ready response to environmental +pressures and sedentary habits, pocket gophers differentiate readily +into numerous subspecies. It is well known that Utah by its highly +varied topography and climate possesses widely different types of +habitats. The aforementioned plasticity of these animals and possibly +the fact that both species are at the extreme limits of their ranges in +Utah account for the numerous forms found within the state. + +The genus may be characterized as follows: Highly specialized fossorial +rodents, with heavy, thick bodies; all four legs of approximately equal +length, but front legs more muscular for digging, and feet provided +with long claws; external fur-lined cheek pouches; small eyes, short +ears and tail; upper incisors long and projecting external to lips. +Skull: Stout and flattened; zygomatic arches well developed and usually +widely spreading; all teeth with permanent pulp cavities; incisors +superficially smooth, but fine median groove present on anterior face +of each upper incisor; dental formula, i. 1/1, c. 0/0, p. 1/1, m. 3/3; +external auditory canal long; stapedial artery small and enclosed +within an osseous canal. + + +=Thomomys talpoides= (Richardson) + +_Thomomys talpoides_ is a northern species that in Utah approaches the +southern limits of its range. The animals of this species inhabit the +mountains and high valleys. In the southward extension of their range, +as in Utah, they are found at higher elevations which zonally represent +lower elevations at more northern latitudes. The specific characters +are: Sphenorbital fissure absent; incisive foramina anterior to +infraorbital canal; anterior prism of P4 triangular; interparietal +relatively large; lambdoidal suture concave posteriorly in region of +interparietal, in Utah specimens. + + +=Thomomys talpoides gracilis= Durrant + + _Thomomys quadratus gracilis_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 39 + (No. 6):3, February 28, 1939. + + _Thomomys talpoides gracilis_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 30 + (No. 5):6, August 24, 1939; Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 25:414, + December 12, 1944. + + _Thomomys quadratus fisheri_ Hall, Univ. California Publ. + Zoöl., 37:4, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys uinta_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:114, November + 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, April, + 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):104, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male adult, skin and skull; No. 44866, Museum of Vertebrate +Zoölogy, University of California; Pine Canyon, 6,600 ft., 17 mi. NW +Kelton, Box Elder County, Utah; July 12, 1930; collected by Annie M. +Alexander; original number 676. + +_Range._--Mountainous regions of extreme northwestern Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Buckthorn Brown grading over the sides and flanks to Light Buff on the +underparts; chin white; nose and postauricular patches grayish black. +Claws on front feet long and slender. Skull: Long and slender; rostrum +long and narrow; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths slight; palatal pits +deep; upper incisors narrow; basioccipital wide. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides +fisheri_, _gracilis_ is of approximately the same size. Upper parts +darker and underparts lighter; postauricular patches larger and darker; +claws on front feet longer and slenderer. Skull: Generally longer and +narrower; nasals and rostrum longer; basioccipital wider. + +As compared with _T. t. uinta_, _gracilis_ is of approximately the same +size but differs as follows: Color: Lighter throughout; postauricular +patches markedly smaller and lighter; inguinal and pectoral regions +much lighter. One characteristic difference is in the ear. In _uinta_ +the external opening of the ear is much larger; the pinna of the ear is +larger, more rounded at the tip, and lacks most of the pigmentation on +the inner margin. Skull: Generally narrower and longer; nasals longer; +zygomatic arches weaker and less angular; upper incisors narrower. + +This form is easily distinguished from _bridgeri_ by smaller size, and +by the skull being longer, narrower and less angular. + +From _Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis_ to the southeast, _T. t. +gracilis_ can be distinguished by: Total length and ear shorter. Color: +Generally lighter, except the underparts which are about the same; +postauricular patches larger and more deeply pigmented. Skull: +Braincase less inflated; nasals truncated posteriorly as opposed to +rounded; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths less; rostrum shorter but +narrower; upper incisors narrower and shorter. + +For comparisons with _wasatchensis_ see comparisons under that form. + +In general, this mountain form can be distinguished from all other +_talpoides_ in Utah by lighter color, narrow, slender, "graceful" skull +whence the name _gracilis_ is derived. + +_Remarks._--In Utah, _gracilis_ is limited to the extreme northwestern +corner of the state. This part of the state is in the Snake River +drainage. The main part of the range of this race lies in south-central +and southwestern Idaho and northeastern Nevada. The center of its range +might be considered to be in the Jarbidge Mountains area of Nevada. The +south slopes of these mountains are in the Humboldt River drainage, +while the north slopes are in the Snake River drainage, and this +subspecies occurs as far north as the Snake River and south and west +almost to central Nevada. No specimens are available from the area in +Utah between the Raft River Mountains inhabited by _gracilis_ and the +Wasatch Mountains in central Utah inhabited by _wasatchensis_. Judging +from the nature of the terrain, the range of _gracilis_ does not extend +eastward much beyond the Raft River Mountains. The type locality for a +gopher of a different species, _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, is in +the first valley east of these mountains. Furthermore, all valleys to +the east and south, as far as known, are inhabited by gophers of the +_bottae_ group. Also, all mountain ranges in this area, as far east as +the Wasatch Mountains are inhabited by members of the _bottae_ group. + +No specimens from Utah indicate intergradation between _gracilis_ and +_wasatchensis_, the form to the east, but specimens from farther north +at Albion, Cassia County, Idaho, do show intergradation. Bailey +(1915:116), Hall (1931:4), and Durrant (1939:6) have reported on these +specimens which at the present time seem best referred to _T. t. +gracilis_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 24, distributed as follows: + _Box Elder County_: Yost, 4 (U. S. A. C.); Pine Canyon, + 6,600 ft., 17 mi. NW Kelton, 7 (M. V. Z.): Lynn Canyon, Raft + River, 4; Park Valley, 3 (U. S. A. C.); Etna, 4 (U. S. A. + C.); Raft River Mountains, Clear Creek Camp of Minnedoka + National Forest, 1 (R. H.); Raft River Mountains, 1,500 feet + above Clear Creek Camp of Minnedoka National Forest, 1 (R. H.). + + +=Thomomys talpoides wasatchensis= new subspecies + + _Thomomys quadratus uinta_ Hall, Univ. California Publ. + Zoöl., 37:4, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys talpoides uinta_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234. + May 14, 1939. + + _Thomomys uinta_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:114, November + 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, April, + 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):104, June, 1927; + Stanford, Journ. Mamm., 12:360, November 11, 1931. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1604, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Midway, 5,500 ft., Wasatch County, Utah; September +1, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1049. + +_Range._--Wasatch Mountains and neighboring high valleys as far south +as Spanish Fork Canyon, Utah County. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Snuff +Brown, finely mixed with black; sides and flanks Sayal Brown; +underparts overlaid with Cinnamon Buff, with suffusion of black on +underfur; postauricular patches black, extending around ear; ears +pointed and covered with black hairs; nose, cheeks, chin and top of +head dusky; front feet, hind feet and distal part of tail white; tail +covered proximally with light brown hairs. Skull: Moderately heavy and +ridged; nasals long, wide posteriorly and not markedly dilated +distally; posterior ends of nasals emarginate; zygomatic arches fairly +widely spreading and angular, being nearly straight in adults, but +tending to bow out slightly at posterior ends in young; zygomatic +processes of maxillae heavy; interparietal small and variously shaped, +but always wider than long; interorbital region fairly wide; well +marked dorsal depression in frontals posterior to ends of nasals; +interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; tympanic bullae large; +occipital condyles large and widely separated; foramen magnum large and +higher than wide; basioccipital wide; dentition light. + +_Comparisons._--From topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides moorei_, +_wasatchensis_ differs as follows: Size slightly larger; ears longer +and more pointed. Color: Generally darker throughout; postauricular +patches smaller. Skull: Zygomatic arches not as widely spreading; +zygomatic processes of squamosals dip farther ventrally; premaxillae +less extended posterior to nasals; nasals wider posteriorly and less +dilated distally; median dorsal depression of frontals present; +tympanic bullae generally larger, but less inflated ventrally; foramen +magnum larger especially in dorsoventral dimension; occipital condyles +farther apart; basioccipital wider; alveolar length of upper molar +series less; molariform teeth smaller; upper incisors wider and +shorter. + +Topotypes of _wasatchensis_ differ from topotypes and near topotypes of +_Thomomys talpoides uinta_ as follows: Size larger in every measurement +taken. Color: Darker throughout; ears longer and more pigmented; +opening of external ear smaller; postauricular patches larger. Skull: +In females larger throughout, more massive and angular; nasals longer, +wider and not so dilated distally; rostrum longer but wider; zygomatic +arches wider, more angular and less widely spreading posteriorly; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals less; tympanic bullae +larger, but less inflated ventrally; foramen magnum larger and more +ovoid; width across occipital condyles greater; basioccipital wider; +molariform teeth smaller; upper incisors shorter and wider. + +Topotypes of _wasatchensis_ can be distinguished from those of +_Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis_ as follows: Size larger; tail longer; +ears longer. Color: Slightly darker on sides and underparts. Skull: +Heavier, more ridged and angular; nasals more dilated distally; +posterior ends of nasals more deeply emarginate; zygomatic arches +heavier and more widely spreading, but more nearly parallel and less +divergent posteriorly; zygomatic processes of maxillae much heavier; +braincase and tympanic bullae larger; pterygoid hamulae shorter; +interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; wider across occipital +condyles; foramen magnum larger and more ovoid. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides gracilis_, _wasatchensis_ differs +as follows: Size larger; hind foot longer; ears longer and more +pointed. Color: Darker throughout; postauricular patches relatively +smaller. Skull: Larger, heavier and more angular; nasals emarginate +posteriorly as opposed to truncate; rostrum heavier; zygomatic arches +heavier and more widely spreading; zygomatic processes of maxillae much +heavier and more angular; mastoid breadth greater; interparietal +relatively smaller; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +actually as well as relatively less; palatal pits deeper; tympanic +bullae larger; interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; foramen +magnum more ovoid; upper incisors wider. + +Topotypes of _wasatchensis_ can be readily distinguished from those of +_Thomomys talpoides levis_ and _parowanensis_ by larger size; more +massive, ridged, angular skulls; larger tympanic bullae; large, ovoid +foramen magnum; and relatively smaller interparietal. + +_Remarks._--Specimens from Mount Timpanogos and environs are +intergrades between _moorei_ and _wasatchensis_. They resemble _moorei_ +in the shape and size of the tympanic bullae, and are intermediate in +the size and shape of the foramen magnum. In the majority of characters +they resemble _wasatchensis_ to which they are here referred. The +animals from east of Salt Lake City in Salt Lake County are intergrades +between _oquirrhensis_ and _wasatchensis_ and show some characters of +_uinta_, but are referable to _wasatchensis_. Animals from Morgan +County and western Summit County are intergrades between _wasatchensis_ +and _uinta_. They resemble _uinta_ in size, shape of nasals and size of +tympanic bullae. The remainder of the cranial details place them with +_wasatchensis_. Morphologically the animals from Wellsville, Cache +County, were the closest to the topotypes of any obtained and are +nearly indistinguishable from them. Like the topotypes of +_wasatchensis_ this population inhabits a high valley. The remaining +specimens from Cache County resemble those from Morgan and Summit +counties. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 119, distributed as follows: + _Cache County_: Logan Canyon, Beaver Basin, Utah-Idaho Line, + 2 (U. S. A. C); Logan Canyon, Tony Grove Camp, 6 (U. S. A. + C); Logan Canyon, Green Camp, 3 (U. S. A. C); Logan Canyon, + 3 (U. S. A. C); Logan Mountains, 20 mi. E Logan, 3 (U. S. A. + C); Logan Peak area, 13 (U. S. A. C); near Providence Peak, + Logan Mountains, 1 (U. S. A. C.); Wellsville, 10 (U. S. A. + C); Hardware Ranch, Blacksmith Fork, 1 (U. S. A. C); Avon, 1 + (U. S. A. C); 1 mi. E Avon, 1 (U. S. A. C); 7-8 mi. E Avon, + 1 (U. S. A. C). _Weber County_: South Fork, Ogden River, 18 + mi. E Ogden, 4 (M. V. Z.). _Morgan County_: East Canyon, 18 + mi. NW Park City, 6,000 ft., 1. _Davis County_: 8 mi. NE + Salt Lake City, 1. _Salt Lake County_: Mouth of Dry Canyon, + 1 mi. NE Salt Lake City, 1; 4 mi. above mouth City Creek + Canyon, 5,000 ft., 1; mouth of Emigration Canyon, 1; mouth + of Millcreek Canyon, 1; Lambs Canyon, 13 mi. SE Salt Lake + City, 2 (C. M.); mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon, 1. _Summit + County_: Park City, 1 (U. S. N. M.). _Wasatch County_: + Midway, 5,500 ft., 29. _Utah County_: Mt. Timpanogos, 1 mi. + N Aspen Grove, 7,500 ft., 20; Aspen Grove, Mt. Timpanogos, 5 + (1, U. S. A. C.; 4, B. Y. U.); Head of Grove Creek, Mt. + Timpanogos, 4 (B. Y. U.). + + _Additional Records_: _Weber County_: Ogden, 6. _Salt Lake + County_: Parleys Canyon, 1 (Bailey, 1915:114). + + +=Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis= Durrant + + _Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, + 30 (No. 5):3, October 24, 1939. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull; No. 2605, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Settlement Creek, Oquirrh Mountains, 6,500 ft., +Tooele County, Utah; June 11, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; +original number 1461. + +_Range._--Known only from the Oquirrh Mountains, which are in Salt +Lake, Tooele and Utah counties, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); ear long; tail short, +claws of front feet long and slender. Color: Upper parts Buckthorn +Brown, mixed with black, grading over the sides and flanks to Pinkish +Buff on the ventral surface; feet white; nose grayish black; +postauricular patches medium in size and black; chin and throat with +varying amounts of white; proximal two-thirds of tail dark brown, +distal third white. Skull: Long and slender, but relatively wide across +mastoidal region; nasals long and rounded posteriorly; rostrum long and +narrow; zygomatic arches weak and not widely spreading, tending to be +slightly bowed out posteriorly, but in the main roughly parallel to the +sides of the skull; outer margin of zygomatic arch slightly concave, +and zygomatic arch dips deeply ventrad; dorsal surface of skull smooth, +with weakly defined parietal crests; parietal crest nearly parallel, +but bowed medially, in parietal region, and flaring widely posteriorly +to pass lateral to interparietal; tympanic bullae large, truncate +anteriorly and markedly inflated ventrally; upper incisors short and +fairly robust. + +_Comparisons._--From _Thomomys talpoides uinta_, _oquirrhensis_ may be +differentiated as follows: Color: Darker throughout; postauricular +patches larger and darker; ears longer and more pointed; inner margin +of pinna heavily pigmented; external opening of ear smaller. Skull: +Nasals rounded posteriorly rather than deeply emarginate, and less +flaring distally; zygomatic arches weaker and markedly less widely +spreading; pterygoid hamulae weaker; basisphenoid narrower; upper +incisors shorter and wider. + +For comparisons between _oquirrhensis_ and _Thomomys talpoides +gracilis_, and _oquirrhensis_ and _wasatchensis_, see comparisons under +those forms. + +Topotypical specimens of _oquirrhensis_ can be distinguished from those +of _Thomomys talpoides moorei_ as follows: Color generally darker, due +to greater admixture of black; terminal bands of hair actually lighter; +postauricular patches larger and darker; ears longer, more pointed and +with more heavily pigmented pinnae; tail shorter. Skull: About the same +size; smoother; zygomatic arches weaker and less widely spreading; +nasals rounded posteriorly as opposed to emarginate; mastoid breadth +less; pterygoid hamulae weaker; upper incisors wider. + +_Remarks._--This race is limited to the Oquirrh Mountains, a high +mountain range that lies parallel to, and just west of the Wasatch +Mountains, in Utah, Salt Lake and Tooele counties. These mountains were +connected in past times to the Wasatch Mountains by the Transverse +Range, and by a sand and gravel bar deposited by Pleistocene Lake +Bonneville. The Jordan River in its course from Utah Lake to the Great +Salt Lake has cut a channel through the aforementioned bar. This +channel has been cut to the level of the surrounding valleys as is +indicated by the meandering nature of the stream through this part of +its course. As a result the Oquirrh Mountains are relatively isolated. +Although separated from the Wasatch Mountains by the Jordan River +Valley only a few miles wide, the pocket gophers are distinct on each +mountain. A population of _T. bottae_ is interposed between the two +mountain ranges as is indicated by specimens from Riverton, six miles +north of the Transverse Range. The populations of _bottae_ are +subspecifically the same on the two sides of the Jordan River. + +On the east side of the Oquirrh Mountains, pocket gophers collected +from the Jordan Valley up Rose Canyon to about 5,000 feet elevation +were all of the species _T. bottae_. Between 5,000 and 6,000 feet there +is an area in which the ranges of _bottae_ and _talpoides_ overlap. +When trapping, it is possible to predict what species will be taken by +the types of burrows and soil. Gophers of the _bottae_ group have their +burrows in the areas of the deepest soil and heaviest vegetation, +whereas the areas of shallow, rocky soil covered with sparse vegetation +are the habitat of _talpoides_. Above 6,000 feet the only gopher +encountered is _talpoides_. Along Settlement Creek on the west side of +the Oquirrh Mountains, which is the type locality of _oquirrhensis_, +_bottae_ and _talpoides_ have essentially the same vertical +distribution as in Rose Canyon. On this mountain the two species appear +to be in competition. + +The available information, based on collections, indicates that the +Oquirrh Mountains are the only mountains west of the Wasatch Range upon +which _talpoides_ occurs. In Utah, all other mountains to the west, as +far as known, are inhabited by subspecies of of _Thomomys bottae_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 41, as follows: _Tooele + County_: Settlement Creek, Oquirrh Mountains, 6,500 ft., 14. + _Salt Lake County_: Rose Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, 5,650 + ft., 27. + + +=Thomomys talpoides uinta= Merriam + + _Thomomys uinta_ Merriam, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, + 14:112, July 19, 1901; Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:113, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):104, June, 1927; + Stanford, Journ. Mamm., 12:360; November 11, 1931; Goldman, + Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., 28:333, July 15, 1938; Davis, + The Recent mammals of Idaho, pp. 239, 259, The Caxton + Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho, April 5, 1939. + + _Thomomys talpoides uinta_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, + May 14, 1939. + + _Thomomys quadratus uinta Hall_, Univ. California Publ. + Zoöl., 37:4, April 10, 1931. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 22501/30051, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); north base Gilbert Peak, Uinta +Mountains, 10,000 ft., Summit County, Utah; June 6, 1890; collected by +Vernon Bailey; original number 1262 (after Merriam, type not seen). + +_Range._--Uinta Mountains in Duchesne County, eastern Wasatch and +Summit counties, and western Uintah County south to the Roan, Brown and +Book cliffs in Carbon County. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Snuff +Brown finely mixed with black, paling over sides and flanks to near +Pinkish Buff on underparts; postauricular patches relatively small and +dusky; external opening of ear large; pinnae usually lightly pigmented; +hind feet white; front feet usually white only at base of toes; distal +third to half of tail white; tail usually light below, with proximal +dorsal half covered with darker hairs; nose, chin, cheeks and top of +head dusky; usually considerable white on throat. Skull: Small, +slender, and not heavily ridged; nasals short and dilated distally; +posterior margins of nasals emarginate; zygomatic arches moderately +widely spreading, widest posteriorly; interparietal pentagonal or +subquadrangular; interpterygoid space V-shaped; tympanic bullae well +inflated ventrally; upper incisors long and narrow. + +_Comparisons._--For comparisons with other subspecies of _Thomomys +talpoides_, see accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--The range formerly ascribed to _uinta_ (Bailey, 1915:114; +Barnes, 1922:83, 1927:104) is now known to be inhabited by animals +belonging to three distinct subspecies. The range of _uinta_ as now +understood is restricted to the southern and western parts of the +Uinta Mountains and their environs. Three specimens from the Book +Cliffs, Sunnyside, Carbon County, are not typical, but in a majority of +their characters agree with _uinta_ to which they are here referred. + +I have seen only one specimen from the type locality. It is one of the +series on which Merriam (1901:112) based his original description. In +addition, I have studied several large series of near topotypes. From +the material at hand, and from Merriam's description (_loc. cit._), I +regard the animals on which the name _uinta_ was based as intergrades +between _Thomomys talpoides ravus_, the race to the northeast, on the +one hand and the animals of the western and southern parts of the Uinta +Mountains on the other hand. The affinities of the type series are with +the animals from the latter area which are here all referred to +_uinta_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 41, distributed as follows: + _Summit County_: 2 mi. S junction Bear River and Haydens + Fork, 2 (C. M.); N base, Gilbert Peak, 10,000 ft., 1 (U. S. + N. M.); Smith and Moorehouse Creek, 2; Bald Peak, 25 mi. NE + Kamas, 15 (8, M. V. Z.; 6, C. M.). _Duchesne County_: Petty + Mountain, 15 mi. N Mountain Home, 9,500 ft., 6 (C. M.). + _Wasatch County_: Wolf Creek Pass, 18 mi. NW Hanna, 1 (U. S. + A. C.); Lost Lake, Uinta Mountains, 10 (B. Y. U.); Current + Creek, Uinta Mountains, 1 (U. S. N. M.). _Carbon County_: + Forks, Sunnyside, 9,000 ft., 3. + + _Additional records._--_Summit County_: Uinta Mountains, 6 + (see Bailey, 1915:114). + + +=Thomomys talpoides pygmaeus= Merriam + + _Thomomys pygmaeus_ Merriam, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, + 14:115. July 19, 1901. + + _Thomomys talpoides pygmaeus_ Davis, The Recent mammals of + Idaho, p. 252, The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho, + April 5, 1939. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 55251, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); 10 mi. NE Montpelier, in open +sagebrush of Transition Zone, 6,600 ft., Bear County, Idaho; July 29, +1893; collected by Vernon Bailey: original number 4150 (after Merriam, +type not seen: see, also, Bailey, 1915:109). + +_Range._--Limited to Daggett County. + +_Diagnosis._--Size: Small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts near +Bister slightly mixed with black, grading over sides and flanks to +Ochraceous Buff on underparts; postauricular patches small and dusky; +hind feet white; front feet dusky, being white only at base of claws; +chin and nose dusky; tail brown, lighter below and tipped with white. +Skull: Very small, slender and smooth; nasals short and slender; +zygomatic arches weak and not widely spreading; rostrum narrow; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals short; parietal ridges +hardly noticeable; interparietal large; extension of supraoccipital +posterior to lambdoidal suture long; tympanic bullae actually small, +but relatively large; basioccipital narrow; interpterygoid space narrow +and acutely angled; upper incisors markedly recurved; molariform teeth +relatively large. + +_Comparisons._--This small pocket gopher can be distinguished from all +other members of _Thomomys talpoides_ occurring in Utah by remarkably +small size, and slender, weak, small skull with strongly recurved upper +incisors. + +_Remarks._--The specimens used in this study were those recorded by +Svihla (1931:261). She reports that they were obtained in the +flood-plain banks of the streamsides, and preferred the pine belt. This +shows probably an extension of range with reference to life zones, as +heretofore the main reported localities of capture have been in +sagebrush in the Transition Life-zone. + +Insofar as I am aware, Mrs. Svihla's specimens are the only ones of +this subspecies ever obtained in Utah. Additional work is necessary in +southwestern Wyoming to outline accurately the geographic distribution +of this subspecies. In comparison with topotypes, the specimens from +Utah are lighter in color and some specimens have slightly larger +skulls, suggesting slight intergradation with _Thomomys talpoides +uinta_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 18 (all in Museum of Zoölogy, + University of Michigan), distributed as follows: _Daggett + County_: Sheep Creek, 4; 1 mi. W Summit Springs, 4; Beaver + Creek, 22 mi. S Manila, 9; Granite Park, 24 mi. S Manila, 1. + + +=Thomomys talpoides ravus= new subspecies + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 13690, Carnegie Museum; +Vernal-Manila Highway, 19 mi. N Vernal, 8,000 ft., Uintah County, Utah; +August 22, 1937; collected by J. K. and M. T. Doutt; original number +4718. + +_Range._--Uinta Mountains in Daggett, northern Uintah and northern +Summit counties. + +_Diagnosis._--Size large (see measurements); ears relatively narrow; +hind foot relatively small. Color: Upper parts between Drab and Light +Drab, darkest along middorsal line due to mixture of hairs tipped with +light brown; sides and flanks Light Drab; entire underparts creamy +white; front and hind feet, ventral surface of tail and end of tail +white; proximal two-thirds of tail covered dorsally with light brown +hairs; nose and cheeks dusky; postauricular patches black. Skull: +Large, heavy and ridged; rostrum long and narrow; nasals long, +moderately dilated distally and with a distal hump; posterior ends of +nasals emarginate; parietal and lambdoidal crests well developed; +zygomatic arches moderately heavy and widely spreading, widest +posteriorly; zygomatic processes of maxillae moderately heavy and +flaring abruptly from base of rostrum; marked middorsal depression in +frontals present; interparietal pentagonal; extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals long; posterior tongues of premaxillae long, +slender and rounded proximally; braincase high, vaulted and relatively +narrow; tympanic bullae well inflated ventrally, and ridged in old +animals; pterygoid hamulae long; interpterygoid space narrowly +V-shaped; upper incisors long and narrow; molariform teeth medium. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides +bridgeri_, _ravus_ differs as follows: Size larger; hind foot smaller; +ears narrower. Color: Lighter throughout, grayish as opposed to brown. +Skull: Smaller, narrower, less angular and less massive; nasals, +rostrum, zygomatic processes of maxillae, ascending branches of +premaxillae and posterior tongues of premaxillae all narrower; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals longer; interparietal +wider; braincase higher and narrower; tympanic bullae approximately the +same size, but more inflated ventrally; interpterygoid space more +narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors narrower; molariform teeth weaker. + +Compared with topotypes and near topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides +uinta_, _ravus_ differs as follows: Size larger in every measurement +taken. Color: Lighter throughout, being grayish as opposed to brown. +Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; rostrum and nasals actually +as well as relatively longer; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals longer; upper incisors longer and wider; molariform teeth +larger. + +There is only one other gray subspecies of _Thomomys talpoides_ in +Utah, _Thomomys talpoides ocius_. Topotypes of _ravus_ differ from it +as follows: Size markedly larger in every measurement taken. Color: +Darker, more brown hairs. Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; +premaxillae extended farther posteriorly to nasals; extension of +supraoccipital posterior to lambdoidal suture markedly less; tympanic +bullae actually as well as relatively smaller; upper incisors longer +and more procumbent. + +This new subspecies can be readily distinguished from all other +subspecies of _Thomomys talpoides_ occurring in Utah by markedly +greater size and paler, more grayish color. + +_Remarks._--The range of this form appears to be limited to the north +slopes of the Uinta Mountains, except in Daggett County where it occurs +also on the south slopes. Intergradation in color and in cranial +details with _bridgeri_ is shown by animals from the East Fork of +Blacks Fork, thirty-one miles SSW Fort Bridger, and by those from +Henrys Fork, 8,300 ft., both in Summit County. Due to the grayish color +and the narrower, weaker skull they are referred to _ravus_. +Intergradation with _uinta_ is shown by specimens from the type +locality of the latter race. The type series of _uinta_ consists of +intergrades between _ravus_ and the animals to the west and south (see +remarks under _uinta_). + +It is doubtful whether _bridgeri_ occurs in Utah. Material from Rich +County and extreme northern Cache County would settle the question. +Perhaps _bridgeri_ is restricted to the lower valleys in southwestern +Wyoming. Two specimens from northern Cache County, from Logan Canyon, +Beaver Basin, Utah-Idaho Line appear to be intergrades between +_bridgeri_ and _wasatchensis_, but are referable to the latter race. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 38, distributed as follows: + _Summit County_: Henrys Fork, 8,300 ft., 8; E Fork, Blacks + Fork, 31 mi. SSW Fort Bridger, 4 (C. M.). _Daggett County_: + Vernal-Manila Road, 4 mi. W Green's Lake, 7,500 ft., 6 (C. + M.); Elk Park, Uinta Mountains, 5 (B. Y. U.). _Uintah + County_: Trout Creek, SE Trout Peak, 22 mi. NW Vernal, 9,300 + ft., 5 (C. M.); Vernal-Manila Highway, 19 mi. N Vernal, + 8,000 ft., 6 (C. M.); Taylor Peak, 17 mi. N Vernal, 4 (C. + M.). + + +=Thomomys talpoides ocius= Merriam + + _Thomomys clusius ocius_ Merriam, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 14:114, July 19, 1901. + + _Thomomys clusius_ Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., + 13:246, November 25, 1896. + + _Thomomys ocius_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:107, November + 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, April, + 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 18852/25586, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); dry sagebrush mesas at Harveys +Ranch, Smiths Fork, 6 mi. SW Fort Bridger, 6,657 ft., Uinta County, +Wyoming; May 24, 1890; collected by Vernon Bailey; original number 1194 +(after Bailey, type not seen). + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Tilleul +Buff overlaid with Avellaneous, grading over sides and flanks to nearly +white on underparts; underparts with faint wash of creamy white; +postauricular patches small and dusky and completely circling the ear; +nose and cheeks dusky; front feet, hind feet, throat, ventral surface +of tail and distal half of tail white. Skull: Small, slender but +compact; nasals rounded posteriorly; extension of premaxillae posterior +to nasals very short; zygomatic arches robust, but not widely +spreading, widest posteriorly; interparietal large and pentagonal in +shape; extension of supraoccipital posterior to lambdoidal suture long; +tympanic bullae actually as well as relatively large; basioccipital +narrow; pterygoid hamulae long and ridged; upper incisors short and +strongly recurved. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with one topotype and seven near topotypes of +_Thomomys talpoides pygmaeus_, _ocius_ differs as follows: Size larger +in every measurement taken. Color: Lighter throughout, grayish as +opposed to brown; distal half of tail white as opposed to only a few +white hairs at tip of tail. Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; +skull more compact; zygomatic arches heavier and more widely spreading +posteriorly; tympanic bullae larger; upper incisors larger, but equally +strongly recurved; molariform teeth larger. + +Topotypes of ocius can be distinguished from those of _Thomomys +talpoides uinta_ as follows: Color: Lighter throughout, grayish as +opposed to brown. Skull: Nasals rounded posteriorly as opposed to +emarginate; zygomatic arches more robust; interparietal pentagonal as +opposed to subquadrangular; extension of supraoccipital posterior to +lambdoidal suture markedly greater; tympanic bullae actually as well as +relatively much larger; upper incisors short and strongly recurved as +opposed to long and procumbent. + +Specimens of this subspecies can be distinguished from all other +members of the species _Thomomys talpoides_ occurring in Utah by their +grayish color, and by small, compact skulls with very large tympanic +bullae and short strongly recurved upper incisors. + +_Remarks._--Two specimens from Vernal, Uintah County, are intergrades +between _ocius_ and _uinta_. They resemble _uinta_ in size and dorsal +color, but are slightly lighter tending toward the color of _ocius_. +Ventrally they are intermediate in color but more like _ocius_. The +skulls are more like those of _ocius_ in general appearance, extension +of supraoccipital posterior to the lambdoidal suture, shape and +thickness of the zygomatic arches, posterior tongues of premaxillae, +size of tympanic bullae and recurved upper incisors. They more closely +resemble _uinta_ in shape of posterior ends of nasals, basioccipital +and shape of the zygomatic processes of the squamosals. In all of the +above mentioned characters, they are intermediate between the two named +forms, but tend towards one or the other as listed. The majority of +characters are more as in _ocius_ to which they are here referred. + +When Goldman (1939:233, 234) listed the named subspecies of _Thomomys +talpoides_, he hesitated to include _ocius_ and merely mentioned that +_ocius_, _pygmaeus_ and _idahoensis_ might also belong to _talpoides_. +Davis (1939:240, 241) found intergradation between _idahoensis_ and +_fuscus_ and also between _idahoensis_ and _pygmaeus_, and, therefore, +arranged the last two mentioned forms as subspecies of _talpoides_. +This present study reveals intergradation between _ocius_ and _uinta_, +and also between _ocius_ and _fossor_ (see account of _fossor_). +Therefore, _ocius_ is properly to be treated as a subspecies of the +series of intergrading forms of which _talpoides_ is the earliest +named. + +All specimens of _ocius_ known from Utah are from the extreme eastern +part of the northeastern corner of the state. The type locality of +_ocius_ is near Fort Bridger, Wyoming, which is north of Utah. I have +seen one specimen from 12 miles west of Linwood, Daggett County, Utah, +on Henrys Fork in Wyoming. Additional collecting in northern Utah +probably will reveal _ocius_ to inhabit also parts of northern Utah. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 4, distributed as follows: + _Uintah County_: Vernal, 2 (C. M.); Uncompahgre Indian + Reservation, 2 (A. M. N. H.). + + +=Thomomys talpoides moorei= Goldman + + _Thomomys fossor moorei_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 28:335, July 15, 1938. + + _Thomomys talpoides moorei_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, + May 14, 1939. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 248222, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); 1 mi. S Fairview, 6,000 ft., Sanpete +County, Utah; February 19, 1928; collected by A. W. Moore; X-catalogue +number 24799 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--Wasatch Plateau in Sanpete, Utah, Carbon and Emery counties, +and in Wasatch Mountains south of Spanish Fork Canyon. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +between Cinnamon and Sayal Brown, with mixture of black hairs, grading +through Cinnamon on sides and flanks to Pale Pinkish Buff on +underparts, clearest on inguinal and pectoral regions; nose and cheeks +dusky; postauricular patches medium in size and black; ears black; chin +buffy white; front and hind feet white; tail mostly white with brownish +hairs on dorsal surface. Skull: Large, robust; nasals long and deeply +emarginate on posterior ends, and dilated distally; zygomatic arches +robust and widely spreading; zygomatic processes of maxillae heavy; +interparietal comparatively small, but always wider than long; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals short; tympanic bullae +moderate in size, but markedly inflated ventrally; pterygoid hamulae +long; interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors long and +moderately recurved; molariform teeth light. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _moorei_ differ from topotypes and near +topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides uinta_ as follows: Size slightly +larger. Color: Upper parts and sides lighter; tail lighter; +postauricular patches larger and darker; ears more pointed, smaller and +darker. Skull: Larger, heavier and more massive; nasals longer, but +deeply emarginate posteriorly as in _uinta_; rostrum wider and longer; +zygomatic arches heavier and more angular; zygomatic processes of +maxillae heavier; interparietal generally smaller and shorter; +braincase wider; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; +interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors longer, but +not as procumbent; molariform teeth smaller. + +Topotypes of _moorei_ can be distinguished from those of _Thomomys +talpoides oquirrhensis_ as follows: Size slightly larger; tail longer; +ears larger, less pointed. Color: Lighter throughout; postauricular +patches larger. Skull: More ridged and angular; nasals narrower +posteriorly, but more dilated distally; posterior ends of nasals more +deeply emarginate (while shallowly emarginate in _oquirrhensis_, they +tend to be somewhat rounded); rostrum narrower; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; least interorbital breadth +less; zygomatic arches more angular and widely spreading; zygomatic +processes of maxillae heavier; interparietal smaller; tympanic bullae +larger and more inflated ventrally; upper incisors generally longer. + +The characters that distinguish _moorei_ from _Thomomys talpoides +parowanensis_ are: Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: Broader, more +angular and more nearly flat; zygomatic arches more widely spreading; +zygomatic processes of maxillae heavier; posterior ends of nasals +emarginate rather than rounded; upper incisors longer. + +For comparisons of _moorei_ with _Thomomys talpoides levis_ and +_wasatchensis_ see accounts of these forms. + +_Remarks._--Specimens from Colton, show intergradation between +_moorei_, _uinta_ and _wasatchensis_, but are referable to _moorei_ in +the majority of characters. Specimens from Mount Nebo, and the mouth of +Reddicks Canyon, in the Wasatch and San Pitch mountains, respectively, +are intergrades between _moorei_ and _wasatchensis_, but are referable +to _moorei_. + +That part of the Wasatch Mountains south of Spanish Fork Canyon is +inhabited by pocket gophers that are intergrades between _moorei_ and +_wasatchensis_, but the cranial details show them to be referable to +_moorei_. The range here ascribed to _moorei_ consists of the Wasatch +Plateau to the east of Sanpete Valley, the San Pitch Mountains and the +southern part of the Wasatch Mountains. The type locality of _moorei_ +is situated in the southern end of a high valley that separates the +Wasatch Plateau from the San Pitch and Wasatch mountains. Topotypical +animals are larger and have more ridged, angular skulls than those from +the mountains. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 48, distributed as follows: + _Utah County_: Near Payson Lake, 1 (R. H.); Mt. Nebo, 25 mi. + SE Payson, 10,000 ft., 20; Colton, 8 (B. Y. U.). _Sanpete + County_: 1 mi. S Fairview, 6,000 ft., 12 (U. S. N. M.). + _Juab County_: Mouth of Reddicks Canyon, Wales Mountain (= + San Pitch Mountains), 7,500 ft., 5. _Emery County_: Lake + Creek, 11 mi. E Mt. Pleasant, 2 (C. M.). + + _Additional records._--_Sanpete County_: Ephraim, 5 (see + Goldman, 1938:336). + + +=Thomomys talpoides fossor= Allen + + _Thomomys fossor_ Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 5:51, + April 28, 1893; Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:111, November 15, + 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, April, 1922; + Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927; Hall, Univ. + California Publ. Zoöl., 37:4, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys talpoides fossor_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, + May 14, 1939. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 5240/4120, American Museum of +Natural History; Florida, 7,200 ft., La Plata County, Colorado; June +25, 1892; collected by Charles P. Rowley (after Allen, type not seen). + +_Range._--In the mountains of San Juan and Grand counties, east of the +Colorado and Green rivers. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Dresden Brown, grading over sides to Pale Buff on underparts; chin +white; ears small, pointed, with deeply pigmented pinnae; postauricular +patches grayish black; nose dusky. Skull: Long and narrow; nasals long, +rounded proximally and usually simple distally; rostrum long; +interparietal triangular; tympanic bullae large, and well inflated +ventrally; basioccipital narrow; palate narrow; palatal pits shallow; +dentition light. + +_Comparisons._--Near topotypes of _fossor_ can be distinguished from +topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides ocius_ as follows: Size larger +throughout. Color: Darker throughout, being dark brown as opposed to +grayish. Skull: Longer and narrower; nasals and rostrum longer; +extension of supraoccipital posterior to lambdoidal suture markedly +less; tympanic bullae markedly smaller; upper incisors longer and not +as strongly recurved. + +Among the races of _Thomomys talpoides_ occurring in Utah, _fossor_ +most closely resembles _Thomomys talpoides uinta_ in color and size, +but differs from it as follows: Ears smaller, more pointed and with +more darkly pigmented pinnae. Skull: Longer, narrower and weaker; +rostrum longer; nasals longer, and rounded proximally as opposed to +markedly emarginate; interparietal triangular instead of roughly +pentagonal; tympanic bullae larger and more inflated ventrally; +basioccipital narrower; palate narrower, palatal pits shallower; +dentition lighter. + +_Remarks._--Bailey (1915:111) remarked that _fossor_ was one form that +held its distinctive characters over a wide range. At that time, its +range was understood to include practically all of the mountainous +parts of Colorado, Utah as far west as the central part of the state, +and parts of New Mexico, Arizona and Wyoming. Subsequently three new +forms have been named from central Utah, (Goldman 1938:334-337) thereby +showing variation to be much more prevalent than formerly supposed. +The range of _fossor_ in Utah, as now understood, is limited to the +mountainous parts of the state south and east of the Colorado and Green +rivers in Grand and San Juan counties. + +The Utah specimens are not typical. At first glance some differences +are noted in the premaxillae and nasals. Four specimens in the +collections of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, +three from 3 miles east of Creede, Mineral County, and one from 10 +miles east of Lake City, Hinsdale County, Colorado, both of which lie +north and east of the type locality of _fossor_ show the same +characters as the Utah specimens. + +Eight specimens from Oak Spring are intergrades between _fossor_ and +_ocius_. In size and color they are like _fossor_, but the skulls are +intermediate. Because the animals are more like _fossor_ in the +majority of characters, they are here referred to that race. + +As a result of these studies and due to the paucity of specimens from +Utah, it is advisable, for the present, to refer all these Utah animals +to _fossor_. Additional specimens may reveal characters that will merit +the separation of the Utah animals from typical _fossor_; a desertlike +area unfavorable to _Thomomys_ exists between the type locality and +eastern Utah. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 21, distributed as follows: + _Grand County_: Oak Spring, Middle Fork Willow Creek, 15 mi. + N Thompson, 8 (C. M.); La Sal Mountains, 1 (U. S. N. M.); + Warner Ranger Station, La Sal Mountains, 3 (B. Y. U.). _San + Juan County_: Geyser Pass, 18 mi. SE Moab, La Sal Mountains, + 3 (1, B. Y. U.; 2, C. M.); 5 mi. W Monticello, 1 (C. M.); + Cooley Pass, 8 mi. W Monticello, 2 (C. M.); Joshua Flat, Elk + Ridge, 8,300 ft., 3 (M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys talpoides parowanensis= Goldman + + _Thomomys fossor parowanensis_ Goldman, Journ. Washington + Acad. Sci., 28:334, July 15, 1938. + + _Thomomys talpoides parowanensis_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., + 20:234, May 14, 1939; Long, Journ. Mamm., 21:176, May 14, + 1940. + + _Thomomys fossor_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:112, November + 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, April, + 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927; Hall, + Univ. California Publ. Zoöl., 37:4, April 10, 1931; + Presnall, Zion-Bryce Mus. Bull., 2:14, January, 1938; + Tanner, Great Basin Nat., 1:111, 1940. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 158072, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Brian Head, Parowan Mountains, 11,000 +ft., Iron County, Utah; September 8, 1908; collected by W. H. Osgood; +original number 3483 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--High mountains of eastern Iron and Beaver counties, and +western Kane and Garfield counties. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Sayal +Brown moderately mixed with black, lightest on head; sides lightly +washed with Buff; underparts Pinkish Buff, clearest on inguinal and +pectoral regions; nose and cheeks dusky; postauricular patches large +and black; front feet, hind feet and distal half of tail white. Skull: +Long and fairly slender; zygomatic arches not widely spreading; nasals +long; rostrum long and slender; posterior ends of nasals truncate or +moderately emarginate; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +usually short; tympanic bullae relatively small; upper incisors long +and narrow; molariform teeth large. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with _Thomomys talpoides kaibabensis_, +_parowanensis_ differs as follows: Size smaller. Skull: Shorter; nasals +shorter; zygomatic breadth less; nasals truncate or shallowly +emarginate posteriorly as opposed to rounded; upper incisors narrower. + +Topotypes of _parowanensis_ differ from topotypes and near topotypes of +_Thomomys talpoides uinta_ as follows: Size larger. Color: Usually +lighter; postauricular patches larger and darker; ears small with +pinnae deeply pigmented as opposed to large and lightly pigmented. +Skull: Larger; zygomatic arches more widely spreading; nasals longer; +rostrum longer; posterior ends of nasals truncate or shallowly +emarginate as opposed to deeply emarginate; sides of zygomatic arches +nearly parallel and not so divergent posteriorly; interparietal larger +and less quadrangular; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +less; upper incisors less procumbent; molariform teeth larger. + +Among named races of _Thomomys talpoides_, _parowanensis_ most closely +resembles _levis_, the race nearest geographically to the east, but +differs from _levis_ as follows: Size larger. Skull: Longer and wider; +rostrum and nasals longer; interparietal quadrangular as opposed to +roughly elliptical; upper incisors longer. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys talpoides moorei_ and _wasatchensis_ see +accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--The mountains of south central Utah are inhabited by pocket +gophers that have been designated as _Thomomys talpoides parowanensis_ +and _T. t. levis_ by Goldman (1938:334, 336). They are nearly +indistinguishable in color and each is variable in cranial details. The +diagnostic characters of each form occasionally appear, in varying +degrees, throughout the range of the other. The Sevier River Valley +separates the ranges ascribed to these two forms. This valley is +inhabited by pocket gophers that belong to a different species, +_Thomomys bottae_. The ranges of these two races of _talpoides_ +converge southward at the headwaters of the Sevier River. Specimens of +_parowanensis_ from the northern limits of its range from the Beaver +Mountains in eastern Beaver County and those of _levis_ from the +northern limits of its range in the Fish Lake Mountains are readily +distinguishable from each other. As the ranges converge to the +southward, there is progressively more intergradation. The type +locality of _parowanensis_ is located in the southern part of its +range, while that of _levis_ is in the extreme northern part of its +range. Therefore, due to the convergence of the two ranges at the +south, the specimens from localities near the type locality of +_parowanensis_ show the greatest amount of intergradation, if we regard +specimens of _parowanensis_ from the type locality as typical of the +race. Four specimens from Webster Flat, sixteen miles east of Cedar +City, Iron County, and three from Duck Creek, Cedar Mountains, Kane +County could equally well be assigned to either _levis_ or +_parowanensis_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 24, distributed as follows: + _Beaver County_: Britts Meadows, Beaver Mountains, 8,500 + ft., 7 (3, M. V. Z.; 2, U. S. N. M.; 2, C. M.); Puffer Lake, + Beaver Mountains, 1 (U. S. N. M.); Kents Lake, Beaver + Mountains, 1 (R. H.). _Iron County_: Lava Beds, 3-1/2 mi. SW + Panquitch Lake, 1 (C. M.); Brian Head, Parowan Mountains, 2 + (1, U. S. N. M.; 1, C. M.); Webster Flat, 16 mi. E Cedar + City, 4; Bear Valley, 2 mi. E B. V. Ranger Station, 1 (R. + H.). _Garfield County_: 1/4 mi. W Sunset Point, Bryce + National Park, 8,000 ft., 1 (M. V. Z.). _Kane County_: + Navajo Lake, 3 (R. H.); Duck Creek, Cedar Mountains, 9,000 + ft., 3 (1, R. H.). + + _Additional records._--_Garfield County_: Panquitch Lake, 1 + (see Goldman 1938:335). _Iron County_: Beaver Mountains, 9 + (see Bailey, 1915:112); Buckskin Valley, 1 (see Goldman, + 1938:335). + + +=Thomomys talpoides levis= Goldman + + _Thomomys fossor levis_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 28:336, July 15, 1938. + + _Thomomys talpoides levis_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, + May 14, 1939. + + _Thomomys fossor_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:112, November + 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, April, + 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 158079, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); Seven Mile Flat, 5 mi. N Fish +Lake, Fish Lake Plateau, 10,000 ft., Sevier County, Utah; October 1, +1908; collected by W. H. Osgood; original number 3616 (after Goldman, +type not seen). + +_Range._--Fish Lake Mountains in Sevier County south into Garfield +County, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts near +Sayal Brown, moderately mixed with black, darkest on head and middorsal +region, grading to Cinnamon Buff on sides and flanks; underparts +Pinkish Buff, clearest on inguinal and pectoral regions; chin, cheeks +and nose dusky; postauricular patches large and black; front feet, hind +feet and distal half of tail white; ears small and deeply pigmented. +Skull: Slender and weak; zygomatic arches not widely spreading; +posterior ends of nasals rounded; nasals moderately long and narrow; +rostrum long and narrow; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +short; interparietal usually much wider than long; pterygoid hamulae +ridged; interpterygoid space usually narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors +short. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides moorei_, +_levis_ differs as follows: Size smaller; tail shorter. Color: Darker +throughout, especially on dorsal surface due to more black of the +underfur; underparts deeper buff. Skull: Narrower, less massive; +zygomatic processes of maxillae weaker and not as widely spreading; +interparietal generally wider; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals less; posterior ends of nasals rounded rather than emarginate; +upper incisors shorter, less procumbent. + +Topotypes of _levis_ differ from near topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides +uinta_ as follows: Size larger. Color: Upper parts slightly darker; +postauricular patches much darker and larger; ears small and deeply +pigmented as opposed to large and lightly pigmented; tail darker all +around at base, with white part more extensive and with fewer +buff-colored hairs. Skull: More convex dorsally; zygomatic arches more +widely spreading and angular; nasals longer; rostrum longer; +interparietal wider and more elliptical; posterior ends of nasals +rounded as opposed to emarginate; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals less; pterygoid hamulae more ridged; interpterygoid space more +narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors shorter and less procumbent. + +Topotypes of _levis_ can be distinguished from those of _Thomomys +talpoides kaibabensis_ by markedly smaller measurements. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys talpoides parowanensis_ and +_wasatchensis_ see accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--Specimens from the Escalante Mountains and the Aquarius +Plateau are not typical. They are of approximately the same color as +_levis_, but are larger than _levis_ and have cranial details that +indicate intergradation with _kaibabensis_ to the south. They resemble +_kaibabensis_ in large size, long nasals and widely spreading zygomatic +arches, but are like _levis_ in shape of the interparietal, extension +of premaxillae posterior to the nasals, rounded posterior ends of +nasals, ridged pterygoid hamulae and relatively short upper incisors. +Additional material from these regions may prove these animals to merit +separation and naming. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 15, distributed as follows: + _Sevier County_: Seven Mile Flat, 5 mi. N Fish Lake, Fish + Lake Plateau, 10,000 ft., 2 (U. S. N. M.); Fish Lake + Experiment Station, 2 (U. S. A. C). _Garfield County_: Posy + Lake, Aquarius Plateau, 2 (B. Y. U.); 18 mi. N Escalante, + 9,500 ft., 3; Steep Creek, Boulder-Teasdale Road, Boulder + Mountain, 4 (B. Y. U.); Summit Birch Creek, Escalante + Mountains, 2 (B. Y. U.). + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT MALES OF THOMOMYS + +(In millimeters) + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. t. gracilis_, 4; topotypes +Av. 204 53 28 31.5 13.4 21.7 18.3 6.4 7.6 1.3 15.4 7.2 +Min. 194 47 27 30.3 12.9 21.1 17.8 6.3 7.3 1.0 14.7 6.7 +Max. 210 63 28 33.5 14.2 22.0 19.0 6.5 7.9 1.7 16.4 7.5 + +_T. t. oquirrhensis_, 4; topotypes +Av. 209 58 28 32.2 13.9 21.9 19.0 6.9 7.6 0.9 15.8 7.7 +Min. 197 55 28 31.9 13.7 21.4 18.5 6.7 7.2 0.6 15.5 7.5 +Max. 216 60 29 32.8 14.3 22.8 19.5 7.1 7.9 1.0 16.2 7.9 + +_T. t. wasatchensis_, 10; topotypes +Av. 221 67 28 31.3 13.4 21.5 18.9 6.5 7.4 1.1 15.1 7.4 +Min. 204 60 26 27.4 11.6 19.1 17.2 6.0 6.6 0.9 14.0 6.7 +Max. 237 75 31 34.5 15.2 23.7 20.4 7.3 8.0 2.0 16.5 8.2 + +_T. t. uinta_, 5; SW slope Bald Peak, Uinta Mts. +Av. 199 51 27 31.5 13.1 21.7 19.4 6.3 7.6 1.1 15.2 7.4 +Min. 185 47 26 29.6 12.1 20.3 19.0 5.7 7.3 0.7 13.5 7.2 +Max. 208 54 28 32.8 13.8 22.2 20.0 6.5 7.8 1.4 15.6 7.6 + +_T. t. moorei_, 7; topotypes +Av. 216 65 29 32.4 13.9 22.9 19.2 6.5 7.7 1.5 15.9 7.3 +Min. 203 52 27 31.3 13.0 21.5 18.4 6.0 7.3 0.9 14.8 6.7 +Max. 236 72 31 34.7 14.5 23.7 20.0 7.0 8.2 2.0 16.3 7.7 + +_T. t. fossor_, 8; Cascade Creek, La Plata Co., Colo. +Av. 215 61 29 31.7 13.2 21.2 18.7 5.9 7.5 0.6 15.5 7.1 +Min. 202 54 27 30.5 12.0 20.5 18.2 5.5 7.0 0.0 14.5 6.9 +Max. 228 70 30 33.0 14.4 23.5 19.9 6.3 7.9 1.1 16.9 7.4 + +_T. t. ravus_, 3; topotypes +Av. 248 73 30 35.2 14.6 24.8 21.4 6.3 8.3 2.4 17.1 8.2 +Min. 244 70 29 34.5 14.3 23.6 20.5 6.0 8.2 2.2 16.7 8.1 +Max. 253 74 30 35.9 15.1 25.7 22.5 6.7 8.4 2.7 17.5 8.5 + +No. 55270 (U. S. N. M.) _T. t. pygmaeus_, 1; topotype + 165 40 20 24.6 10.2 16.3 15.1 5.4 5.9 0.7 12.0 5.7 + +No. 177506 (U. S. N. M.) _T. t. ocius_, 1; 12 mi. W Linwood, + Henrys Fork, Wyo. + 200 62 26 27.5 11.5 19.9 17.8 6.2 6.8 1.0 13.5 7.0 + +_T. t. parowanensis_, 2; Britts Meadow, Beaver Mountains +Av. 215 59 28 34.3 14.5 22.4 18.6 6.0 8.1 1.4 17.3 7.9 +Min. 202 48 27 34.1 14.1 22.0 18.4 5.8 8.0 1.0 17.2 7.6 +Max. 228 69 29 34.6 14.8 22.7 18.9 6.2 8.2 1.7 17.3 8.2 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT FEMALES OF THOMOMYS + +(In millimeters) + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. t. gracilis_, 2; topotypes +Av. 190 58 27 29.7 12.0 19.7 17.3 6.4 7.3 1.2 14.0 6.5 +Min. 185 54 27 29.5 11.9 19.7 16.9 6.3 7.2 1.1 14.0 6.4 +Max. 194 61 27 29.9 12.0 19.7 17.6 6.5 7.4 1.4 14.0 6.6 + +_T. t. oquirrhensis_, 7; topotypes +Av. 203 56 27 30.2 12.9 20.4 18.2 6.8 7.5 0.8 14.8 7.2 +Min. 193 52 25 28.5 12.2 19.5 17.5 6.6 6.7 0.5 14.2 6.9 +Max. 215 59 28 31.5 13.3 21.0 19.1 7.2 8.0 1.0 15.5 7.5 + +_T. t. wasatchensis_, 19; topotypes +Av. 205 62 27 31.5 12.7 20.5 18.0 6.5 7.4 0.9 14.6 7.2 +Min. 180 52 23 28.1 11.2 19.3 17.2 6.2 6.0 0.6 13.0 6.8 +Max. 222 70 30 32.5 14.5 22.0 19.9 6.7 8.1 1.2 16.2 7.5 + +_T. t. uinta_, 2; SW slope Bald Peak, Uinta Mts. +Av. 181 49 25 28.4 11.6 19.8 17.3 6.6 7.2 1.3 13.5 6.8 +Min. 177 47 25 28.3 11.6 19.8 17.2 6.4 7.0 1.1 13.3 6.8 +Max. 185 50 25 28.4 11.6 19.8 17.4 6.7 7.3 1.5 13.6 6.8 + +_T. t. moorei_, 5; topotypes +Av. 206 62 26 29.9 12.8 21.5 18.4 6.6 7.3 1.3 14.6 6.8 +Min. 198 55 24 29.0 12.3 21.0 18.0 6.4 7.0 1.0 14.0 6.4 +Max. 213 69 28 31.2 14.1 22.5 19.1 6.8 7.5 1.6 15.6 7.0 + +_T. t. fossor_, 4; Cascade Creek, La Plata Co., Colo. +Av. 215 57 29 32.6 14.2 22.0 19.0 6.0 7.5 0.7 16.2 7.3 +Min. 204 51 28 31.3 13.6 21.5 18.0 5.7 7.1 0.5 15.9 7.0 +Max. 223 63 30 34.0 14.8 22.9 19.6 6.3 7.8 1.0 16.3 7.5 + +No. 13684 (C. M.) _T. t. ravus_, 1; topotype + 241 71 28 35.7 14.5 24.4 21.5 6.2 7.8 2.7 17.1 8.1 + +No. 178868 (U. S. N. M.) _T. t. pygmaeus_, 1; Fossil, Wyo. + 167 52 20 24.0 10.2 16.5 14.8 5.2 5.6 0.7 11.1 5.8 + +_T. t. ocius_, 3; topotypes +Av. 201 60 25 30.0 13.5 20.5 17.9 6.2 7.2 0.8 15.0 7.4 +Min 196 57 25 29.9 13.0 19.9 17.5 6.1 7.1 0.5 14.7 7.3 +Max. 205 64 25 30.1 14.0 21.5 18.6 6.3 7.3 1.0 15.3 7.5 + +_T. t. parowanensis_, 4; Britts Meadow, Beaver Mountains +Av. 221 58 29 33.2 14.5 22.8 19.0 6.0 7.8 0.9 15.4 7.3 +Min. 207 50 28 30.5 12.8 22.7 18.6 5.8 7.4 0.5 14.7 7.0 +Max. 240 66 30 34.8 15.5 23.0 19.6 6.2 8.1 1.5 17.8 7.7 + +_T. t. levis_, 2; topotypes +Av. 203 65 27 28.1 11.1 19.2 17.7 6.1 6.9 0.8 13.0 6.8 +Min. 199 61 26 28.0 10.6 18.9 17.5 5.8 6.6 0.6 12.8 6.6 +Max. 206 70 27 28.2 11.6 19.5 17.9 6.4 7.2 1.0 13.2 7.0 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +=Thomomys bottae= (Eydoux and Gervais) + +_Thomomys bottae_ is a southern species that, within the Great Basin, +reaches the most northern limits of its distribution in Utah. The +animals of this species inhabit the lower valleys, and with the +exception of the Oquirrh Mountains, inhabit also the mountains in that +part of the state west of the central mountain ranges. The specific +characters are: Sphenorbital fissure present; incisive foramina +posterior to infraorbital canal; anterior prism of P4 rounded; +interparietal relatively small; lambdoidal suture straight in region of +interparietal, in Utah specimens. + + +=Thomomys bottae aureiventris= Hall + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureiventris_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zoöl., 32:444, July 8, 1930; Univ. California Publ. + Zoöl., 37:3, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 43980, Museum of Vertebrate +Zoölogy, University of California; Fehlman Ranch, 3 mi. N Kelton, 4,225 +ft., Box Elder County, Utah; September 27, 1929; collected by Louise +Kellogg; original number 451. + +_Range._--Northwestern Utah, and extreme western Utah as far south as +the southern end of the Deep Creek Mountains. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet +small. Color: Near Cinnamon on dorsal and ventral surfaces; inguinal +region, front and hind feet and distal third to half of tail white; +nose, cheeks and postauricular patches grayish black. Skull: Moderately +angular and ridged; zygomatic arches nearly parallel with sides of +skull; jugals vertical; marked thickening at union of jugal and +zygomatic process of maxilla; greatest zygomatic breadth at anterior +part of arches; interpterygoid space lyre-shaped; ventral margin of +jugal concave dorsally; nasals long and denticulate distally; parietal +ridges bowed in at two places, at coronal suture and at middle of +interparietal; paroccipital processes extremely well developed; dorsal +frontomaxillary suture usually straight. + +_Comparisons._--From near topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, +_aureiventris_ differs as follows: Size larger; tail shorter; hind foot +longer; claws on front feet shorter. Color: Slightly darker on upper +parts, but with greater extension of white on ventral surface. Skull: +Zygomatic breadth greater; greatest width across zygomatic arches at +anterior rather than posterior region; zygomatic arches thicker at +union of jugals and zygomatic processes of maxillae; dorsal +frontomaxillary suture less convex medially; mastoid breadth greater; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals less; interpterygoid space +lyre-shaped rather than V-shaped. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_, _aureiventris_ can +be distinguished by: Size larger; hind foot longer. Color: Markedly +lighter throughout, Cinnamon as opposed to near (13''''_n_) Black. +Skull: Larger in all but three measurements taken; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals less; alveolar length of upper molar +series shorter; zygomatic arches widest anteriorly rather than +posteriorly; thickening at union of jugal and zygomatic process of +maxilla markedly greater; interpterygoid space lyre-shaped as opposed +to V-shaped; lacrimal processes more globose at tips. + +_Thomomys bottae aureiventris_ can be readily distinguished from _T. b. +bonnevillei_, _sevieri_, _wahwahensis_, and _convexus_ by larger size +in all measurements taken and darker coloration. The same differences +obtain in comparison with _T. b. tivius_ and _stansburyi_ except that +_aureiventris_ is much lighter colored. See comparisons under those +forms. + +_Remarks._--_T. b. aureiventris_ has one of the most extensive ranges +of any race of _T. bottae_ occurring in Utah. The range extends from +the valleys of the northwest corner of the state south along the +extreme western margin of the state approximately to the southern end +of the Deep Creek Mountains. This ascribed range practically bounds the +northwest and western margins of the great salt desert in Box Elder and +Tooele counties. As far as known, this great waste area harbors no +members of the Geomyidae. Pocket gophers were available from four +localities in addition to the type locality. In these four localities +all of the animals were intergrades. The three specimens from Queen of +Sheba Canyon, Deep Creek Mountains, although smaller than +_aureiventris_ in every measurement taken, resemble it in color and +general configuration of the skull. The animals from Trout Creek and +Ibapah at the southern end of the range, although referred to +_aureiventris_, are intermediate between it and _centralis_. In color +and measurements they more closely resemble _centralis_, but the skulls +closely resemble those of _aureiventris_. The skulls show some slight +characteristics of _bonnevillei_, the form to the east, which indicate +an early relationship between the two. Specimens from the east side of +Tecoma Range, adjacent to Pilot Peak, although referred to +_aureiventris_ are intergrades between it and _centralis_. Although +this locality is nearer the type locality of _aureiventris_ than any of +the other record stations, the animals show the maximum departure from +topotypes in morphological features. In color they approach +_centralis_, and agree with it in one-half of the measured characters. +The general configuration of the skull and a majority of the critical +diagnostic characters, for example, jugal thickening, are more nearly +as in _aureiventris_. From the above remarks it is readily understood +that this subspecies is extremely variable. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 55, distributed as follows: + _Box Elder County_: Fehlman Ranch, 3 mi. N Kelton, 4,255 + ft., 8 (7, M. V. Z.); Utah-Nevada Boundary, E Side Tecoma + Range, 4,300 ft., 12. _Tooele County_: Ibapah, 5,000 ft., + 21. _Juab County_: Queen of Sheba Canyon, W side Deep Creek + Mountains, 5,600 ft., 11. + + +=Thomomys bottae robustus= new subspecies + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 2726, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Orr's Ranch, Skull Valley, 4,300 ft., Tooele +County, Utah; June 19, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; original +number 1583. + +_Range._--Skull Valley, Tooele County, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); tail short; hind foot +short. Color: In a series of 24 animals, upper parts vary from Pale +Smoke Gray (4 specimens) through Cinnamon Buff (19 specimens) to Dark +Mouse Gray (1 specimen). The Cinnamon Buff color is considered to be +typical. Color grading to lighter on underparts; postauricular patches +small and grayish black; front and hind feet and distal part of tail +white. Skull: Small, flat and heavily ridged; nasals short; zygomatic +arches heavy and widely spreading, widest posteriorly at union of jugal +and squamosal; union of jugal and zygomatic process of maxilla +thickened, with a ventrally directed spinous process in sixty percent +of the specimens; occasionally there is a second process, also directed +ventrally at union of jugal and zygomatic process of squamosal; +zygomatic arches convex dorsally; deep dorsal depression present in +frontal bones in mature specimens; lacrimal processes prominent, +projecting well above the arch at the anteromedial angle of the orbit; +interpterygoid spaces V-shaped; tympanic bullae well inflated +ventrally; upper incisors short, and pale; when placed on a flat plane +the dorsal surface of the skull is nearly parallel to the substratum; +space enclosed within the zygomatic arches nearly quadrangular. + +_Comparisons._--From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, +_robustus_ can be distinguished as follows: Size smaller; tail and hind +foot shorter. Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller, more heavily +ridged and more nearly flat; nasals shorter; rostrum relatively wider +and shorter; zygomatic arches shorter and relatively more widely +spreading with greatest width posteriorly as opposed to anteriorly; +junction of jugal and zygomatic process of maxilla not as prominent; +_aureiventris_ shows no spinous process at this junction; lacrimal +processes larger and projecting farther dorsally; enclosed space within +zygomatic arches roughly quadrangular as opposed to triangular; +mastoidal part of tympanic bullae less exposed; sphenorbital fissure +smaller; interpterygoid space V-shaped rather than lyre-shaped; palatal +pits smaller and shallower; tympanic bullae smaller, but more inflated +ventrally; basioccipital averaging relatively wider; molars smaller; +upper incisors shorter, smaller and cadmium yellow as opposed to orange +yellow. + +Comparisons of _robustus_ with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_ show the following: Size smaller. Color: Lighter +throughout; postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Smaller, +more compact and more nearly flat; rostrum shorter and more nearly +straight; lacrimal processes larger, projecting higher above the +anteromedial angle of the orbit; parietal ridges uniformly heavier; +mastoid width actually as well as relatively wider; zygomatic arches +heavier and relatively much wider (males 76.2 percent of basilar +length, females 73.8 percent as opposed to males 73.8 percent and +females 73.5 percent); union of jugal and zygomatic process of maxilla +uniformly more thickened; spinous process at jugal-maxillary suture +present; zygomatic arches much more concave on ventral surface; uniform +deep depression present in mature adults, between frontal processes of +premaxillae, and anterior interorbital region of frontals; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals less; sphenorbital fissure more +constricted; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally, extending well +ventrad of basioccipital; palatal pits shallower and smaller; molars +smaller; upper incisors shorter, narrower and paler (see comparison of +_aureiventris_). + +From near topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_ from 1 mile east of +Garrison, Millard County, Utah, _robustus_ differs in: Size smaller; +tail and hind foot shorter. Color: Lighter, terminal bands of hair +cinnamon, but because more black in underfur the animals appear darker; +postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Shorter, more nearly +flat and much more heavily ridged; nasals shorter; rostrum shorter and +wider; lacrimal processes larger and projecting higher above +anteromedial angle of orbit; zygomatic arches heavier, shorter, more +angular and actually as well as relatively wider; jugals thicker; angle +between maxillary plate and rostrum less obtuse; spinous process at +jugal-maxillary suture present; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals less; parietal ridges much more pronounced; looked at from +above, space enclosed within zygomatic arches more quadrangular in +shape as opposed to roughly triangular; tympanic bullae more inflated +ventrally; molars smaller; upper incisors shorter, narrower and paler. + +The characters that distinguish _robustus_ from topotypes of _Thomomys +bottae wahwahensis_ are: Size slightly smaller. Color: Darker +throughout. Skull: Rostrum longer and narrower; nasals longer; +zygomatic arches wider and longer; lacrimal processes larger and +projecting higher above anteromedial angle of the orbit; parietal +ridges more roughened; tympanic bullae much larger and more inflated +ventrally; supraoccipital higher; middorsal depression in frontals +present. For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae bonnevillei_ see account +of that form. + +The remaining forms from the Bonneville Basin, namely, _Thomomys bottae +sevieri_, _convexus_, _tivius_ and _stansburyi_ are all easily +distinguished from _robustus_. Specimens of _sevieri_ are paler, +smaller in every measurement taken, and the skulls are weaker and less +angular. All specimens of _convexus_ are paler, the skulls are more +convex dorsally and narrower, with less ridging and angularity. Both +_tivius_ and _stansburyi_ are small dark forms, with weak, smooth, +small skulls as compared with _robustus_ which is light colored and has +compact, ridged and angular skulls. + +_Remarks._--Twenty-three specimens were obtained at a small isolated +spring. Critical study of animals taken only a few miles to the east +prove them to be so different as to be referable to another subspecies, +_albicaudatus_. _T. b. robustus_ is an endemic form in this desert +valley. The variable color is noteworthy but difficult to explain in an +isolated population as small as this one. All five of the gray animals +are females of which four are lactating adults. The affinities of this +subspecies are with _albicaudatus_ to the east, but enough time has +elapsed since isolation to enable them to differentiate. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 23, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae minimus= Durrant + + _Thomomys bottae minimus_ Durrant, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 52:161, October 11, 1939; Marshall, Journ. + Mamm., 21:154, May 14, 1940. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 263942, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake, +Tooele County, Utah; June 25, 1938; collected by William H. Marshall; +original number 141. + +_Range._--Known only from the type locality. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements); tail relatively long. +Color: Upper parts Pinkish Buff, darker on head; underparts Pale +Pinkish Buff; front and hind feet white; nose, chin and postauricular +patches black. Skull: Long, slender and nearly devoid of ridges; +braincase moderately inflated; interparietal quadrangular; zygomatic +arches weak, widest in temporal region, but neither widely spreading +nor angular; nasals straight and truncate posteriorly; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals relatively great; tympanic bullae +moderately inflated; palatal pits deep; rostrum short but narrow; +interpterygoid space moderately lyre-shaped; upper incisors narrow; +molars light. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_, _minimus_ differs as follows: Size markedly smaller; +claws on front feet shorter and weaker. Color: Markedly lighter +throughout, being Pinkish Buff as contrasted with near (13''''_n_) +Black. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; slender, smooth, weak +and nonangular as opposed to ridged, robust, wide and angular; +zygomatic arches much weaker and not so widely spreading posteriorly; +ascending processes of premaxillae much narrower; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals less; interpterygoid space moderately +lyre-shaped as opposed to V-shaped; dentition lighter. + +Topotypes of _minimus_ differ from those of _Thomomys bottae +aureiventris_ as follows: Size markedly smaller. Color: Lighter +dorsally and no "gold color" on underparts. Skull: Markedly smaller in +every measurement taken; weak, smooth and slender as opposed to ridged, +angular and robust; zygomatic arches weak and widest posteriorly rather +than heavy and widest anteriorly; no great thickening at region of +union of jugal and zygomatic process of the maxilla; jugals more nearly +straight rather than concave laterally; interpterygoid space not so +markedly lyre-shaped; dentition lighter. + +The races nearest geographically to _minimus_ are _Thomomys bottae +nesophilus_ and _T. b. stansburyi_. For comparisons see accounts of +those forms. + +_Remarks._--This subspecies is the smallest of all the races of +_Thomomys bottae_ occurring in Utah. As far as known it is endemic to +Stansbury Island, and since the Pleistocene Lake Bonneville attained +its highest level has remained on that part of Stansbury Island that +was above this high level. (See comments under _nesophilus_.) The sandy +nature of the soil and the desert conditions of the area that has since +been exposed at lower levels apparently do not constitute a favorable +environment. Unlike _nesophilus_ from Antelope Island, this form does +not have its affinities with _albicaudatus_, the valley form of the +adjacent mainland, but does show affinities with _stansburyi_, the +nearest mountain form on the mainland. This is easily understood when +one realizes that Stansbury Island is only an isolated part of +Stansbury Mountain that projects northward as a peninsula into Great +Salt Lake. The history of Stansbury Island with reference to isolation +of _minimus_ parallels that of _nesophilus_ on Antelope Island. See +discussion under _nesophilus_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 5, as follows: _Tooele + County_: Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake, 5 (U. S. N. M.). + + +=Thomomys bottae nesophilus= Durrant + + _Thomomys bottae nesophilus_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 27 + (No. 2):2, October, 1936; Marshall, Journ. Mamm., 21:156, + May 14, 1940. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1136, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Antelope Island, Great Salt Lake, Davis County, +Utah; April 20, 1935; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 761. + +_Range._--Known only from the type locality. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet long. +Color: Upper parts Cinnamon Buff; lighter below; sides Pinkish Buff +interspersed with gray; pectoral and inguinal regions Cinnamon; nose +grayish black; postauricular patches black. Skull: Interparietal +wedge-shaped; tympanic bullae small; dorsal surface of lambdoidal +prominence 3 mm. wide rather than developed as a crest; jugals nearly +straight; zygomatic arches strongly rectangular. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_, _nesophilus_ is of approximately the same size, but +differs as follows: Claws on front feet longer. Color: Lighter +throughout; tail white terminally, but much darker at base; +postauricular patches smaller. Skull: Interparietal wedge-shaped as +opposed to roughly quadrangular; lambdoidal eminence more of a crest +than a ridge; tympanic bullae smaller; jugals more nearly straight; +zygomatic arches more nearly rectangular. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, _nesophilus_ differs +in: Size smaller; claws on front feet longer. Color: Darker throughout; +postauricular patches larger. Skull: Heavier, more massive; zygomatic +arches more robust and convex laterally rather than concave; +interparietal wedge-shaped rather than roughly quadrangular; braincase +more nearly flat; tympanic bullae markedly smaller; upper molariform +series longer; molariform teeth wider and heavier; interpterygoid space +V-shaped rather than lyre-shaped. + +The race nearest geographically to _nesophilus_ is _T. b. minimus_ from +Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake. It can easily be distinguished from +_minimus_ by the following features: Size much larger; claws on front +feet longer and thicker. Color: Darker throughout; postauricular +patches larger and with more admixture of buff colored hairs. Skull: +Larger in every measurement taken; wide and robust as opposed to narrow +and slender; zygomatic arches more widely spreading and angular; +braincase more nearly flat; tympanic bullae actually larger, but +relatively smaller; lambdoidal eminence flat-topped rather than a +crest; interparietal wedge-shaped as opposed to quadrangular; teeth +larger. + +_Remarks._--The affinities of _nesophilus_ of Antelope Island are +unquestionably with _albicaudatus_ of the eastern and southern +mainland. At the time of this writing (1945), Antelope Island is not +truly an island, but only the tip of a broad peninsula projecting +westward into Great Salt Lake. Nevertheless, the area of occurrence of +_nesophilus_ is effectively isolated by the exposed, sandy lake bottom +that is unsuited to occupancy by pocket gophers. Fluctuations in the +level of the Great Salt Lake have broken and reëstablished this +connection with the mainland many times. Each of the several other +kinds of mammals which are known from both the island and the mainland +show no differentiation on the island. These are kinds (see Marshall, +1940:156), which more freely cross the exposed, sandy lake bottom. I, +myself, have noted tracks of coyotes going to and from the island. The +pocket gopher, _nesophilus_, so far as known is the only mammal which +has developed a subspecies endemic to the island. The beach levels of +Pleistocene Lake Bonneville are well marked on both Antelope Island and +Stansbury Island, which is fifteen miles west of Antelope Island. On +the eastern side of Antelope Island the lower beach levels of this +prehistoric lake are farmed. Although sought for elsewhere on this +island, pocket gophers were found only in the farmed land. On Stansbury +Island there has been no farming, and the endemic pocket gophers, +_minimus_, although sought for elsewhere on that island were found only +above the highest beach levels of the ancient lake. Evidently these +pocket gophers still occupy only that part of Stansbury Island that +projected above water during the greatest height of Lake Bonneville. +Farming on Antelope Island may have developed a more favorable +environment for pocket gophers, thus causing them to move down to the +lower levels from that part of the island that was above water during +Pleistocene times. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 5, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae stansburyi= new subspecies + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 2045, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; South Willow Creek, Stansbury Mountains, 7,500 ft., +Tooele County, Utah; July 2, 1937; collected by O. S. Walsh and S. D. +Durrant; original number 1257 of Durrant. + +_Range._--Stansbury Mountains, Tooele County, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Saccardo's Umber, darker on head; sides and underparts Pinkish Buff; +nose, chin and postauricular patches black; front and hind feet and +distal third to half of tail white. Skull: Small, slender, weak and +smooth; zygomatic arches light and not widely spreading; zygomatic +arches actually as well as relatively short; interparietal generally +quadrangular; nasals relatively long and slender; interpterygoid space +narrowly V-shaped; basioccipital fairly wide; tympanic bullae +moderately inflated ventrally; dentition light. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypical specimens of _stansburyi_ can be readily +distinguished from those of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, _aureiventris_ +and _albicaudatus_ by being smaller in every measurement taken, +particularly those of the skull; the skull is weaker and smoother. In +color _stansburyi_ is like _albicaudatus_ but is much darker throughout +than _aureiventris_ and _centralis_. + +Comparisons of topotypes of _stansburyi_ with those of _Thomomys bottae +sevieri_ show them to be of approximately the same size, but to differ +as follows: Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Zygomatic arches shorter; +tympanic bullae less inflated ventrally; zygomatic breadth less; +mastoid breadth greater; width across alveolar processes of maxillae +greater; alveolar length of upper molar series greater; molariform +teeth larger. + +Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae minimus_, _stansburyi_ is +seen to be of larger size and darker color throughout, with a skull +that is larger in most every measurement taken, although of the same +slender, smooth, nonangular type. + +Among named races of _Thomomys bottae_, _stansburyi_ most closely +resembles tivius, a small, dark, mountain form from central Utah. Size +and color are almost the same but _stansburyi_ differs in: Tail +shorter; hind foot averaging slightly longer. Skull: Generally larger +in every measurement taken; zygomatic arches shorter; width across +alveolar processes of maxillae greater; zygomatic arches more widely +spreading, and widest in extreme posterior region rather than in region +of jugal-squamosal suture. + +_Remarks._--The Stansbury Mountains are separated from the Oquirrh +Mountains by the Stockton Bar, and from the Onaqui Mountains, which are +in reality a continuation of the Stansbury Mountains, by only a low +pass. Pocket gophers from Clover Creek, Onaqui Mountains and Little +Valley, Sheeprock Mountains, although intergrades between _robustus_ +and _albicaudatus_ are dark in color like _stansburyi_. These +intergrades are large, dark colored, and have heavy, ridged, angular +skulls. It appears that _stansburyi_ is a mountain subspecies derived +from _albicaudatus_ of the valley. It would be instructive to +artificially transplant gophers from mountains to valleys, and _vice +versa_, so as to reveal what effects if any on the animals' morphology +the environment might have in one or a few generations. Gophers are +well known to be very plastic, and such an experiment as suggested +might call for modification of the view, held here, that the +differential features of gophers from South Willow Creek and, say, +Bauer, are hereditary. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 11, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae albicaudatus= Hall + + _Thomomys perpallidus albicaudatus_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zoöl., 32:444, July 8, 1930; Univ. California Publ. + Zoöl., 37:3, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Durrant, Bull. Univ. + Utah, 28 (No. 4):5, August 18, 1937. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureiventris_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zoöl., 37:3, April 10, 1931. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 43971, Museum of Vertebrate +Zoölogy, University of California; Provo, 4,510 ft., Utah County, Utah; +October 17, 1929; collected by Annie M. Alexander; original number 506. + +_Range._--From the area between the Great Salt Lake and the Wasatch +Mountains south along the western margin of the central mountains of +the state to the Sevier River, in Juab County, west into Tooele County +to the Onaqui and Sheeprock mountains. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet +medium. Color: Upper parts near (13''''_n_) Black, grading over sides +and flanks to Pinkish Cinnamon on underparts; chin, nose, top of head +and postauricular patches black; front feet, hind feet and distal third +to half of tail white. Skull: Angular and ridged; zygomatic arches +moderately wide spreading, widest posteriorly; paroccipital processes +weak; zygomatic processes of maxillae convex anteriorly; lacrimal +processes small and peglike; jugals convex dorsally on ventral surface; +nasals short, rounded distally and truncate proximally; parietal crests +bowed in, in two places; interpterygoid space broadly V-shaped. + +_Comparisons._-For comparisons of _albicaudatus_ with _Thomomys bottae +aureiventris_ and _centralis_ see accounts of those forms. + +Topotypes of _albicaudatus_ are dark colored and can be distinguished +from those of _Thomomys bottae birdseyei_, _tivius_, _stansburyi_ and +_contractus_ which are also dark forms, by larger size and larger, more +robust skulls (see accounts of those forms). It can be distinguished +from the remainder of the known subspecies of _Thomomys bottae_ in Utah +by darker color and by cranial details (see accounts of those forms). + +_Remarks._--The range of _albicaudatus_ is larger than that of any +other race of _Thomomys bottae_ limited to Utah. Specimens are +available from thirty localities which represent widely varied habitats +and environments. This subspecies consists of many highly variable +local populations, and the marginal populations intergrade freely with +adjacent races. In many populations, it is really difficult to +recognize the relationships on account of the great variation, and one +is frequently tempted to name some of them as distinct. Careful study +of the large number of specimens has enabled me to recognize diagnostic +characters common to all of these variable populations. The animals +range from large and dark at the north to small and light at the south. + +The Jordan River bisects Salt Lake County from north to south. Pocket +gophers were taken at nine places east of the river, and at three +places west of it. + +Gophers from Salt Lake City and environs (east of the river) vary in +color from almost black to dark cinnamon. Specimens from Draper, which +locality is likewise east of the river, are uniformly lighter, but also +vary in color. The skulls of animals from both localities are +indistinguishable from each other and closely resemble those of +topotypes. Specimens from the west side of the river, from Riverton, +two miles west of Murray and Rose Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, all are +lighter in color than topotypes. The color varies from darkest at the +north at Murray to lightest at the south at Riverton. This is exactly +the reverse of what would be expected since Riverton is the locality +geographically nearest to the type locality, Provo. The skulls are +quite uniform and are all referable to _albicaudatus_. The Jordan River +may be one factor which causes this lack of uniformity between the +animals from the two sides of the river. Davis (1939:56-57) states that +rivers are not barriers to movement of pocket gophers where the river +completely freezes over and has the ice covered with thick snow. +Although the Jordan River does occasionally freeze over, it is never +frozen for more than a few days at a time, and snow in this area does +not last for long periods. The material at hand indicates that the +gophers from both sides of the river are referable to the same +subspecies _albicaudatus_. The animals from the east side of the river +are in the aggregate of characters the most typical of _albicaudatus_ +of any in the entire range. Those from the west side of the river, +although definitely referable to _albicaudatus_ do show some +intergradation with _Thomomys bottae robustus_, the subspecies to the +west. + +The specimens from Bauer, Tooele County, are relatively uniform in +color, and are considerably lighter than topotypes of _albicaudatus_. +Their upper parts vary from Sepia to Saccardo's Umber as compared with +near (13''''_n_) Black of the topotypes. The sides and underparts are +lighter, due primarily to much less black in the underfur. They average +slightly longer in total length, but shorter in hind foot. All cranial +measurements are slightly smaller than in topotypes of _albicaudatus_. +The shape of the skull closely resembles that of _albicaudatus_, +although the rostrum, nasals, upper incisors and posterior tongues of +the premaxillae tend to be narrower. This narrowness indicates +intergradation with _Thomomys bottae stansburyi_, the race nearest to +the west. These animals are in the majority of characters referable to +_albicaudatus_. + +Bauer is situated in extreme western Tooele Valley at the foot of +Stockton Bar, a low pass between the Stansbury and the Oquirrh +mountains. This valley lies to the west of the aforementioned Jordan +River. Although these gophers are definitely referable to +_albicaudatus_ they are more unlike topotypes than are the animals from +Riverton. + +The specimens from Settlement Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, Tooele County, +show the same characteristics as those from Bauer. + +In a large series of animals from St. John, in Rush Valley, Tooele +County, the upper parts vary from black, even darker than topotypes of +_albicaudatus_, to Tawny Olive, and the underparts vary from black +through Cinnamon Buff to Pinkish Buff. Most of the animals are Cinnamon +Buff. Although variable they approach _albicaudatus_ in color. The +total length, tail and hind foot of males are longer than in topotypes +of _albicaudatus_; females differ in the same direction but only +slightly. In both sexes the zygomatic breadth is less, but the mastoid +breadth is greater than in _albicaudatus_. In size and shape of the +lacrimal processes, and the great thickening of the jugal at the +maxillo-jugal suture they approach _robustus_. They are much larger, +however, and in the majority of characters are referable to +_albicaudatus_. + +What has just been said relative to the animals from St. John applies +also to those from Clover Creek in the Onaqui Mountains of Tooele +County. At the latter locality the tendencies towards _robustus_ are +accentuated. This is to be expected, since this locality is midway +between St. John and the type locality of _robustus_. All characters +considered, these animals are all referable to _albicaudatus_. + +The animals from Little Valley, Sheeprock Mountains, Tooele County, +resemble _albicaudatus_ in color. They vary on the upper parts from +near (1) Sepia to Clay Color, and ventrally from nearly black to +Pinkish Buff. They are markedly smaller in every measurement taken, +except zygomatic and mastoidal breadths, and extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals. This relatively greater breadth indicates +intergradation with _robustus_ to the west. These gophers are smaller +in most measurements than any other population referred to +_albicaudatus_. This is understandable because gophers from mountains +usually are smaller and have weaker, smoother skulls than animals from +low lands. Although approaching _robustus_ in size and in some +aforementioned cranial details, the aggregate of characters including +color, make these animals referable to _albicaudatus_. + +The animals from Fairfield, Utah County, are closer geographically to +the type locality of _albicaudatus_ than any other series, but +morphologically are the least like topotypes. At first glance one is +struck with the differences. They are uniformly Clay Color above, with +Cinnamon Buff sides and flanks and Pinkish Buff underparts. Their color +closely approaches that of _robustus_ to the west which has Cinnamon +Buff on the upper parts. Examination of eleven measurements of males +and the same number for females, shows that the animals are nearest to +_robustus_ in two measurements, to _albicaudatus_ in 12, distinct in 7 +and intermediate in one. The general appearance of the skull is +intermediate between that of the two above mentioned forms. The +differences from _albicaudatus_ in size and color may be correlated +with the differences in soil at Fairfield and Provo. At Fairfield the +soil is light-colored clay, but at Provo it is sandy and darker. +Although they are intergrades between _robustus_ and _albicaudatus_, +the animals are referred to the latter race. Utah Lake and its outlet, +the Jordan River, make a partial barrier between populations at +Fairfield and at the type locality at Provo. During Pleistocene times, +when Lake Bonneville was present it formed a complete barrier. Enough +time has evidently elapsed since the disappearance of this lake to +allow _albicaudatus_, the mainland form, to expand its range to the +west. Intergradation has taken place, with the result that the animals +from Fairfield, although unstable, agree with the mainland form, +_albicaudatus_, in a majority of their characters. + +Pocket gophers were taken at four localities from north to south in +eastern Juab County. They range in color from Ochraceous Tawny on the +upper parts and Cinnamon Buff on the underparts to shades that are +slightly lighter. All are much lighter than topotypes of +_albicaudatus_. The general configuration of the skull is the same as +that of _albicaudatus_, and this is especially true in the females. In +the narrower rostrum and weaker dentition they approach _contractus_, +but are distinctly lighter colored. Hall (1931:3) referred one specimen +from Nephi, Juab County, to _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_. Since that +time _Thomomys bottae lenis_ which has some affinities with +_aureiventris_ has been described (see account of _contractus_). The +large series now available from Nephi and nearby localities do show +some intergradation with _lenis_, in that four characters are more as +in _lenis_ and _contractus_ and seven characters are more as in +_albicaudatus_. Although differing markedly in many respects from +topotypes of _albicaudatus_ they fit the aforementioned concept of this +subspecies, and are being treated as a variable local population of it. + +Provo is the locality listed for specimens which were available to +naturalists from 1875-1877. To these specimens the following names were +applied: _Thomomys talpoides bulbivorus_ Coues (1875:256; 1877:627) and +_Thomomys talpoides umbrinus_ Coues and Yarrow (1875:112). Possibly +these names were applied to the animals currently known as _Thomomys +bottae albicaudatus_ which does occur at Provo. Without the opportunity +to examine the actual specimens, which so far as I know are no longer +in existence, I cannot exclude the possibility that the locality +designation "Provo" was used in a general sense to include pocket +gophers taken a few miles to the eastward of Provo, where it is known +that pocket gophers of only the species _Thomomys talpoides_ (current +terminology) occur. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 239, distributed as follows: + _Davis County_: Bountiful, 4,500 ft., 1. _Salt Lake County_: + Salt Lake City and environs, 4,300 ft., 51; 2 mi. W Murray, + 4,300 ft., 6; Riverton, 4,300 ft., 11; Draper, 4,500 ft., 7; + Rose Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, 5,650 ft., 4. _Tooele + County_: Bauer, 4,500 ft., 30; Settlement Creek, Oquirrh + Mountains, 6,500 ft., 1; St. John, 4,300 ft., 28; Clover + Creek, Onaqui Mountains, 5,500 ft., 15; Vernon, 4,300 ft., 2 + (U. S. A. C.); Little Valley, Sheeprock Mountains, 5,500 + ft., 20. _Utah County_: Fairfield, 4,800 ft., 24; Provo, + 4,400 ft., 20 (8, B. Y. U.; 12, M. V. Z.). _Juab County_: + Neff Farm, 4 mi. N Nephi, 5,000 ft., 2 (1, R. H.); Nephi, + 5,000 ft., 1 (M. V. Z.); 2 mi. S Nephi, 4,700 ft., 14; 7 mi. + SW Nephi, 6,000 ft., 2. + + +=Thomomys bottae bonnevillei= new subspecies + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 3576, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Fish Springs, 4,400 ft., Juab County, Utah; June 8, +1940; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1955. + +_Range._--Known only from the type locality. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet +small. Color: Entire dorsal surface Warm Buff; sides near (_e_) +Cinnamon Buff, underparts near (16") Pale Pinkish Buff; inguinal +region, front and hind feet and distal part of tail white: top of head, +nose and cheeks grayish black; postauricular patches small and grayish +black; ears small, pointed and with heavily pigmented pinnae. Skull: +Angular, short and wide; nasals of medium length, narrow proximally but +widely flared distally; interparietal small; lambdoidal suture concave +towards the interparietal; zygomatic arches uniformly widely spreading; +interpterygoid space widely V-shaped; extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals long; lambdoidal crest well developed. + +_Comparisons._--From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, +_bonnevillei_ differs as follows: Size smaller, hind foot shorter. +Color: Upper parts and sides lighter; underparts pale buff rather than +"gold." Skull: Shorter and relatively wider; rostrum wider and heavier; +zygomatic arches relatively wider and more massive, with greatest width +posteriorly instead of anteriorly; interpterygoid space widely V-shaped +rather than lyre-shaped; thickening at union of jugal and zygomatic +process of maxilla less developed; anterior palatine foramina larger; +nasals shorter and more markedly flared distally; zygomatic breadth +relatively, and mastoidal breadth actually, wider; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; tympanic bullae more inflated +ventrally; upper incisors wider. + +From near topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, from 1 mile east of +Garrison, Millard County, Utah, _bonnevillei_ differs as follows: Size +smaller; hind foot and tail shorter. Color: Generally darker above and +lighter below; top of head darker; postauricular patches smaller and +lighter. Skull: Shorter and wider (zygomatic breadth expressed in +percent of basilar length being, in males, 74.5 in _bonnevillei_ and +71.5 in _centralis_); interpterygoid space more widely V-shaped; +interparietal smaller, and more triangular; nasals shorter and much +more dilated distally, as well as more constricted proximally; lacrimal +processes smaller and less globuse at tips; temporal fossae larger; +braincase and entire dorsal surface of skull more nearly flat; +lambdoidal suture convex posteriorly as opposed to nearly straight; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally. + +Comparisons of _bonnevillei_ with the type and type series of _Thomomys +bottae wahwahensis_ show them to be of approximately the same size, but +to differ as follows: Color: Slightly darker above and lighter below; +postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Larger in every +measurement taken, except breadth of rostrum which is smaller; skull +not as flat; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; nasals and +rostrum longer; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; +interparietal smaller and more triangular; zygomatic arches more bowed +out laterally; jugals heavier; interpterygoid space more widely +V-shaped; upper incisors less massive. + +The characters that distinguish _bonnevillei_ from _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_ are: Size smaller. Color: Markedly lighter throughout. +Skull: Shorter and wider; mastoid and zygomatic breadths greater; +rostrum narrower but shorter; angle between rostrum and zygomatic +processes of maxillae less; interparietal smaller and more triangular; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; upper incisors +shorter, narrower and more recurved. + +_T. b. bonnevillei_ is indistinguishable in color from _Thomomys bottae +convexus_, but differs from it in the following features: Size larger +in nearly every measurement taken. Skull: Flattened dorsally as opposed +to convex; zygomatic arches longer and weaker; jugals more nearly +perpendicular; tympanic bullae larger; upper incisors longer; alveolar +length of upper molar series the same, but molars narrower; rostrum +longer but nasals shorter; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +greater. + +Topotypes of _bonnevillei_ can be distinguished from those of both +_Thomomys bottae tivius_ and _stansburyi_ by being larger in every +measurement taken, by markedly lighter color throughout, and by ridged, +massive, angular skulls rather than smooth, weak, nonangular skulls. + +The races closest geographically to _bonnevillei_ are _Thomomys bottae +robustus_ and _T. b. sevieri_. Compared with topotypes of _robustus_, +_bonnevillei_ differs in: Size larger. Color: Lighter throughout. +Skull: Larger, although not as compact; zygomatic arches more widely +spreading; jugals lighter; lacrimal processes not as prominent; +zygomatic processes of maxillae not as robust; nasals more flared +distally; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; +alveolar length of upper molar series longer; molars larger; upper +incisors longer, wider and darker in color; when placed ventral side +down on a surface, the dorsal face of a skull of _robustus_ is +approximately parallel to the surface, whereas one of _bonnevillei_ +dips down in the occipital region. + +_T. b. sevieri_ can be easily distinguished from _bonnevillei_ by being +smaller in every measurement taken, darker in color, and by small, +weak, smooth skulls as opposed to large, robust, ridged skulls. + +_Remarks._--Fish Springs, where _bonnevillei_ occurs is a marshy area +south of the barren, salt-desert country of western Utah. The source of +water is springs at the base of the north end of the Fish Springs +Mountains. Only the moist area supports pocket gophers. Specimens from +Trout Creek, Juab County, twenty-five miles to the southwest are +intergrades between _bonnevillei_ and _aureiventris_, and are referred +to the latter subspecies. The country between Fish Springs and Trout +Creek in 1937 and 1940 lacked pocket gophers; it was of the playa and +sand type. Probably _T. b. bonnevillei_ was derived from _T. b. +aureiventris_, a western mainland form of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville, +through isolation and subsequent differentiation morphologically. The +moist soils at Cane Springs, seven miles south of Fish Springs, had no +pocket gophers when visited in 1940. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 11, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae centralis= Hall + + _Thomomys perpallidus centralis_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zoöl., 32:445, July 8, 1930. + + _Thomomys bottae centralis_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Hall and Johnson, + Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. Arts and Letters, 15:121, 1938. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 41688, Museum of Vertebrate +Zoölogy, University of California; 2-1/2 mi. E Baker (1-1/4 mi. W +Nevada-Utah boundary on 39th parallel), 5,700 ft., White Pine County, +Nevada; May 30, 1929; collected by E. Raymond Hall; original number +2683. + +_Range._--Extreme western Utah, in Millard, Beaver and Iron counties. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); tail long; claws on front +feet long. Color: Near Cinnamon Buff on upper parts, darker in +middorsal region, grading to Pinkish Buff on underparts, more +accentuated in pectoral and inguinal regions; nose, cheeks and +postauricular patches grayish black; front and hind feet and distal +half of tail white. Skull: Robust and moderately ridged; zygomatic +breadth about the same for entire length of arches; jugals vertical +posterior to middle; moderate thickening present at region of +maxillo-jugal suture; interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; dorsal +frontomaxillary sutures convex medially; lacrimal processes globose and +well developed; nasals long and with distal denticulations; +paroccipital processes well developed. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_, _centralis_ differs as follows: Size larger; tail +longer; claws on front feet longer. Color: Lighter throughout, Cinnamon +Buff as opposed to near (13''''_n_) Black. Skull: Basilar length and +length of nasals greater; zygomatic breadth less; zygomatic arches +thicker at region of maxillo-jugal sutures; interpterygoid space more +broadly V-shaped; dorsal frontomaxillary sutures convex medially as +opposed to straight; paroccipital processes more developed; zygomatic +arches approximately the same width throughout as opposed to widest +posteriorly. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_ see account of that +form. + +_T. b. centralis_ can be distinguished from _Thomomys bottae +bonnevillei_, _robustus_, _sevieri_ and _convexus_ by larger size +throughout and generally darker color (see accounts of those forms). +From _Thomomys bottae stansburyi_ and _tivius_, _centralis_ differs in +larger size throughout and lighter color (see accounts of those forms). + +_Remarks._--_Thomomys bottae centralis_ has one of the most extensive +ranges of any of the known races of _T. bottae_. The eastern limits +extend into extreme western Utah. Specimens from Utah for the most part +are intergrades between _centralis_ and _aureiventris_, the race to the +north. Some minor intergradation is also noted between _centralis_ and +_sevieri_ and _bonnevillei_, the races to the east. Intergradation is +the expected condition because the animals belonging to _centralis_ are +at the extremes of their range in this area. The greater affinities of +these animals with _aureiventris_ is to be expected because both +_aureiventris_ and _centralis_ are forms of the western mainland of the +Pleistocene Lake Bonneville; while the races to the east, although +closest geographically, were isolated from the gophers of the western +mainland during prehistoric times by this lake. They are still isolated +and enough time has elapsed so that only vestiges of morphological +intergradation exist between _centralis_ and these eastern forms. Two +specimens from Cedar City, Iron County, are intergrades between +_Thomomys bottae wahwahensis_, _centralis_ and _planirostris_. Their +skulls are slightly convex as in _planirostris_, and the rostrum is +short and wide as in _wahwahensis_. In shape of the zygomatic arches, +length of the nasals, and color, they resemble _centralis_ to which +they are here referred. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 49, distributed as follows: + _Millard County_: 1 mi. SE Gandy, 5,000 ft., 15 (M. V. Z.); + White Valley (Tule Spring), 60 mi. W Delta, 4, (3 in R. W. + Fautin Vertebrate Collection); Robison Ranch, 5,300 ft., (on + Hendry Creek) Simonsons Ranch, 4,596 ft., 2 (M. V. Z.); 1 + mi. E Garrison, 5,000 ft., 21; 5 mi. S Garrison, 5,400 ft., + 5 (M. V. Z.). _Iron County_: Cedar City, 2 (M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys bottae sevieri= new subspecies + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 2530, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Swasey Spring, House Mountains, 6,500 ft., Millard +County, Utah; May 16, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number +1380. + +_Range._--Known only from the type locality. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet short +and weak; ears short; tail relatively long. Color: Upper parts Pinkish +Buff, grading over sides to Pale Pinkish Buff on underparts; nose, top +of head, chin and cheeks grayish black; postauricular patches small and +grayish black; front and hind feet and distal two-thirds of tail white. +Skull: Small, weak and smooth; rostrum narrow; nasals narrow, not +markedly flared distally; zygomatic arches weak, not angular, and of +"graceful" contour; lacrimal processes small; characteristic dorsal +depression present in region of sagitto-coronal suture; mastoid and +zygomatic breadths narrow; occiput narrow and high; braincase well +inflated; paroccipital processes small and smooth; interpterygoid space +narrowly V-shaped; tympanic bullae small, but well inflated ventrally; +alveolar length of upper molar series short; molars small; upper +incisors short, but narrow. + +_Comparisons._--From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, +_sevieri_ differs as follows: Size smaller. Color: Lighter throughout, +no "gold" on underparts. Skull: Much smaller in every measurement +taken, less massive and not angular; zygomatic arches weaker and widest +posteriorly rather than anteriorly; union of jugal and zygomatic +process of maxilla not greatly thickened; interpterygoid space narrowly +V-shaped rather than lyre-shaped; pterygoid hamulae shorter and weaker; +tympanic bullae smaller, but markedly more inflated ventrally; +dentition smaller and weaker. + +From near topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, _sevieri_ can be +distinguished by the following features: Size markedly smaller. Color: +Lighter throughout. Skull: Markedly smaller in every measurement taken, +weaker and smoother; zygomatic arches weaker, less angular and more +"graceful"; rostrum shorter, but narrower; lacrimal processes smaller; +tympanic bullae smaller, but more inflated ventrally, being triangular +in shape as opposed to ovate and with anteromedial margin decidedly +pointed; pterygoid hamulae smaller and weaker; dentition smaller and +weaker. + +_T. b. sevieri_ can readily be distinguished from _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_ by the following features: Size smaller in every +measurement taken. Color: Markedly lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller, +and weaker; rostrum shorter and narrower; ascending processes of +premaxillae narrower; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +shorter; posterior tongues of premaxillae narrower; dentition much +lighter. + +Comparisons of _sevieri_ with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +wahwahensis_ show them to be of approximately the same size, but to +differ as follows: Hind foot longer; ear shorter. Color: Slightly +darker. Skull: Smaller, weaker, less ridged; zygomatic breadth less; +zygomatic arches markedly less angular; mastoid breadth less; rostrum +much longer and narrower, not as blunt nor flattened; tympanic bullae +much larger and more inflated ventrally; braincase vaulted as opposed +to flattened. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae bonnevillei_, _sevieri_ differs in: +Size smaller throughout. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken, +weaker, smoother and less angular; dentition smaller and weaker. + +Topotypes of _sevieri_ are easily distinguished from those of _Thomomys +bottae robustus_ by smaller size, and smaller, markedly weaker skull +which is less angular and ridged. + +Among named races of _Thomomys bottae_, _sevieri_ is closest +geographically to _convexus_, but differs from it as follows: Size +larger; hind foot longer. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; +nasals shorter and not so flaring distally; rostrum weaker, narrower +and not so depressed; zygomatic arches markedly weaker and less +angular; lacrimal processes smaller; supraoccipital narrower and +higher; paroccipital processes weaker; tympanic bullae smaller; +dentition markedly weaker. + +Topotypical specimens of _sevieri_ can be readily distinguished from +those of _Thomomys bottae tivius_ by Pinkish Buff instead of Mummy +Brown on upper parts. Tympanic bullae larger and markedly more +inflated; nasals longer; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths greater; +rostrum longer and more depressed; upper incisors longer and wider; +molariform teeth smaller. The skulls of _sevieri_ resemble those of +_tivius_ more closely than those of any other subspecies. + +_Remarks._--The House Mountains in western Millard County are +surrounded by desertlike terrain that is seemingly unsuited to pocket +gophers. In these mountains, gophers were sought in vain at several +localities, including Antelope Springs which superficially appeared +suitable for the animals. Pocket gophers were found only at the type +locality, Swasey Spring, which is well above the highest level of the +Pleistocene Lake Bonneville. _T. b. sevieri_, like _T. b. minimus_ on +Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake, appears to remain only on land that +was an island when Lake Bonneville was at its highest level. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 10, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae convexus= Durrant + + _Thomomys bottae convexus_ Durrant, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 52:159, October 11, 1939. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 2482, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; E side Clear Lake, 4,600 ft., Millard County, Utah; +May 20, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1401. + +_Range._--Westcentral Utah in Delta Valley. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts and +sides Pinkish Buff, purest on sides; underparts Pale Pinkish Cinnamon; +inguinal and pectoral regions Pale Pinkish Buff; nearly all specimens +have white on perineal region; nose grayish black; front feet, hind +feet and distal third to half of tail white; postauricular patches +black. Skull: Braincase moderately convex on dorsal surface; rostrum +strongly depressed, giving the entire dorsal surface of the skull a +"rocker-shape"; zygomatic arches heavy, short and widely spreading, +widest posteriorly; upper incisors recurved, short and wide; molariform +teeth large; alveolar length of upper molar series long; palatal pits +deep; tympanic bullae moderately inflated ventrally; mastoidal breadth +actually as well as relatively wide. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +wahwahensis_, _convexus_ is of approximately the same color, but +differs as follows: Size smaller; tail, hind foot, and ear shorter. +Skull: Rostrum longer, narrower and more depressed; skull convex rather +than flat; nasals longer, and convex rather than flat; tympanic bullae +larger; zygomatic arches shorter and more massive; molariform teeth +larger. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, _convexus_ differs in: +Size smaller; tail and hind foot shorter. Color: Uniformly lighter, +more white in perineal region. Skull: Smaller, more convex; rostrum +shorter, wider and more depressed; zygomatic arches shorter and +heavier; mastoidal breadth actually, as well as relatively wider; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; upper incisors shorter and +wider. + +Comparatively, topotypes of _convexus_ can be distinguished from those +of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_ by: Size smaller; tail and hind foot +shorter. Color: Darker on upper parts; no "gold" on underparts. Skull: +Smaller and more nearly flat; rostrum shorter and more depressed; +zygomatic arches shorter, heavier and widest posteriorly rather than +anteriorly; interpterygoid space V-shaped as opposed to lyre-shaped; +upper incisors shorter, narrower and more recurved. + +Topotypical specimens of _convexus_ differ from those of _Thomomys +bottae nesophilus_ as follows: Size smaller; tail and hind foot +shorter. Color: Uniformly lighter throughout, Cinnamon Buff as opposed +to Pinkish Buff. Skull: Smaller; rostrum heavier, shorter and more +depressed; zygomatic arches shorter, heavier and not so widely +spreading; no widening of supraoccipital as in _nesophilus_; upper +incisors shorter and more recurved. + +When compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_, +_convexus_ shows the following differences: Size smaller; tail and +hind foot shorter. Color: Markedly lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller, +more convex and compact; rostrum shorter, heavier, more depressed and +compact; zygomatic arches shorter and more robust; upper incisors +shorter and more recurved. + +_Thomomys bottae tivius_ is the race closest geographically to +_convexus_. From it, _convexus_ can be readily distinguished by: Size +larger; tail shorter; hind foot longer. Color: Markedly lighter +throughout. Skull: Much heavier and more compact, weights of skulls of +males and females of the two subspecies being 2.4 grs., 1.6; 1.6, 1.2, +respectively; rostrum heavier, wider and more depressed; zygomatic +arches shorter, and more massive; upper incisors shorter, wider and +more recurved; molariform teeth larger. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae lenis_, _contractus_, _sevieri_, +_bonnevillei_, and _robustus_ see accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--_T. b. convexus_ is limited to the area around Clear Lake +in Millard County. This lake is surrounded by areas of loose, shifting +sand and flat areas of barren alkali. The lake is fed by springs which +flow from lava outcroppings on its eastern side. As far as discernible, +the only area populated by pocket gophers (1938) was that adjacent to +the lake where vegetation had trapped the sand. The factor which limits +the extension of range of this subspecies probably is plant food. Also, +the soil is mechanically poor for burrowing, since it caves in easily +and burrows were found only in the sand where salt grass (_Distichlis +stricta_) had trapped and stabilized it. Burrows were found from the +edge of the water back as far as this grass persisted. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 17, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae tivius= Durrant + + _Thomomys bottae tivius_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 (No. + 4):5, August 18, 1937. + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 1827, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Oak Creek Canyon, 6 mi. E Oak City, 6,000 ft., +Millard County, Utah; September 14, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; +original number 1100. + +_Range._--Limited to the Cañon Mountains, Millard County. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Mummy +Brown, grading through Cinnamon on the sides to Pale Cinnamon on the +underparts; cheeks Cinnamon; postauricular patches black; distal third +to half of tail white. Skull: Small, weak; zygomatic arches weak, not +widely spreading, widest posteriorly; tympanic bullae large; +interpterygoid space V-shaped; nasals short, usually simple distally, +but with some denticulations in some specimens; palatal pits deep; +palate narrow; paroccipital processes small; incisors, both upper and +lower, narrow; molariform teeth small. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _tivius_ differ from those of _Thomomys +bottae albicaudatus_ as follows: Size markedly smaller in every +measurement taken. Color: Lighter, Mummy Brown as opposed to near +(13''''_n_) Black. Skull: Smaller, slenderer and weaker; zygomatic +arches weak and not widely spreading as opposed to massive and wide +spreading; nasals and rostrum narrower and shorter; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals shorter; tympanic bullae smaller; +molariform teeth smaller. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae stansburyi_ and _T. b. +contractus_ see accounts of those forms. + +The four subspecies _tivius_, _albicaudatus_, _stansburyi_, and +_contractus_ are the darkest in color of all the _Thomomys bottae_ +occurring within the state. + +_Remarks._--This small, dark subspecies is limited to the Cañon +Mountains in eastern Millard County. Apparently it is a mountain +derivative of _Thomomys bottae contractus_ which occurs in the valleys +to the east and west of these mountains. Intergradation is noted with +animals from the valleys on either side. For further comments on +distributional problems of this type see remarks under _Thomomys bottae +stansburyi_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 12, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae contractus= new subspecies + + _Thomomys perpallidus albicaudatus_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zoöl., 37:3, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_ Durrant. Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 + (No. 4):4, August 18, 1937. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1851, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Scipio, 5,315 ft., Millard County, Utah; September +17, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1125. + +_Range._--Extreme eastern Millard and Beaver counties, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, mixed with black giving a color of Dresden Brown; sides +between Cinnamon Buff and Pinkish Buff; underparts Pinkish Buff, purest +on inguinal and pectoral regions; postauricular patches medium in size +and black; ears covered with black hairs; nose, chin, cheeks and top of +head dusky; front feet, hind feet and distal third to half of tail +white; proximal part of tail covered all around with buff-colored +hairs. Skull: Long, slender, moderately ridged and convex transversally +at proximal ends of nasals; nasals long; rostrum long and narrow; +posterior ends of nasals truncate or shallowly emarginate; ascending +processes of premaxillae slender; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals long; zygomatic arches neither robust nor widely spreading; +interparietal subquadrangular; supraoccipital extending horizontally +well behind lambdoidal suture instead of dropping off abruptly to the +foramen magnum; interpterygoid space moderately V-shaped in some +specimens, but somewhat lyre-shaped in others; tympanic bullae large +and truncate anteriorly; upper incisors long and narrow; molariform +teeth small and light. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_, _contractus_ differs as follows: Tail longer. Color: +Lighter throughout. Skull: Slenderer, less ridged and angular; rostrum +narrower; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths less; ascending processes of +premaxillae narrower; posterior tongues of premaxillae narrower; +posterior ends of nasals less truncate; zygomatic arches weaker, less +angular, and less widely spreading posteriorly; interparietal larger; +paroccipital processes weaker; interpterygoid space not as widely +V-shaped; upper incisors longer and narrower; molariform teeth smaller. + +Topotypes of _contractus_ can be distinguished from those of _Thomomys +bottae convexus_ by the following: Size larger, tail longer; hind foot +larger. Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Longer, narrower, and not as +massive; top of skull moderately, as opposed to strongly, convex; +nasals arched rather than straight; zygomatic arches neither as widely +spreading, angular nor massive; space enclosed within zygomatic arches +longer; interparietal larger; interpterygoid space more narrowly +V-shaped; upper incisors longer and narrower; molariform teeth much +lighter. + +Comparisons of topotypes of _contractus_ with near topotypes of +_Thomomys bottae centralis_ show them to be approximately the same +size, but to differ as follows: Color: Darker throughout. Skull: +Shorter and slenderer; rostrum narrower; region between posterior +tongues of premaxillae narrower and more convex transversally; nasals +more truncate; zygomatic breadth less, but arches relatively more +widely spreading posteriorly; interparietal larger; interpterygoid +space generally narrower; upper incisors longer and narrower; +molariform teeth smaller. + +Topotypes of _contractus_ differ from those of _Thomomys bottae +aureiventris_ as follows: Size smaller; tail longer; hind foot shorter. +Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Shorter but slenderer; rostrum +narrower; nasals shorter but slenderer, and more truncate posteriorly; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals longer; zygomatic arches +weaker and less angular; zygomatic processes of maxillae weaker and +with no marked thickenings at union of maxilla and jugals; +interparietal larger; interpterygoid space more generally V-shaped; +upper incisors longer and narrower; molariform teeth smaller. + +Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae planirostris_, _contractus_ +differs in: Size smaller throughout. Color: Darker, more black and less +Cinnamon in pelage. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; rostrum +narrower; nasals arched instead of flat; zygomatic arches neither +angular, massive nor widely spreading; upper incisors narrower; +molariform teeth markedly smaller and weaker. + +Topotypes of _contractus_ differ from those of _Thomomys bottae +levidensis_ in larger size, darker color and longer, slenderer skulls. + +Among named races of _T. bottae_, _contractus_ is closest +morphologically to _tivius_. It differs from it as follows: Size larger +throughout. Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: The same general shape +and proportions, but larger in every measurement taken; rostrum longer +and narrower; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals longer; +posterior tongues of premaxillae narrower. + +_Remarks._--Fifteen animals from Oak City are intergrades between +_contractus_ and _tivius_. Intergradation with _lenis_ is also shown in +some specimens by the widely spreading zygomatic arches. In the +majority of characters including the diagnostic long, slender, narrow +rostrum they are more like _contractus_ to which they are here +referred. + +Nine animals from Beaver were considered by Hall (1931:3) and Durrant +(1937:4) to be intergrades between _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_ and +_Thomomys bottae centralis_. Restudy of these specimens in the light of +additional material now shows them to be intergrades between _T. b. +centralis_, _T. b. planirostris_ and _T. b. contractus_. The majority +of these animals are intermediate in color between _centralis_ and +_contractus_, but a few have the reddish cast of _planirostris_. The +shape of the nasals is characteristic of _planirostris_, while the +zygomatic arches are as in _centralis_. In the remainder of the +diagnostic characters they are like _contractus_ to which they are here +referred. + +Strong affinities exist between _albicaudatus_, _tivius_ and +_contractus_. All three of these races probably stemmed from a dark +form which formerly inhabited the eastern mainland of the Pleistocene +Lake Bonneville. At present, _tivius_ is isolated on the Cañon +Mountains in eastern Millard County, while the range of _albicaudatus_ +and _contractus_ have been separated by that of _lenis_. _T. b. lenis_ +has the majority of its affinities with _aureiventris_ which is an +inhabitant of the western mainland of this ancient lake. An +understanding of the history of the Sevier River Valley will probably +clarify this distribution of pocket gophers. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 39, distributed as follows: + _Millard County_: Oak City, 5,000 ft., 15; Scipio, 5,315 + ft., 15. _Beaver County_: Beaver, 6,000 ft., 9 (M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys bottae lenis= Goldman + + _Thomomys townsendii lenis_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 55:75, June 25, 1942. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Moore, Journ. Mamm., 10:259; + November 11, 1931. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 264805, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Richfield, 5,308 ft., Sevier County, +Utah; March 11, 1928; collected by A. W. Moore; X-catalogue number +28835 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--Sevier River Valley from Piute County north to southwestern +Juab and northeastern Millard counties, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size large (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff mixed with black in middorsal region; sides, flanks, +forearms, thighs and underparts Pinkish Buff; inguinal region, front +feet, hind feet, underpart of tail and end of tail white; postauricular +patches small and dusky; chin, cheeks, nose and top of head dusky. +Skull: Largest of Utah gophers, massive and angular; nasals long and +denticulate distally; rostrum long and relatively narrow; zygomatic +arches widely spreading and heavy throughout; jugals nearly vertical; +zygomatic processes of maxillae heavy and flaring out abruptly from +base of rostrum; union of zygomatic process of maxilla and jugal +greatly thickened; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals long; +posterior tongues of premaxillae relatively narrow; lacrimal processes +small; pterygoid hamulae long; interpterygoid space moderately +V-shaped, tending to be somewhat lyre-shaped in some specimens; +tympanic bullae somewhat flattened, only moderately inflated ventrally; +upper incisors long and narrow; molariform teeth actually large, but +relatively small. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _lenis_ can be distinguished from those of +_Thomomys bottae tivius_, _convexus_, _contractus_, _albicaudatus_, +_levidensis_, _centralis_ and _aureiventris_ by the following markedly +greater average measurements of males: Total length, 250 mm.; length of +nasals, 15.5; zygomatic breadth, 28.3; mastoid breadth, 22.5; and +length of rostrum, 18.3. Other distinguishing characters are: Zygomatic +arches more widely spreading; length of zygomatic processes of maxillae +greater; and relatively longer, narrower rostrum. + +_Remarks._--Twenty-one animals obtained from Lynndyl, Millard County, +are all intergrades between _lenis_ and _aureiventris_. They are like +_aureiventris_ in the shape of the zygomatic arches, and in the bowing +of the parietal crests. Slight intergradation with _centralis_ is +indicated by color and the shape of the nasals. The transverse arching +of the posterior part of the rostrum is indicative of some relationship +with _contractus_. In six other characters studied they most closely +approach _lenis_ to which they are here referred. + +Large size is the distinctive feature of _Thomomys bottae lenis_. The +skulls are the largest of any species or subspecies of _Thomomys_ found +in Utah. In total length, however, these animals are no longer than the +extremes found in other named races. When Goldman (1942:75) described +this race as new, he referred it to the species _Thomomys townsendii_, +but remarked that the animal from Richfield was different enough from +any other form then named to merit probably full specific status. I +know of no character other than size to separate _Thomomys townsendii_ +from _Thomomys bottae_, and since intergradation has been shown to +exist between these alleged _townsendii_ from Richfield and animals +from extreme western Utah known to belong to the species _bottae_, +_lenis_ is here arranged as a subspecies of _Thomomys bottae_ which +name has priority over _Geomys townsendii_. + +The range here ascribed to this race is the Sevier River Valley from +Piute County as far downstream as the town of Lynndyl which is near the +eastern mainland of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville. The Sevier River +continues farther out into Delta Valley ultimately to empty into Sevier +Lake, which at present is adjacent to the area that formerly +constituted the western mainland of the aforementioned ancient lake. +This watercourse may have provided a migration route in ancient times, +during the fluctuations of Lake Bonneville, whereby the animals +formerly of the western mainland were able to come far eastward. The +animals from Lynndyl which are intergrades between _lenis_, an eastern +mainland form, and _centralis_ and _aureiventris_ which are western +mainland forms of Lake Bonneville lend support to this hypothesis. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 26, distributed as follows: + _Millard County_: Lynndyl, 4,796 ft., 21. _Juab County_: U. + B. (= Yuba) Dam, 5,000 ft., 1. _Sevier County_: Salina, + 4,575 ft., 1; Richfield, 5,308 ft., 3. (U. S. N. M.). + + +=Thomomys bottae levidensis= Goldman + + _Thomomys bottae levidensis_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 55:76, June 25, 1942. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 191962, U. S. National Museum +(Merriam Collection); Manti, 5,500 ft., Sanpete County, Utah; December +6, 1888; collected by Vernon Bailey; original number 427 (after +Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--San Pitch River Valley, Sanpete County, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts and +sides Cinnamon Buff, finely mixed with black along median line of back; +underparts Pinkish Buff; nose, cheeks and chin grayish black; +postauricular patches fairly large and grayish black; front and hind +feet white (examples from type series badly stained); tail light buff +but apparently white distally (the color of these specimens has +apparently changed with age). Skull: Small, fairly robust; basilar +length short; zygomatic arches weak, but widely spreading; tympanic +bullae small; nasals short and simple distally; ventral margin of +jugals convex dorsally; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +relatively as well as actually long; posterior tongues of premaxillae +relatively wide. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _levidensis_ differ from those of +_Thomomys bottae absonus_ as follows: Size smaller. Color: Lighter +throughout. Skull: Shorter, weaker and less ridged and angular, but +relatively wider. + +Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_, _levidensis_ +differs as follows: Size smaller in every measurement taken. Color: +Markedly lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; +width relatively greater; skull smooth, weak and nonangular as opposed +to ridged, robust and angular. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae lenis_ and _contractus_ see +accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--The range here ascribed to _levidensis_ is the San Pitch +River Valley, which gradually merges southward into the Sevier River +Valley. The latter valley in this area is inhabited by pocket gophers +that belong to another subspecies, _lenis_. Nephi Valley to the west of +San Pitch River Valley is inhabited by animals belonging to the +subspecies _albicaudatus_. No known specimens show intergradation +between _lenis_ and _levidensis_, but intergradation between _lenis_ +and _albicaudatus_ is noted in the Nephi Valley animals (see account of +_albicaudatus_). Superficially _levidensis_ resembles _absonus_ in size +and color, but the skulls closely resemble those of _albicaudatus_, +except for size in which they are smaller in all measurements. _T. b. +albicaudatus_ is the most variable subspecies of _T. bottae_ occurring +in Utah, and additional material from the Sevier River Valley between +San Pitch River Valley and Nephi Valley may show _levidensis_ to be +only a local variant of the highly variable subspecies, _albicaudatus_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 6, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae osgoodi= Goldman + + _Thomomys perpallidus osgoodi_ Goldman, Journ. Washington + Acad. Sci., 21:424, October 19, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae osgoodi_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156; October 31, 1935. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 158530, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Hanksville, Wayne County, Utah; +October 20, 1908; collected by W. H. Osgood; original number 3701 +(after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--Eastern Utah in the valleys of the drainage of the San +Rafael, Dirty Devil and Price rivers. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts near +(_e_) Pale Ochraceous Buff, definitely yellow in appearance; sides Pale +Ochraceous Buff; entire underparts white, with a wash of Light Buff in +the pectoral and inguinal regions; top of head, nose, cheeks, and chin +dusky; postauricular patches grayish black; front feet, hind feet and +distal part of tail white. Skull: Fairly robust but narrow; zygomatic +arches concave medially in mid-jugal region; skull moderately convex +dorsally, due to swelling in region of base of rostrum; lambdoidal +suture situated well ahead of posterior margin of skull, with +supraoccipital forming a side shelf at posterior part of skull; +interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; tympanic bullae well inflated +ventrally; basioccipital short; nasals rounded posteriorly; molariform +teeth large. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _osgoodi_ differ from those of _Thomomys +bottae absonus_ as follows: Size generally smaller. Color: Lighter +throughout, more yellowish in appearance as opposed to buffy. Skull: +Smaller in all measurements, except length of nasals, mastoid breadth, +and alveolar length of upper molar series which are larger; rostrum +shorter but relatively wider; zygomatic arches more robust and concave +medially; palate wider; supraoccipital more bulging posteriorly; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae aureus_ and _T. b. dissimilis_ +see accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--The animals here referred to _osgoodi_ are remarkably +uniform in color, but vary widely in cranial details. Specimens from +Carbon County are not typical and when more material becomes available +it may prove that these animals from the northern part of the range of +_osgoodi_ will merit separation and naming. The specimens from Emery +County are not typical but resemble _osgoodi_ more than do the animals +from Carbon County. + +The range here ascribed to _osgoodi_ is in that part of the eastern +Utah desert that is bounded on the east by the Green and Colorado +rivers, on the west by the high mountains of central Utah, on the north +by the Book Cliffs and on the south by the Dirty Devil River. This area +is an uninviting wasteland in which there are relatively few roads and +little water. In addition, it is greatly cut up by washes and gullies +which contain water only during a few weeks of the year. The +continuation of this area of wasteland southward beyond the Dirty Devil +River is inhabited by pocket gophers belonging to the subspecies +_absonus_. If specimens were available they would undoubtedly show +intergradation to exist between _osgoodi_ and _absonus_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 14, distributed as follows: + _Carbon County_: 1-2 mi. N Spring Glen, 6,150 ft., 2; Spring + Glen, 6,200 ft., 2; 2 mi. E Spring Glen, 6,200 ft., 1. + _Emery County_: Price River, 2 mi. SE Woodside, 4,600 ft., 2 + (C. M.); Green River, 4,080 ft., 5 (M. V. Z.). _Wayne + County_: Hanksville, 2 (U. S. N. M.). + + +=Thomomys bottae howelli= Goldman + + _Thomomys bottae howelli_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 26:116, March 15, 1936. + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 25684, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); Grand Junction, 4,600 ft., Mesa +County, Colorado; November 7, 1895; collected by A. H. Howell; original +number 493 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--In the valleys of eastern Utah, east of the Green River and +north of the Colorado River. + +_Diagnosis and Comparisons._--Inasmuch as there is but one specimen, +the holotype known, and as it was impossible to study it, the following +diagnoses and comparisons are from Goldman, (1936:116). + +"_General characters._--A rather large, pallid subspecies with a broad, +flattened cranium. Similar to the palest specimens of _Thomomys bottae +aureus_ of the San Juan River Valley, southeastern Utah, in color, but +underparts more thinly overlaid with buffy white, and cranial +characters, especially the broad, flat braincase, distinctive. +Approaching _Thomomys bottae osgoodi_ of the Fremont River Valley, +Utah, in color, but much larger and skull widely different. + +"_Color._--Type (winter pelage): Upper parts in general between tilleul +buff and pale olive buff (Ridgway 1912), somewhat darkened on head by a +mixture of cinnamon buff and brown; a few inconspicuous dusky-tipped +hairs along median line of back; muzzle dusky; ears and postauricular +spots deep, contrasting black; underparts thinly overlaid with buffy +white, the hairs becoming pure white to roots on inguinal region; +thighs pure white to roots all around; feet white; tail buffy whitish, +slightly paler below than above. + +"_Skull._--Similar in general to that of _T. b. aureus_, but braincase +conspicuously broader and flatter; zygomata more widely spreading; +nasals shorter; premaxillae more attenuate posteriorly; interparietal +larger; audital bullae more rounded and fully inflated anteriorly; +incisors short, as in _aureus_, but less strongly recurved. Compared +with that of _T. b. osgoodi_ the skull is much larger, with flatter +braincase, shorter nasals, and posteriorly narrower premaxillae." + +_Remarks._--Six specimens, in the Carnegie Museum from 10 miles north +of Moab, Grand County, Utah, were available for this study. They are +not typical of _howelli_ as it is diagnosed by Goldman (_loc. cit._). +They appear to be intergrades between _howelli_ and _osgoodi_ in +cranial characters, but more closely resemble _howelli_, particularly +in the flat, widened, low braincase. In color, some specimens seem to +intergrade toward _aureus_. + +The range ascribed to this form in Utah appears to be one of the most +natural ones within the state since it is bounded by the Green and +Colorado rivers which have formed deep rocky gorges in this region. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 6, as follows: _Grand County_: + 10 mi. N Moab, 6 (C. M.). + + +=Thomomys bottae wahwahensis= Durrant + + _Thomomys bottae wahwahensis_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 + (No. 4):4, August 18, 1937. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1750, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah, Wah Wah Springs, 30 mi. W Milford, 6,500 ft., +Beaver County, Utah; July 22, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; +original number 989. + +_Range._--Westcentral Utah, in Wah Wah Mountains, and Pine Valley to +the west of these mountains. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Pinkish Buff; underparts Pale Pinkish Buff with considerable admixture +of gray; inguinal and pectoral regions Pale Pinkish Buff; nose and +cheeks grayish black; postauricular patches small and black; front +feet, hind feet and distal one-third to one-half of tail white. Skull: +Flat dorsoventrally; rostrum short and wide; premaxillae broad and +heavy; nasals short and straight, with no arching as viewed laterally; +tympanic bullae small; space enclosed within zygomatic arches short +antero-posteriorly; alveolar length of upper molar series short; +molariform teeth small. + +_Comparisons._--From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, +_wahwahensis_ differs as follows: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Lighter, Pinkish Buff as opposed to Cinnamon Buff. Skull: +Rostrum wider, shorter and more nearly flat; nasals straight as opposed +to moderately convex; tympanic bullae smaller and less inflated +ventrally; zygomatic arches more widely spreading and angular; +molariform teeth smaller; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +less. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_, _wahwahensis_ differs +as follows: Hind foot shorter. Color: Lighter throughout, Pinkish Buff +as opposed to (13''''_n_) Black. Skull: Smaller and more nearly flat; +rostrum shorter, wider and more nearly flat; nasals straight as opposed +to convex; zygomatic breadth less but mastoid breadth greater; tympanic +bullae smaller, and less inflated ventrally; extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals less; molariform teeth smaller. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, _wahwahensis_ differs +in the following features: Size smaller; hind foot shorter. Color: +Lighter throughout, no "gold" on underparts. Skull: Smaller in nearly +every measurement taken; rostrum shorter and relatively wider; +zygomatic arches more angular and relatively more widely spreading; +nasals shorter and more nearly flat; thickening at union of jugal and +zygomatic process of maxilla less; interpterygoid space V-shaped as +opposed to lyre-shaped; tympanic bullae much smaller, and less inflated +ventrally; molariform teeth much smaller. + +Topotypes of _wahwahensis_ can be easily distinguished from those of +_Thomomys bottae tivius_ by their markedly larger size in every +measurement taken, lighter color, and larger, more robust and more +nearly flat skull. + +For comparisons of _wahwahensis_ with _Thomomys bottae sevieri_, +_robustus_, _bonnevillei_ and _convexus_ see comparisons under those +forms. + +Among the named races of _Thomomys bottae_, _wahwahensis_ definitely +has its affinities with _planirostris_ from Zion National Park. Both +possess flat skulls with wide, short rostra. It differs from the latter +in: Size smaller in every measurement taken. Color: Lighter throughout. +Skulls: Nasals and rostrum shorter and more nearly flat; tympanic +bullae markedly smaller; alveolar length of upper molar series shorter; +molariform teeth markedly smaller and weaker. + +_Remarks._--Wah Wah Springs, the type locality of _wahwahensis_, are on +the summit of a low pass in the Wah Wah Mountains in the desert of west +central Utah. The surrounding valleys, for many miles, as far as my +investigations show, are not inhabited by pocket gophers, except the +Desert Range Experiment Station of the United States Forest Service in +Pine Valley to the west of these mountains. There, pocket gophers were +obtained which are intergrades between _centralis_ and _wahwahensis_. +In five out of seven characters investigated these gophers resemble +_wahwahensis_, to which they are here referred. Study of the topography +reveals the probable means by which the animals reached this valley. +The long axis of the Wah Wah Mountains is north and south, but a +westward arm forms the northern boundary of Pine Valley. Around springs +in this westward projecting arm workings of pocket gophers were found. +With the development of water at the Desert Range Experiment Station, +and subsequent improvement of forage, these animals probably came down +into the valley from the springs to the north. + +The terrain between the Desert Range Experiment Station in Pine Valley +and Snake Creek (where _centralis_ occurs) to the west is not inhabited +by pocket gophers at present. This area, however, forms part of the +southwest mainland of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville, which mainland in +times past was probably suitable for pocket gophers. Since the close of +the Pleistocene, aridity has rendered most of it unfit for pocket +gophers, and they remain only in isolated areas where suitable +environments still persist. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 18, distributed as follows: + _Millard County_: Desert Range Experiment Station, United + States Forest Service, Sec. 9, T. 25 S, R. 17 W, Salt Lake + Base Meridian, 6. _Beaver County_: Wah Wah Springs, Wah Wah + Mountains, 30 mi. W Milford, 6,500 ft., 12 (2, M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys bottae dissimilis= Goldman + + _Thomomys perpallidus dissimilis_ Goldman, Journ. Washington + Acad. Sci., 21:425, October 19, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae dissimilis_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 158526, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); E slope Mount Ellen, Henry +Mountains, 8,000 ft., Garfield County, Utah; October 15, 1908; +collected by W. H. Osgood; original number 3677 (after Goldman, type +not seen). + +_Range._--Known only from the type locality. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Light +Buff, grading over sides to nearly white on underparts; underparts +lightly washed with Pale Buff, more marked in inguinal and pectoral +regions; postauricular patches grayish black; nose, chin, cheeks and +top of head dusky; front feet, hind feet and distal half of tail white. +Skull: Small and weak; zygomatic arches long, but lying close to skull, +giving it a slender appearance; supraoccipital markedly projecting +posteriorly from lambdoidal suture; rostrum relatively long and narrow; +nasals long; tympanic bullae well inflated ventrally, with a median +ventral ridge; pterygoid hamulae weak; interpterygoid space narrowly +V-shaped; upper incisors short and light in color; molariform teeth +relatively large. + +_Comparisons._--Comparison of one topotype of _dissimilis_ with +topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureus_ shows it to differ as follows: +Size smaller throughout. Color: Lighter dorsally and on sides, pale +buff as contrasted with rich ochraceous; underparts more buffy. Skull: +Smaller in every measurement taken; zygomatic arches markedly less +widely spreading; braincase narrower and more vaulted; tympanic bullae +with a median ventral ridge as opposed to smooth; pterygoid hamulae +slenderer; interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped as opposed to +U-shaped; upper incisors smaller and lighter in color. + +Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae absonus_, _dissimilis_ +differs in the following features: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller in every measurement +taken, except alveolar length of upper molar series which is greater; +skull narrower and weaker; zygomatic arches weaker and less widely +spreading; tympanic bullae more ridged on ventral surface and shorter +(more rounded) in antero-posterior measurement; upper incisors shorter +and narrower; molariform teeth larger. + +_Thomomys bottae dissimilis_ resembles _T. b. osgoodi_ more than any +other subspecies but differs in: Size smaller throughout. Color: +Slightly darker dorsally. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken, +and slenderer; rostrum relatively longer; zygomatic arches weaker, and +less widely spreading, more converging anteriorly; tympanic bullae less +rounded, more ridged medioventrally; upper incisors shorter but +narrower; molariform teeth smaller. + +_Remarks._--The Henry Mountains, in eastern Garfield County, are in the +Colorado River drainage. The surrounding country is desertlike and cut +by gullies and washes with sheer escarpments and precipitous draws. The +type locality of _dissimilis_ is possibly in an isolated area. Only +three specimens were available to Goldman when he named _dissimilis_. +He commented on the close resemblance to _osgoodi_ which inhabits the +country to the north. I have examined only one of the three specimens +available to Goldman. Although I can see the characters that he +mentioned, I am not fully convinced that _dissimilis_ is separable from +_osgoodi_. Two specimens from Escalante, Garfield County, are referred +to _absonus_, but they show intergradation with _dissimilis_. + + _Specimens examined._--One (U. S. N. M.) from E slope Mount + Ellen, Henry Mountains, 8,000 ft., Garfield County. + + +=Thomomys bottae aureus= Allen + + _Thomomys aureus_ Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 5:49, + April 28, 1893. + + _Thomomys bottae aureus_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Benson, Univ. + California Publ. Zoöl., 40:450, December 31, 1935. + + _Thomomys fulvus aureus_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 21:417, October 19, 1931; Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 23:464, October 15, 1933. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:74, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--No. 5243/4123. American Museum of Natural History; Bluff City, +San Juan County, Utah; May 12, 1892; collected by Charles P. Rowley +(after Allen, type not seen). + +_Range._--All of San Juan County (except extreme southwestern part) and +Grand County east of the Colorado River. + +_Diagnosis._--Size large (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, lighter on sides; underparts generally white, or if +colored at all with only a faint wash of Light Buff; nose and chin +blackish gray; top of head blackish due to admixture of black hairs; +postauricular patches small and dusky; front feet and hind feet white. +Skull: Long, narrow but massive; zygomatic arches not widely spreading, +but heavy; jugals thick, union of jugals and zygomatic processes of +maxillae thickened; rostrum long but wide; top of rostrum convex in +lateral view; ascending processes of premaxillae wide and heavy; nasals +thin proximally; braincase long and narrow; tympanic bullae well +inflated ventrally; alveolar length of upper molar series long; molars +large; pterygoid hamulae heavy; interpterygoid space U-shaped; palate +arched; upper incisors long and wide. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae osgoodi_, +_aureus_ differs as follows: Size larger in every measurement taken, +except tail which is shorter. Color: Darker throughout except on +ventral surface which is lighter. Skull: Larger, longer and wider; +nasals longer; rostrum wider and longer; zygomatic arches more nearly +straight and heavier; ascending processes of premaxillae wider; +basioccipital longer; interpterygoid space U-shaped as opposed to +V-shaped; tympanic bullae larger; upper incisors longer, wider; molars +larger. + +Topotypical specimens of _aureus_ can be distinguished from those of +_Thomomys bottae dissimilis_ by: Size larger throughout. Color: A +trifle darker on dorsal surface. Skull: Larger in every measurement +taken; zygomatic arches heavier and more nearly straight; tympanic +bullae larger and more inflated ventrally; interpterygoid space +U-shaped as opposed to V-shaped; alveolar length of upper molar series +longer; molars larger; upper incisors longer and wider. + +Topotypes of _aureus_ differ from those of _Thomomys bottae absonus_ as +follows: Size larger in every measurement taken. Color: Darker +dorsally, Light Ochraceous as opposed to Cinnamon Buff; due to +admixture of gray, _absonus_ has more of a grayish cast. Skull: Larger +in every measurement taken, longer, narrower and more compact; +zygomatic arches heavier; ascending processes of premaxillae wider; +jugals heavier; tympanic bullae larger; interpterygoid space U-shaped +rather than V-shaped; upper incisors longer and wider; molars larger. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae planirostris_, _aureus_ can be +distinguished as follows: Size larger; tail shorter. Color: Lighter +throughout. Skull: Larger in every measurement taken except zygomatic +breadth, extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals, and length of +upper molariform series which are less; rostrum longer, wider and more +convex; nasals slightly arched rather than straight; depression absent +rather than present in posterior region of nasals; zygomatic arches not +so widely spreading, but equally heavy. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae alexandrae_, see accounts under +that form. + +_Remarks._--Topotypes of _aureus_ are among the largest pocket gophers +in the state. They are exceeded in total length only by _T. b. lenis_ +and are approached by _T. b. aureiventris_ and _T. b. planirostris_. On +the average they have the longest hind foot, body and ear. The length +of the skull is second only to that of _lenis_ as also is the length +and breadth of the rostrum relative to the basilar length. + +From the time of the original description of _aureus_ in 1893 until +1930, all light colored gophers from Utah were referred to that form. +Barnes (1927:100) gives the range of _aureus_ as extending completely +across southern Utah and on the west and east sides as far north as +central Utah. Since 1930, forms named by E. R. Hall, W. H. Burt, E. A. +Goldman and the writer have restricted the range of _aureus_ in Utah to +that part of the state east of the Colorado River. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 22, as follows: _San Juan + County_: Bluff, 3,300 ft., 22 (15, M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys bottae birdseyei= Goldman + + _Thomomys bottae birdseyei_ Goldman. Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 50:134, September 10, 1937. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male, adult skin and skull, No. 161654. U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Pine Valley Mountains, 5 mi. E Pine +Valley, 8,300 ft., Washington County, Utah; April 10, 1909; collected +by Clarence Birdseye; original number 861 (after Goldman, type not +seen). + +_Range._--High mountains and plateaus of southwestern Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +between Cinnamon and Sayal Brown, finely mixed with black in median +dorsal region, grading over sides and flanks to Cinnamon on underparts; +front feet, hind feet, and distal part of tail white; postauricular +patches, chin, cheeks and top of head grayish black. Skull: Depressed +along median line of frontals and posterior ends of nasals; region of +nasofrontal suture concave ventrally; zygomatic arches heavy and widely +spreading, widest posteriorly; posterior ends of nasals straight, +tending to be somewhat rounded in some specimens; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals moderate; tympanic bullae moderately +inflated ventrally; basioccipital wide; interpterygoid space widely +V-shaped. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _birdseyei_ differ from near topotypes of +_Thomomys bottae virgineus_, from Beaverdam Wash as follows: Size +larger; tail and hind foot longer. Color: Darker throughout, between +Cinnamon and Sayal Brown as opposed to Cinnamon Buff. Skull: Larger in +every measurement taken except extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals, and length and width of rostrum which are less; skull more +depressed in nasofrontal region; zygomatic arches more widely +spreading; zygomatic processes of squamosals shorter; pterygoid hamulae +longer; tympanic bullae smaller and less inflated ventrally. + +Among named races of _T. bottae_, _birdseyei_ most closely resembles +_trumbullensis_ in size, but differs as follows: Hind foot and tail +longer. Color: Lighter throughout; postauricular patches smaller and +lighter. Skull: Larger; mastoid breadth less; zygomatic arches wider +and more widely spreading posteriorly; median frontal depression more +marked; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; tympanic +bullae less inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae planirostris_ see account of that +form. + +_Remarks._--_T. b. birdseyei_ is apparently endemic to the mountainous +area of southwestern Utah in Washington and Iron counties. It +intergrades with _virgineus_ and with _planirostris_ as described in +the account of the latter. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 8, distributed as follows: + _Washington County_: Pine Valley, 1 (U. S. N. M.); Pine + Valley Mountains, 5 mi. E Pine Valley, 8,300 ft., 3 (U. S. + N. M.); Pine Valley campground, 6,800 ft., 1 (R. H.); 3/4 + mi. E town of Pine Valley, 6,500 ft., 3 (R. H.). + + _Additional records._--_Washington County_: Hebron, 1; + Mountain Meadows, 2 (Bailey 1915:75). + + +=Thomomys bottae virgineus= Goldman + + _Thomomys bottae virgineus_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 50:133, September 10, 1937. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 262016, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Beaverdam Creek, near confluence with +Virgin River, Littlefield, 1,500 ft., Mohave County, Arizona; October +16, 1936; collected by Luther C. Goldman; original number 67 (after +Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--Extreme southwestern Utah, in Beaverdam Wash, Washington +County, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, finely mixed with black; sides and flanks Pinkish Buff; +underparts Pale Pinkish Buff; front feet, hind feet, and distal part of +tail white; nose, cheeks, chin and top of head grayish black. Skull: +Robust, with moderately wide zygomatic arches; zygomatic processes of +maxillae wide; zygomatic processes of squamosals long; jugals concave +laterally, giving the zygomatic arches the appearance of double bowing; +nasals long; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals long; +tympanic bullae well inflated ventrally; pterygoid hamulae heavy; +interpterygoid space widely V-shaped; molariform teeth large. + +_Comparisons._--For comparisons of _virgineus_ with _Thomomys bottae +planirostris_ and _T. b. birdseyei_ see accounts under those forms. + +Topotypical specimens of _virgineus_ can be distinguished from those of +_Thomomys bottae trumbullensis_ as follows: Size smaller. Color: +Lighter throughout. Skull: Zygomatic arches less widely spreading; +jugals more bowed medially; zygomatic processes of squamosals longer; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; tympanic bullae +larger and more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger. + +Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, _virgineus_ +differs in: Size smaller; tail shorter; hind foot smaller. Color: +Deeper Cinnamon Buff, thus darker in overall appearance. Skull: +Smaller, but relatively wider; zygomatic processes of maxillae heavier; +region of maxillo-jugal sutures thicker; jugals more concave laterally; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger. + +_Remarks._--This pocket gopher occupies practically the same range in +Utah as the large kangaroo rat _Dipodomys deserti deserti_ Stephens. +Both are found in the Beaverdam Wash. The type locality of _virgineus_ +is but a short distance down the Beaverdam Creek at Littlefield, +Arizona. It intergrades with _birdseyei_, the mountain form to the +north and east (see remarks under _birdseyei_). There are evidences of +intergradation with _planirostris_ of the Virgin River Valley above the +narrows of the Virgin River where it cuts through the Beaverdam +Mountains (see the discussion under _planirostris_). There are +intergradational tendencies exhibited towards _centralis_ in some +specimens. Some of the animals are practically indistinguishable in +color and there are intergrading cranial characters in the nasals, +zygomatic arches and tympanic bullae. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 20, distributed as follows: + _Washington County_: Beaverdam Wash, 8 mi. N Utah-Arizona + border, 7; Beaverdam Wash, 5 mi. N Utah-Arizona border, + 2,600 ft., 13. + + +=Thomomys bottae planirostris= Burt + + _Thomomys perpallidus planirostris_ Burt, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 44:38, May 8, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae planirostris_ Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. + Soc. Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934; Goldman, Proc. + Biol. Soc. Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Presnall, + Zion-Bryce Mus. Bull., 2:14, January, 1938; Long, Journ. + Mamm., 21:176, May 14, 1940. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927; + Woodbury, Ecological Monographs, 3:193, April, 1933. + + _Thomomys bottae centralis_ Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934; Presnall, Zion-Bryce + Mus. Bull., 2:14, January, 1938. + + _Thomomys perpallidus centralis_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zoöl., 23:445, July 8, 1930. + + _Thomomys bottae nicholi_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 28:337, July 15, 1938, type from Shivwits Plateau, 20 + mi. S Wolf Hole (road to Parashonts), 5,000 ft., Mohave + County, Arizona; Hardy, Ecological Monographs, 15:98, + January, 1945. + + _Thomomys bottae trumbullensis_ Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. + Soc. Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 8395, Collection of Donald R. +Dickey; Zion National Park, Washington County, Utah; May 4, 1920; +collected by A. Brazier Howell; original number 2184 (after Burt, type +not seen). + +_Range._--Valley of the Virgin River from Zion National Park west to +the Beaverdam Mountains. + +_Diagnosis._--Size large (see measurements); tail long. Color: Upper +parts Sayal Brown; underparts between Vinaceous Cinnamon and Cinnamon, +grading to Pinkish Cinnamon in some specimens; nose, chin, cheeks, +postauricular patches, and top of head grayish black; front feet and +hind feet white; tail Pinkish Buff, with distal third white. Skull: +Massive and ridged; nasals straight and flat, simple distally; dorsal +surface of rostrum slightly concave at proximal end of nasals; +zygomatic arches widely spreading, widest posteriorly; zygomatic +processes of maxillae heavy; premaxillae broad and extending far beyond +posterior end of nasals; rostrum wide and heavy; palate slightly +arched; pterygoid hamulae heavy; interpterygoid space V-shaped; +tympanic bullae moderately inflated ventrally, somewhat compressed +laterally; upper incisors long and heavy; molariform teeth large. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae birdseyei_, +_planirostris_ differs as follows: Size larger, except total length +which averages slightly less in females. Color: Lighter throughout. +Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; more massive; rostrum wider, +longer and more nearly flat; nasals straight and not inflated dorsally +on distal end; premaxillae wider at posterior ends; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; zygomatic arches heavier, +especially the zygomatic processes of the maxillae; posterior ends of +nasals more nearly truncate as opposed to generally rounded; tympanic +bullae more nearly flat and relatively smaller; upper incisors longer +and heavier; interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; molariform +teeth much heavier. + +Topotypes of _planirostris_ differ from near topotypes of _Thomomys +bottae virgineus_ as follows: Size larger; tail and hind foot longer. +Color: Slightly darker dorsally, but markedly darker ventrally; +postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Larger in every +measurement taken; skull more massive; nasals flat, neither arched nor +swollen distally; rostrum wider; nasofrontal region flattened or +concave as opposed to convex; premaxillae relatively narrower; +zygomatic arches heavier, especially in the processes of the maxillae; +tympanic bullae smaller and less inflated ventrally; interpterygoid +space generally more narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors longer and +heavier; molariform teeth larger. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae trumbullensis_, _planirostris_ +differs in: Size larger throughout; tail longer. Color: Much lighter +throughout. Skull: More convex dorsally; rostrum wider and more +depressed distally; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +greater; zygomatic arches shorter, and not as widely spreading +posteriorly; interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; tympanic +bullae smaller; upper incisors wider and longer; molariform teeth +larger. + +Topotypes of _planirostris_ can be easily distinguished from those of +_Thomomys bottae absonus_ by darker color throughout and markedly +larger size. + +_Remarks._--From the synonomy at the beginning of this account one may +note that the animals here ascribed to this subspecies have had nearly +as many subspecific names applied to them as there have been +investigators who have written about them. Although each of the +previous writers had but a small amount of material upon which to base +his opinion, the diversity of opinion as to subspecific status bespeaks +the instability of these animals. The present study is based upon +eighty animals including additional comparative material. + +All animals from Zion National Park have the characters pointed out by +Burt (1931:38) in his description of this form. Farther down the +Virgin River Valley towards St. George, however, some very perplexing +problems of intergradation are encountered. St. George and environs may +correctly be thought of as a "melting pot." Each of the fifty-seven +animals studied from this region is an intergrade; some specimens +combine the characters of three subspecies. + +As may be seen on the distribution map, three different subspecies of +_Thomomys bottae_ occur in Washington County. Down the river, below St. +George, the race _virgineus_ inhabits the Virgin River Valley below the +narrows of the Beaverdam Mountains. Because these narrows are filled +with water from wall to wall during periods of high runoff, they form +an effective barrier at present to migration of pocket gophers. The +mountains to the north of St. George are inhabited by the dark form, +_birdseyei_. The type locality of _planirostris_ is on the middle +reaches of the Virgin River, in Zion National Park. In addition Mount +Trumbull to the south, in northern Arizona, is the locality of another +subspecies, _trumbullensis_. + +Unquestionably the easiest route of migration into the St. George area +is down the Virgin River from Zion National Park; no barrier to gophers +occurs between the Park and St. George. Although the animals from St. +George are all intergrades, the majority of their affinities as would +be expected are with _planirostris_ from Zion National Park. The river +itself is not an impassable barrier for gophers to the north and south +of it, since this stream frequently changes its course, and often +nearly dries up. The Virgin River Valley in Zion National Park is in +the bottom of a relatively deep, narrow canyon which has sheer rock +escarpments. The upper reaches of the river are inhabited by pocket +gophers of another species, _Thomomys talpoides_. + +Two specimens from St. George, north of the Virgin River, were +identified as _centralis_ by Hall and Davis (1934:52), but were stated +to be intergrades between _centralis_, _trumbullensis_ and +_planirostris_. Goldman (1938:338) referred twelve specimens from St. +George to _nicholi_, but stated that they intergraded with +_planirostris_. Twenty-six other specimens from three miles southwest +of St. George on the west side of Santa Clara Creek, about one-half +mile above its confluence with the Virgin River and on its north side, +like the topotypes of _planirostris_ were taken in May and have +complete, fresh summer pelage. With the exception of two specimens +which show the ventral color of _virgineus_, these animals are +indistinguishable in color from the topotypes of _planirostris_. A +study of eleven measurements of the males of this series yield the +following data: Like _planirostris_ in four measurements, _birdseyei_ +in one, _virgineus_ in one; intergrade between _planirostris_ and +_birdseyei_ in two, _planirostris_ and _virgineus_ in two and +_birdseyei_ and _virgineus_ in one. Corresponding measurements of the +females show the animals to be: Like _planirostris_ in four +measurements, _birdseyei_ in one, _virgineus_ in two; intergrade +between _planirostris_ and _birdseyei_ in two, _planirostris_ and +_virgineus_ in one and _birdseyei_ and _virgineus_ in one. In eight of +eleven measurements the males either are like _planirostris_ or +intergrade towards it, and the females are similarly allied to +_planirostris_ in seven out of eleven measurements. In none of the +measurements was either sex referable to _trumbullensis_. + +Intergradation was noted in still other cranial details. In the heavy, +relatively straight zygomatic arches, a majority of the skulls resemble +those of _planirostris_, although some show the elongated zygomatic +processes of the squamosals that are characteristic of _virgineus_. +Some skulls show a tendency toward _birdseyei_ in the widely spreading +posterior regions of the zygomatic arches. The nasals for the most part +are as in _planirostris_. Intergradation between all three subspecies +is shown in the extension of the premaxillae posterior to the nasals. +Some skulls show the lateral concavity of the jugals which is +characteristic of _virgineus_. The tympanic bullae are variable but on +the average are intermediate between those of _planirostris_ and +_birdseyei_, but more as in the latter. The size of the pterygoid +hamulae is like that of _planirostris_, but the shape of the +interpterygoid space is more like that of _birdseyei_. The size of the +molariform teeth is as in _birdseyei_. The incisors are intermediate +between those of _planirostris_ and _birdseyei_, but more like those of +_birdseyei_. + +Eighteen specimens from St. George and its environs, on the north side +of the Virgin River, agree with the twenty-six specimens just +described, except that they show more evidence of intergradation with +_birdseyei_ in slightly darker color, length of hind foot, length of +nasals and alveolar length of the upper molar series. + +One specimen from three miles south, two from two miles southwest, +another from four miles southeast of St. George, and four immature +animals from Short Creek Road south of the town of Virgin, all on the +south side of the Virgin River, are darker than topotypes of +_planirostris_ and show intergradation with _trumbullensis_ to the +south. In size they are likewise closer to the latter race. They +intergrade with _trumbullensis_ in the size and shape of the zygomatic +arches and tympanic bullae. In the majority of cranial details, +however, they are like _planirostris_ to which they are here referred. + +One specimen, a skin only, from Danish Ranch, 5 miles northwest of +Leeds, north of the Virgin River is an intergrade in size and color +between _birdseyei_ and _planirostris_, but referable to the latter. + +Three specimens from the East Entrance, and three from near the east +entrance to Zion National Park are much darker than topotypes of +_planirostris_. All of these animals are in worn pelage, thus allowing +a great amount of the black underfur to show, which gives a markedly +darker color. The unworn hair is only slightly darker than that of the +topotypes. The cranial details prove these animals to be intergrades +between _planirostris_ and _trumbullensis_. They resemble +_trumbullensis_ in size of tympanic bullae, extension of the +premaxillae posterior to the nasals and shape of the nasals. The +majority of the cranial details are as in _planirostris_ to which they +are here referred. + +When Goldman (1938:337) named _Thomomys bottae nicholi_ from northern +Arizona he referred twelve specimens from St. George, Washington +County, Utah, to his newly named race. He noted that the animals from +this region intergrade with _planirostris_. I have had occasion to +study one-fourth of the material available to Goldman for his original +description of _nicholi_. For his specimens listed as from St. George, +the exact locality of capture, which is so essential in this +distributional study, was not given. All of the specimens that I have +seen from the Biological Surveys Collection are from the south side of +the Virgin River, while St. George itself is on the north side. As +noted earlier in this account there are differences between the gophers +from the two sides of the Virgin River in this area. Those from the +north side are intergrades between _birdseyei_, _planirostris_ and +_virgineus_, while those from the south side are intergrades between +_planirostris_ and _trumbullensis_. + +Goldman (_loc. cit._) mentioned several times that the skulls of +nicholi were nearly indistinguishable from, or closely resembled those +of, _trumbullensis_. Color was the only truly diagnostic character +mentioned by Goldman. My study reveals the same differences and +likenesses found by Goldman, but I consider color alone insufficient +basis in this instance for establishing a new subspecies, and regard +_Thomomys bottae nicholi_ as a synonym of the earlier proposed name, +_Thomomys bottae trumbullensis_. + +The animals from the south side of the Virgin River, labelled as from +St. George, Washington County, heretofore referred by Goldman to +_nicholi_, are intergrades between _trumbullensis_ and _planirostris_ +and along with other specimens from the same place are referable to the +latter race. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 68, distributed as follows: + _Washington County_: Danish Ranch, 5 mi. NW Leeds, 1; Zion + National Park, 2 (M. V. Z.); Grotto Camp, Zion National + Park, 4,300 ft., 6 (N. H. M. S. D.); Springdale, 3,400 ft., + 4 (K. U.); near Short Creek Road, S town of Virgin, 4 (R. + H.); St. George, N Virgin River, 2,950 ft., 21 (4, M. V. Z.; + 8, R. H.; 9, N. H. M. S. D.); Santa Clara Creek, 3 mi. SW + St. George, 2,800 ft., 26; St. George, S Virgin River, 5 (2, + M. V. Z.; 3, U. S. N. M.); 2 mi. SE St. George, 2,950 ft., 2 + (N. H. M. S. D.); 3 mi. S St. George, 1 (C. M.); 4 mi. SE + St. George, S Virgin River, 1 (R. H.); 6 mi. S St. George, + 2,700 ft., 6 (K. U.). _Kane County_: East Entrance Zion + National Park, 5,725 ft., 3 (N. H. M. S. D.); near East + Entrance Zion National Park, 5,500 ft., 3 (N. H. M. S. D.). + + _Additional records._--_Washington County_: Zion National + Park, 22; Washington, 7 (Burt, 1931:39); St. George, 5; + Santa Clara, 2 (Bailey, 1915:75). + + +=Thomomys bottae absonus= Goldman + + _Thomomys perpallidus absonus_ Goldman, Journ. Washington + Acad. Sci., 21:425, October 19, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae absonus_ Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934; Goldman, Proc. Biol. + Soc. Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 250016, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Jacobs Pools, Houserock Valley, 4,000 +ft., Coconino County, Arizona; June 7, 1931; collected by E. A. +Goldman; original number 23569 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--Southern Utah in Kane and Garfield counties, in the drainages +of Kanab Creek, Johnson Creek, Paria River and Escalante River. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Ochraceous Buff mixed with dusky; sides and underparts Light Ochraceous +Buff; chin, nose, cheeks and top of head grayish black; postauricular +patches black mixed with buff; front feet, hind feet, inguinal region +and distal third of tail white. Skull: Nasals relatively long; rostrum +narrow; ascending processes of premaxillae narrow; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals short; lambdoidal and sagittal crests +poorly developed; zygomatic arches light; jugals nearly straight; +palate narrow; molariform teeth small. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +trumbullensis_, _absonus_ differs in: Size smaller. Color: Markedly +lighter throughout. Skull: Smoother, less angular; zygomatic arches +weak as opposed to robust; nasals more convex as viewed laterally; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals less; ascending processes +of premaxillae narrower; palate narrower; palatal pits shallower; +rostrum narrower; molariform teeth smaller. + +For comparisons of _absonus_ with _Thomomys bottae aureus_ see account +under that form. + +Among named races of _Thomomys bottae_, _absonus_ most closely +resembles _planirostris_, but can be distinguished from the topotypes +as follows: Size markedly smaller. Color: Lighter, more buffy +throughout. Skull: Smaller, less ridged and more nearly flat; nasals +convex as opposed to flat; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +less; width of ascending processes of premaxillae less; zygomatic +arches weaker; palate narrower; alveolar length of upper molar series +shorter; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth +smaller and lighter. + +_Remarks._--One specimen from Kanab is an intergrade between +_trumbullensis_ and _absonus_. The majority of its characters are with +_absonus_ to which it is referred (see Hall and Davis, 1934:52). Two +specimens from Escalante are intergrades between _absonus_ and +_dissimilis_, but are referable to _absonus_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 3, distributed as follows: + _Garfield County_: Escalante, 5,258 ft., 2 (B. Y. U.), _Kane + County_: Kanab, 4,925 ft., 1 (M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys bottae alexandrae= Goldman + + _Thomomys alexandrae_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., + 23:464, October 15, 1933. + + _Thomomys bottae alexandrae_ Benson, Univ. California Publ. + Zoöl., 40:449, December 31, 1935. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 250969, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); 5 mi. SE Rainbow Lodge, near Navajo +Mountain, Coconino County, Arizona; June 16, 1933; collected by E. A. +Goldman; original number 23613 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--In extreme southwestern San Juan County, Utah. Known only +from Navajo Mountain, probably limited to the area enclosed on the +north by the Colorado and San Juan rivers, on the east and west by +Navajo and Piute canyons, respectively. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, grading over the sides to Pinkish Buff on underparts; +nose and top of head grayish black; hind feet and tail white; +postauricular patches large and dark. Skull: Small and not heavily +ridged; zygomatic arches widely spreading but weak; zygomatic arches +nearly parallel; tympanic bullae moderately inflated ventrally; palate +not arched; interpterygoid space U-shaped; dentition light. + +_Comparisons._--Compared to topotypes of _Thomomys bottae absonus_, +_alexandrae_ differs as follows: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Upper parts Cinnamon Buff as contrasted with Light +Ochraceous Buff. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken except +interorbital breadth and alveolar length of upper molar series which +are larger; molariform teeth larger. + +Among named races of _Thomomys bottae_ occurring in Utah, _alexandrae_ +most resembles _T. b. aureus_ to the northeast. It can be distinguished +from topotypes of the latter by: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Smaller, slenderer and more +nearly flat; palate nearly flat as opposed to arched; zygomatic arches +weaker and not so widely spreading; interparietal narrower; tympanic +bullae smaller; dentition weaker. + +_Remarks._--Goldman (1933:464) accorded _alexandrae_ full specific +status, because he found no intergradation with other races, from which +he thought _alexandrae_ had been isolated perhaps for thousands of +years by the barriers of the surrounding terrain. Benson (1935:450) +noted resemblances between _alexandrae_ and specimens of _latirostris_ +from Keams Canyon, Zuni Well, and Winslow in Navajo County, Arizona (= +_aureus_), and also between _alexandrae_ and _absonus_ from Houserock +Valley, Arizona. He thought that _alexandrae_ is no more differentiated +or isolated than each of several other kinds of desert pocket gophers, +and, therefore, accorded _alexandrae_ only subspecific status, as I, +also, am inclined to do. + + _Specimens examined._--One (M. V. Z.) from Soldier Spring, + Navajo Mountain, 8,600 ft., San Juan County. Fourteen + topotypes from Arizona also were examined. + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT MALES OF THOMOMYS + +(In millimeters) + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. b. aureiventris_, 4; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 243 67 32 36.4 14.7 26.5 21.5 6.6 7.9 2.4 .... ... +Min. 232 59 31 35.3 14.0 25.5 20.9 6.1 7.8 1.8 .... ... +Max. 253 72 33 37.1 15.3 27.3 22.3 6.9 8.0 3.4 .... ... + +_T. b. centralis_, 9; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 237 75 30 36.3 14.6 25.2 20.7 6.6 8.0 3.2 .... ... +Min. 215 61 29 34.5 13.9 24.6 19.7 5.8 7.5 2.2 .... ... +Max. 250 83 32 38.0 15.9 26.1 21.9 7.2 8.7 4.5 .... ... + +_T. b. albicaudatus_, 7; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 228 65 31 35.4 14.0 26.1 20.5 6.6 8.1 3.2 .... ... +Min. 223 59 29 34.9 13.4 24.9 19.8 6.4 7.8 3.0 .... ... +Max. 235 72 32 36.1 15.1 27.8 21.1 6.9 8.4 3.8 .... ... + +_T. b. robustus_, 9; topotypes +Av. 222 65 29 34.1 13.6 26.0 20.8 6.4 7.8 2.7 15.7 8.4 +Min. 214 59 28 32.6 13.0 25.2 20.0 6.1 7.3 2.0 14.7 8.1 +Max. 236 70 31 35.7 14.4 26.7 21.5 6.7 8.2 3.0 17.0 8.8 + +_T. b. stansburyi_, 5; topotypes +Av. 206 60 28 32.3 12.4 22.4 19.1 6.3 7.6 2.8 14.7 7.5 +Min. 198 58 26 30.6 12.0 21.5 18.2 6.2 7.0 2.5 14.1 7.1 +Max. 215 68 31 33.4 13.0 23.1 20.1 6.5 8.0 3.0 15.4 7.8 + +_T. b. nesophilus_, 4; topotypes +Av. 230 69 32 35.3 14.4 25.5 20.4 6.8 8.4 2.5 17.1 8.2 +Min. 220 60 30 33.6 14.1 24.9 19.8 6.5 8.2 2.1 16.4 7.6 +Max. 242 75 33 36.5 14.8 26.2 21.1 7.1 8.7 2.9 18.4 8.6 + +_T. b. minimus_, 2; topotypes +Av. 184 60 25 30.7 11.3 21.3 18.7 6.4 7.4 2.5 13.9 7.5 +Min. 179 55 24 28.7 10.2 20.2 17.8 6.3 7.3 2.5 12.9 7.0 +Max. 189 64 26 32.8 12.5 22.4 19.6 6.4 7.6 2.5 15.0 7.9 + +_T. b. lenis_, 2; topotypes +Av. 251 80 32 39.7 16.0 28.6 22.6 6.8 8.3 3.4 18.4 8.8 +Min. 248 74 31 39.4 15.8 28.4 22.4 6.6 8.2 3.0 17.9 8.6 +Max. 255 86 32 29.9 16.2 28.7 22.7 6.9 8.5 3.7 18.8 8.9 + +_T. b. contractus_, 8; topotypes +Av. 229 74 31 33.3 12.5 23.7 19.1 6.6 7.6 3.0 15.4 7.3 +Min. 209 63 28 30.0 10.9 21.4 17.7 6.3 7.2 2.4 13.5 6.5 +Max. 255 85 33 37.4 14.5 26.4 20.9 6.9 8.0 3.5 18.2 8.0 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT MALES OF THOMOMYS--_Continued_ + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +No. 191959 (U. S. N. M.) _T. b. levidensis_, 1; topotype + 222 65 28 33.3 12.7 24.5 19.0 6.5 7.6 3.3 15.1 8.0 + +_T. b. convexus_, 6; topotypes +Av. 213 59 28 33.1 14.3 24.9 21.7 6.6 8.0 2.6 16.2 8.2 +Min. 206 57 27 31.3 13.9 23.8 21.0 6.5 7.7 2.1 15.2 8.0 +Max. 233 68 29 35.0 14.6 26.7 22.3 6.8 8.1 2.8 17.2 8.6 + +_T. b. tivius_, 7; topotypes +Av. 208 69 27 31.5 12.2 22.4 18.4 6.4 7.2 2.4 14.0 7.1 +Min. 199 67 25 29.3 11.9 20.6 17.1 6.0 7.0 2.1 13.2 6.5 +Max. 227 70 30 34.1 12.8 25.0 19.8 6.6 7.6 3.0 15.0 7.9 + +_T. b. bonnevillei_, 3; topotypes +Av. 228 70 30 35.4 13.9 26.4 21.8 6.6 8.1 3.7 17.6 8.5 +Min. 221 62 30 33.6 13.2 25.4 20.5 6.5 8.1 3.4 16.1 8.2 +Max. 236 79 30 37.4 14.9 28.0 22.5 6.7 8.1 4.3 18.1 8.7 + +_T. b. sevieri_, 3; topotypes +Av. 216 67 30 32.7 12.9 22.9 18.7 6.4 7.2 2.5 15.3 7.6 +Min. 210 66 29 31.7 11.8 22.2 18.0 6.2 7.0 1.8 14.5 7.5 +Max. 222 68 31 33.5 13.5 23.4 19.3 6.7 7.2 3.0 16.4 7.7 + +_T. b. wahwahensis_, 4; topotypes +Av. 228 66 29 34.7 13.5 25.5 20.7 6.6 7.3 2.3 15.7 8.7 +Min. 210 60 26 33.0 13.1 24.6 20.1 6.5 7.0 2.2 14.9 8.5 +Max. 250 78 30 37.6 14.6 27.0 21.4 6.8 8.0 2.5 17.1 9.0 + +_T. b. planirostris_, 8; topotypes (Burt, 1931:39) +Av. 238 76 32 35.6 13.8 25.9 20.4 6.6 8.5 3.7 .... 8.8 +Min. 222 66 31 33.3 12.5 24.4 19.8 6.2 8.2 3.0 .... 8.3 +Max. 261 83 34 38.7 15.3 27.6 21.3 7.2 8.9 4.5 .... 9.4 + +_T. b. birdseyei_, 3; topotypes +Av. 227 64 31 34.9 13.8 26.2 20.9 6.2 8.4 2.6 16.3 8.3 +Min. 214 52 30 34.5 13.1 26.0 20.1 6.0 8.1 2.2 16.0 8.2 +Max. 243 81 32 35.2 14.1 27.4 21.5 6.5 8.8 2.8 16.9 8.4 + +_T. b. virgineus_, 5; Beaverdam Wash, 5 mi. N Utah-Arizona Line +Av. 226 68 29 34.6 13.5 25.6 20.7 6.3 8.0 3.0 16.5 8.5 +Min. 216 62 27 33.5 12.8 25.0 20.0 6.1 7.6 2.4 15.3 8.3 +Max. 235 70 30 34.9 14.4 26.0 21.1 6.6 8.4 3.5 17.4 8.7 + +_T. b. aureus_, 3; topotypes +Av. 242 68 34 36.6 14.3 25.3 21.4 6.6 8.3 2.4 17.2 8.7 +Min. 233 65 32 35.3 13.8 24.6 20.6 6.4 7.7 2.0 16.7 8.3 +Max. 251 70 36 37.8 14.9 25.8 22.0 6.8 8.7 2.5 17.9 9.0 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT MALES OF THOMOMYS--_Concluded_ + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. b. howelli_, 5; 10 mi. N Moab +Av. 213 67 31 33.1 13.5 23.2 20.1 6.5 8.3 2.5 16.1 8.8 +Min. 205 64 30 31.8 12.8 22.8 18.9 6.4 8.0 2.3 15.1 8.1 +Max. 225 68 32 35.3 14.3 24.1 20.7 6.8 8.8 2.8 17.5 9.4 + +No. 3094 (U. U.) _T. b. absonus_, 1; topotype + 220 71 29 32.0 13.9 22.6 19.0 6.4 7.0 1.0 15.1 7.2 + +No. 158529 (U. S. N. M.) _T. b. osgoodi_, 1; topotype + 225 70 29 33.8 13.3 22.7 19.6 6.6 8.4 3.2 16.5 8.3 + +_T. b. alexandrae_, 1; topotype (Benson, 1935:450) + 205 59 27 33.9 13.7 24.3 19.7 6.5 8.0 ... 15.8 8.1 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT FEMALES OF THOMOMYS + +(In millimeters) + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. b. aureiventris_, 2; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 212 62 30 32.4 12.9 22.9 19.4 6.7 7.4 2.8 .... ... +Min. 208 58 29 31.8 12.6 22.5 18.9 6.6 7.0 2.7 .... ... +Max. 215 65 30 33.0 13.1 23.3 19.8 6.8 7.8 3.1 .... ... + +_T. b. centralis_, 17; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 214 67 29 31.8 12.6 22.1 19.0 6.6 7.6 2.7 .... ... +Min. 195 55 27 30.5 11.9 21.3 18.2 5.9 7.0 2.0 .... ... +Max. 229 75 30 33.0 13.8 23.1 20.1 7.1 7.8 3.4 .... ... + +_T. b. albicaudatus_, 4; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 211 64 30 32.5 12.9 22.9 18.8 6.6 7.7 2.7 .... ... +Min. 199 55 29 31.7 11.9 21.9 18.2 6.1 7.5 2.6 .... ... +Max. 219 70 32 33.8 13.5 24.0 19.5 6.8 8.0 3.0 .... ... + +_T. b. robustus_, 11; topotypes +Av. 199 61 27 30.6 11.7 22.6 18.8 6.4 7.6 2.6 13.9 7.4 +Min. 191 56 22 29.0 10.6 21.0 18.1 6.2 7.1 2.0 12.0 7.1 +Max. 207 66 29 31.6 12.2 23.6 19.8 6.7 8.0 2.9 14.7 7.9 + +_T. b. stansburyi_, 5; topotypes +Av. 202 57 28 31.1 12.1 21.9 18.7 6.5 7.7 2.6 14.5 7.4 +Min. 195 56 26 29.9 10.6 21.0 17.8 6.2 7.3 2.3 13.4 6.9 +Max. 210 63 30 32.7 12.8 22.4 19.5 6.8 8.0 3.0 15.2 7.7 + +No. 900 (U. U.) _T. b. nesophilus_, 1; topotype + 210 65 31 31.2 12.3 23.2 19.3 6.9 8.2 2.2 15.2 7.3 + +_T. b. minimus_, 2; topotypes +Av. 178 56 25 28.2 10.6 19.7 17.4 6.1 7.0 2.3 13.1 6.7 +Min. 175 54 24 28.1 10.4 19.6 17.1 6.1 7.0 2.3 13.0 6.5 +Max. 181 58 25 28.2 10.8 19.7 17.7 6.1 7.0 2.3 13.2 6.8 + +_T. b. contractus_, 6; topotypes +Av. 219 68 30 33.1 12.6 23.3 19.5 6.5 7.8 2.6 15.5 7.1 +Min. 208 58 29 32.2 12.0 22.2 18.9 6.4 7.6 2.3 14.2 7.0 +Max. 225 73 31 34.7 13.3 25.2 20.6 6.7 8.2 3.2 17.0 7.3 + +_T. b. levidensis_, 4; topotypes +Av. 205 69 26 30.5 11.1 21.7 17.5 6.6 7.5 2.9 14.0 7.0 +Min. 194 61 26 29.3 10.6 21.5 17.3 6.3 7.2 2.8 13.0 6.9 +Max. 223 73 27 30.8 11.5 21.9 17.9 6.9 7.8 3.2 14.7 7.2 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT FEMALES OF THOMOMYS--_Continued_ + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. b. convexus_, 11; topotypes +Av. 197 57 27 29.9 12.5 21.7 19.3 6.6 7.7 2.6 14.7 7.4 +Min. 182 43 26 27.9 11.2 21.0 18.8 6.2 7.1 2.1 13.3 7.1 +Max. 204 63 28 30.9 13.4 22.3 19.8 7.1 7.9 3.1 15.2 7.7 + +_T. b. tivius_, 5; topotypes +Av. 203 68 27 29.5 11.1 21.1 17.8 6.5 7.2 2.4 13.5 6.8 +Min. 192 63 26 28.0 10.5 20.1 17.3 6.3 7.1 2.0 12.7 6.4 +Max. 215 74 30 31.3 11.4 22.9 19.0 6.7 7.5 3.0 14.2 7.2 + +_T. b. bonnevillei_, 7; topotypes +Av. 199 57 28 31.7 11.8 22.2 19.3 6.6 7.7 3.2 14.9 7.3 +Min. 184 50 24 29.4 10.1 20.3 18.1 6.4 7.1 2.6 13.5 6.9 +Max. 216 66 29 34.3 13.6 24.3 20.3 7.0 8.5 4.1 16.6 7.7 + +_T. b. sevieri_, 7; topotypes +Av. 205 62 28 30.2 11.8 21.6 18.0 6.4 7.0 2.7 14.2 7.1 +Min. 199 54 28 29.4 11.3 20.6 17.7 6.1 6.6 2.1 13.9 6.6 +Max. 212 70 29 30.7 12.6 22.1 18.6 6.8 7.4 3.0 14.7 7.6 + +_T. b. wahwahensis_, 8; topotypes +Av. 185 56 27 28.7 11.3 20.6 17.6 6.3 7.1 2.1 12.6 7.1 +Min. 180 50 26 26.3 10.2 19.0 16.5 5.8 6.9 1.1 10.8 6.4 +Max. 197 62 29 30.7 12.6 22.0 19.0 6.7 7.8 2.9 14.0 7.6 + +_T. b. planirostris_, 8; topotypes (Burt, 1931:39) +Av. 215 71 31 32.2 12.4 23.2 18.7 6.5 8.1 3.6 .... 7.9 +Min. 205 61 30 31.5 11.8 22.3 18.1 6.4 7.5 2.8 .... 7.5 +Max. 228 78 33 33.0 12.9 24.1 19.5 6.7 8.6 4.5 .... 8.1 + +_T. b. birdseyei_, 3; topotypes +Av. 220 71 29 31.6 11.8 22.7 18.6 6.1 7.4 2.4 14.7 7.5 +Min. 217 68 28 31.4 11.0 22.4 18.3 6.0 7.3 1.6 13.3 7.4 +Max. 223 75 30 32.0 12.8 23.0 19.1 6.2 7.4 3.0 15.3 7.5 + +_T. b. virgineus_, 4; Beaverdam Wash, 5 mi. N Utah-Arizona Line +Av. 211 64 29 31.6 12.2 22.6 19.4 5.9 7.5 3.1 15.1 7.3 +Min. 202 60 27 31.3 11.3 22.4 18.8 5.8 7.3 2.4 14.4 7.2 +Max. 218 68 30 32.1 12.8 22.7 20.0 6.1 7.8 3.7 15.5 7.6 + +_T. b. aureus_, 3; topotypes +Av. 226 57 31 33.2 13.3 23.8 19.8 6.7 8.2 1.9 15.3 8.2 +Min. 217 54 30 32.8 12.5 23.3 19.6 6.4 8.0 1.6 14.5 8.2 +Max. 233 64 31 34.0 14.2 24.4 19.8 6.9 8.4 2.0 16.4 8.3 + +No. 20300 (C. M.) _T. b. howelli_, 1; 10 mi. N Moab + 202 59 28 32.4 12.3 21.1 19.2 6.4 7.9 2.4 15.8 8.3 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT FEMALES OF THOMOMYS--_Concluded_ + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +No. 158524 (U. S. N. M.) _T. b. dissimilis_, 1; topotype + 188 61 27 28.2 10.1 19.0 16.7 6.1 7.4 2.1 12.8 6.5 + +No. 158528 (U. S. N. M.) _T. b. osgoodi_, 1; topotype + 203 61 27 29.6 11.5 .. 18.3 6.9 7.4 2.0 14.0 7.3 + +_T. b. alexandrae_, 3; topotypes +Av. 205 63 28 30.9 11.8 20.8 17.9 6.4 7.6 1.8 14.1 7.5 +Min. 195 57 27 28.7 11.5 20.5 17.2 6.3 7.5 1.5 13.6 7.2 +Max. 215 70 29 31.5 12.1 22.2 18.6 6.5 7.7 2.0 14.7 7.7 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------- + + + + +LITERATURE CITED + + +ALLEN, J. A. + + 1874. Notes on the mammals of portions of Kansas, Colorado, + Wyoming and Utah, Part IV. On the mammals of the Great + Salt Lake Valley, Utah. Bull. Essex Inst., 6:61-66, 1874. + + 1893. Descriptions of four new species of _Thomomys_ with + remarks on other species of the genus. Bull. Amer. Mus. + Nat. Hist., 5:47-68, April 28, 1893. + + 1893. List of mammals collected by Mr. Charles P. Rowley in + the San Juan region of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, + with descriptions of new species. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. + Hist., 5:69-84, April 28, 1893. + + 1896. List of mammals collected by Mr. Walter W. Granger in + New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Nebraska, 1895-1896, with + field notes by the collector. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. + Hist., 8:241-258, November 25, 1896. + + 1905. Mammals from Beaver County, Utah, collected by the + Museum expedition of 1904. Brooklyn Inst. Mus. Sci. + Bull., 1:117-122, March 31, 1905. + +BAILEY, VERNON. + + 1915. Revision of the pocket gophers of the genus + _Thomomys_. N. Amer. Fauna, 39:1-136, pls. 8, 10 figs., + November 15, 1915. + +BARNES, CLAUDE T. + + 1922. Mammals of Utah. Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):1-176, + 30 figs., April, 1922. + + 1927. Utah mammals. Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):1-183, 32 + figs., June, 1927. + +BENSON, SETH B. + + 1935. A biological reconnaissance of Navajo Mountain, Utah. + Univ. California Publ. Zoöl., 40:439-455, December 31, + 1935. + +BURT, WILLIAM H. + + 1931. A new pocket gopher of the genus _Thomomys_ from Utah. + Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 44:37-40, May 8, 1931. + +COUES, E. + + 1875. Abstract of results of a study of the genera _Geomys_ + and _Thomomys_. Part III. Zoölogy, in explorations of + the Colorado River of the West and its tributaries, + explored in 1869, 1870, 1871 and 1872 under the + direction of the Smithsonian Institution, reported by + J. W. Powell, Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D. C., + 1875. + + 1877. Monographs of North American Rodents, No. X, Geomyidae, + pp. 601-629, U. S. Geol. Surv. of the territories, + Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1877. + +COUES, E., and YARROW, H. C. + + 1875. Report upon the collection of mammals made in portions + of Nevada, Utah, California, New Mexico and Arizona + during the years 1871-74. Wheeler's Rept. Expl. W of + 100th Mer. vol. 5, pp. 35-129, 1875. + +DAVIS, WILLIAM B. + + 1939. The Recent mammals of Idaho. The Caxton Printers, Ltd., + Caldwell, Idaho, pp. 1-400, pls. 2, 33 figs., April 5, + 1939. + +DURRANT, STEPHEN D. + + 1937. Two new gophers from Utah. Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 (No. + 4):1-7, August 18, 1937. + + 1939. A new pocket gopher of the _Thomomys quadratus_ group + from the northern Great Basin region. Bull. Univ. + Utah, 39 (No. 6):1-6, February 28, 1939. + +GOLDMAN, E. A. + + 1933. New mammals from Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. + Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., 23:463-473, October 15, + 1933. + + 1936. New pocket gophers of the genus _Thomomys_. Journ. + Washington Acad. Sci., 26:111-120, March 15, 1936. + + 1938. New pocket gophers of the genus _Thomomys_ from + Arizona and Utah. Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., + 28:333-343, July 15, 1938. + + 1939. Remarks on pocket gophers, with special reference to + _Thomomys talpoides_. Journ. Mamm., 20:231-244, May + 14, 1939. + + 1942. Three new rodents from southern Utah. Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 55:75-78, July 25, 1942. + +HALL, E. RAYMOND. + + 1931. Critical comments on mammals from Utah, with + descriptions of new forms from Utah, Nevada and + Washington. Univ. California Publ. Zoöl., 37:1-13, + April 10, 1931. + +HALL, E. RAYMOND, and DAVIS, WILLIAM B. + + 1934. Notes on Arizona rodents. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, + 47:51-56, February 9, 1934. + +HAYWARD, C. LYNN. + + 1936. A bibliography of Utah mammalogy; including references + to names and type localities applied to Utah mammals. + Utah Acad. Sci. Arts and Letters, 13:122-146, 1936. + + 1941. A bibliography of Utah mammalogy; including references + to names and type localities (first supplement). Great + Basin Nat., 2:125-136, December 31, 1941. + +MARSHALL, WILLIAM H. + + 1940. A survey of the mammals of the islands in Great Salt + Lake, Utah. Journ. Mamm., 21:149-159, 2 pls., 1 map, + May 14, 1940. + +MERRIAM, C. HART. + + 1901. Descriptions of twenty-three new pocket gophers of + the genus _Thomomys_. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, + 14:107-117, July 19, 1901. + +MILLER, GERRITT S., JR. + + 1924. List of North American Recent mammals, 1923. U. S. + Nat. Mus. Bull., 128, pp. I-XVI, + 1-673, Govt. + Printing Office, Washington, D. C., March 18, 1924. + +SVIHLA, RUTH DOWELL. + + 1931. Mammals of the Uinta Mountains region. Journ. Mamm., + 12:256-266, pls. 1, 1 fig., August 24, 1931. + +21-2786 + + + + + * * * * * + +Transcriber's Notes + + +Made minor punctuation corrections, and the following changes: + +Page 11: Changed Oquirrah Mountains to Oquirrh Mountains. + +Page 15: Changed interptergoid to interpterygoid. + +Page 25: Changed acccounts to accounts. + +Page 30: Changed distiguished to distinguished. + +Page 54: Changed hpyothesis to hypothesis. + +Page 57: Changed under parts to underparts. + +Formatted Tables to fit width guidelines. + +Bold text is shown within =equal signs=. + +Italicized text is shown within _underscores_. + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of +Utah, Vol. 1 No. 1, by Stephen D. Durrant + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE POCKET GOPHERS (GENUS *** + +***** This file should be named 39164-8.txt or 39164-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/9/1/6/39164/ + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Diane Monico, and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net. Some images courtesy of The Internet +Archive. + + +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/license + +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. diff --git a/39164-8.zip b/39164-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1d675b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/39164-8.zip diff --git a/39164-h.zip b/39164-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d6f0b16 --- /dev/null +++ b/39164-h.zip diff --git a/39164-h/39164-h.htm b/39164-h/39164-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a388730 --- /dev/null +++ b/39164-h/39164-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,4916 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of Utah. By Stephen D. Durrant. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + + h1,h2,h3 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; +} + +p { + margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; +} + +p.title { text-align: center; text-indent: 0; + font-weight: bold; + line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 3em; } + +.smcap1 {font-variant: small-caps; + font-weight: normal; } + +.fwn {font-weight: normal; } + +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; +} + +hr.tb {width: 45%;} +hr.chap {width: 65%} +hr.full {width: 95%;} + +hr.r5 {width: 5%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;} + +table { + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; +} + +.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; +} + +.blockquot { + margin-left: 5%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +.center {text-align: center;} + +.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + +.caption {font-weight: bold;} + +.figcenter { + margin: auto; + text-align: center; +} + +.i2 { + display: block; + margin-left: 2em; + padding-left: 2em; + text-indent: -2em; +} + +.i4 { + display: block; + margin-left: 4em; + padding-left: 3em; + text-indent: -3em; +} + +.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; + color: black; + font-size:smaller; + padding:0.5em; + margin-bottom:5em; + font-family:sans-serif, serif; } + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of +Utah, Vol. 1 No. 1, by Stephen D. Durrant + +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/license + + +Title: The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of Utah, Vol. 1 No. 1 + Kansas University Publications. + +Author: Stephen D. Durrant + +Editor: E. Raymond Hall + Donald S. Farner + Donald F. Hoffmeister + +Release Date: March 17, 2012 [EBook #39164] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE POCKET GOPHERS (GENUS *** + + + + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Diane Monico, and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net. Some images courtesy of The Internet +Archive. + + + + + + +</pre> + + + + + + + +<p class="title"> +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS<br /> +MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY<br /><br /> + +<span class="smcap">Volume 1</span><br /> +1946-1950<br /><br /> + +EDITORS<br /> + +<span class="smcap">E. Raymond Hall</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">Donald S. Farner</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">Donald F. Hoffmeister</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">H. H. Lane</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">A. Byron Leonard</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">Edward H. Taylor</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">Robert W. Wilson</span><br /><br /> + +<span class="smcap">Museum of Natural History</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">University of Kansas</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">Lawrence, Kansas</span><br /> +1950 +</p> +<hr class="chap" /> + + + +<p class="center"> +MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY<br /> +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS<br /> +LAWRENCE, KANSAS<br /> +<br /><br /></p> +<p class="center"><small>PRINTED BY<br /> +FERD VOILAND, JR., STATE PRINTER<br /> +TOPEKA, KANSAS<br /> +1950<br /> +<br /> +23-2413<br /></small> +</p> +<hr class="chap" /> + + + +<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS</h2> + + +<p class="i2">1. The pocket gophers (genus Thomomys) of Utah. By Stephen +D. Durrant. Pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text. August 15, 1946.</p> + +<p class="i2">2. The systematic status of Eumeces pluvialis Cope, and +noteworthy records of other amphibians and reptiles from +Kansas and Oklahoma. By Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 85-89. August +15, 1946.</p> + +<p class="i2">3. The tadpoles of Bufo cognatus Say. By Hobart M. Smith. +Pp. 93-96, 1 figure in text. August 15, 1946.</p> + +<p class="i2">4. Hybridization between two species of garter snakes. By +Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 97-100. August 15, 1946.</p> + +<p class="i2">5. Selected records of reptiles and amphibians from Kansas. +By John Breukelman and Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 101-112. August +15, 1946.</p> + +<p class="i2">6. Kyphosis and other variations in soft-shelled turtles. By +Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 117-124, 3 figures. July 7, 1947.</p> + +<p class="i2">7. Natural history of the prairie vole (Mammalian genus +Microtus). By E. W. Jameson, Jr. Pp. 125-151, 4 figures in +text. October 6, 1947.</p> + +<p class="i2">8. The postnatal development of two broods of great horned +owls (Bubo virginianus). By Donald F. Hoffmeister and Henry +W. Setzer. Pp. 157-173, 5 figures in text. October 6, 1947.</p> + +<p class="i2">9. Additions to the list of the birds of Louisiana. By +George H. Lowery, Jr. Pp. 177-192. November 7, 1947.</p> + +<p class="i2">10. A check-list of the birds of Idaho. By M. Dale Arvey. +Pp. 193-216. November 29, 1947.</p> + +<p class="i2">11. Subspeciation in pocket gophers of Kansas. By Bernardo +Villa R. and E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 217-236, 2 figures in +text. November 29, 1947.</p> + +<p class="i2">12. A new bat (Genus Myotis) from Mexico. By Walter W. +Dalquest and E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 237-244, 6 figures in +text. December 10, 1947.</p> + +<p class="i2">13. Tadarida femorosacca (Merriam) in Tamaulipas, Mexico. By +Walter W. Dalquest and E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 245-248, 1 +figure in text. December 10, 1947.</p> + +<p class="i2">14. A new pocket gopher (Thomomys) and a new spiny pocket +mouse (Liomys) from Michoacán, México. By E. Raymond Hall +and Bernardo Villa-R. Pp. 249-256, 6 figures in text. July +26, 1948.</p> + +<p class="i2">15. A new hylid frog from eastern Mexico. By Edward H. +Taylor. Pp. 257-264, 1 figure in text. August 16, 1948.</p> + +<p class="i2">16. A new extinct emydid turtle from the Lower Pliocene of +Oklahoma. By Edwin C. Galbreath. Pp. 265-280, 1 plate. +August 16, 1948.</p> + +<p class="i2">17. Pliocene and Pleistocene records of fossil turtles from +western Kansas and Oklahoma. By Edwin C. Galbreath. Pp. +281-284, 1 figure in text. August 16, 1948.</p> + +<p class="i2">18. A new species of heteromyid rodent from the Middle +Oligocene of northeast Colorado with remarks on the skull. +By Edwin C. Galbreath. Pp. 285-300, 2 plates. August 16, +1948.</p> + +<p class="i2">19. Speciation in the Brazilian spiny rats (Genus +Proechimys, Family Echimyidae). By João Moojen. Pp. 301-406, +140 figures in text. December 10, 1948.</p> + +<p class="i2">20. Three new beavers from Utah. By Stephen D. Durrant and +Harold S. Crane. Pp. 407-417, 7 figures in text. December +24, 1948.</p> + +<p class="i2">21. Two new meadow mice from Michoacán, México. By E. +Raymond Hall. Pp. 423-427, 6 figures in text. December 24, +1948.</p> + +<p class="i2">22. An annotated check list of the mammals of Michoacán, +México. By E. Raymond Hall and Bernardo Villa-R. Pp. +431-472, 2 plates, 1 figure in text. December 27, 1949.</p> + +<p class="i2">23. Subspeciation in the kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ordii. By +Henry W. Setzer. Pp. 423-573, 27 figures in text, 7 tables. +December 27, 1949.</p> + +<p class="i2">24. Geographic range of hooded skunk, Mephitis macroura, +with description of a new subspecies from Mexico. By E. +Raymond Hall and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. 575-580, 1 figure +in text. January 20, 1950.</p> + +<p class="i2">25. Pipistrellus cinnamomeus Miller 1902 referred to the +genus Myotis. By E. Raymond Hall and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. +581-590, 5 figures in text. January 20, 1950.</p> + +<p class="i2">26. A synopsis of the American bats of the genus +Pipistrellus. By E. Raymond Hall and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. +591-602, 1 figure in text. January 20, 1950.</p> + +<p class="i2">Index pp. 605-638.</p> + +<hr class="chap" /> + + + +<h1> +The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys)<br /> +of Utah</h1> + +<p class="title"><small>BY</small><br /> +<br /> +STEPHEN D. DURRANT<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +University of Kansas Publications<br /> +Museum of Natural History<br /> +<br /> +<small>Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text</small><br /> +<small>August 15, 1946</small><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS<br /> +<small>LAWRENCE</small><br /> +<small>1946</small><br /> +</p> +<hr class="chap" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p> + + + + +<h1> +The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys)<br /> +of Utah</h1> + +<p class="title"><small>BY</small><br /> +<br /> +STEPHEN D. DURRANT<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +University of Kansas Publications<br /> +Museum of Natural History<br /> +<br /> +<small>Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text</small><br /> +<small>August 15, 1946</small><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS<br /> +<small>LAWRENCE</small><br /> +<small>1946</small><br /> +</p> +<hr class="chap" /> + + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span></p> +<p class="center"> +<span class="smcap">University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History</span><br /> +<br /> +Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, Donald S. Farner,<br /> +Donald F. Hoffmeister<br /> +<br /> +Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text.<br /> +<br /> +Published <span class="smcap">August</span> 15, 1946<br /> +<br /><br /> +<span class="smcap">University of Kansas</span><br /> +Lawrence, Kansas<br /> +<br /><br /> +</p> +<p class="center"><small>PRINTED BY<br /> +FERD VOILAND, JR., STATE PRINTER<br /> +TOPEKA, KANSAS<br /> +1946<br /> +<br /> +21-2786<br /></small> +</p> +<hr class="chap" /> + + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span></p> +<h2>The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of Utah</h2> + +<p class="center">By<br /> + +STEPHEN D. DURRANT<br /><br /> + +<small>Contribution from the Department of Biology, University of Utah, +and the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas.<br /></small> +</p> + + + + +<h2><a name="INTRODUCTION" id="INTRODUCTION"></a>INTRODUCTION</h2> + + +<p>The history of pocket gophers of Utah begins with J. A. Allen's mention +in 1874 of mounds of these animals. For them he employed the name +"<i>Thomomys rufescens?</i>" (1874:65). Actual specimens were reported upon +a year later by Elliot Coues (1875:251, 256), who used the name +<i>Thomomys talpoides</i> for specimens from "Utah" but later in the same +paper listed specimens from Provo as <i>Thomomys talpoides bulbivorus</i>. +Even as the great variation in Utah pocket gophers has been perplexing +to modern workers, so it was also to Coues seventy years ago who left +the problem with the statement that animals from Provo "exhibit among +themselves such variations that their labelling becomes a matter of +indifference"! In the same year in another report, Coues and Yarrow +(1875:112) used the name <i>Thomomys talpoides umbrinus</i> for animals from +Provo. In 1877, Coues again referred these same animals to <i>Thomomys +talpoides bulbivorus</i>, using the name <i>umbrinus</i> for the animals of +only southern Utah (Coues, 1877:627, 628). The two names <i>Thomomys +bottae</i> and <i>Thomomys talpoides</i>, now applicable to gophers in Utah, +were synonomized under the name <i>Thomomys talpoides bulbivorus</i> by +Coues (1875:256; 1877:627). After this beginning only three other +papers, all by J. A. Allen, appeared in the next twenty years. They +were reports on collections of mammals made by Walter W. Granger and +Charles P. Rowley. One of these contained the description of <i>Thomomys +aureus</i>. Likewise, in the ensuing twenty years there were only three +papers, one in 1901 by C. Hart Merriam in which he described <i>Thomomys +uinta</i>, one by Allen (1905:119), and Vernon Bailey's (1915) "Revision +of the pocket gophers of the genus <i>Thomomys</i>" in which he summarized +the information then available on these animals within the state. +Barnes (1922 and 1927) reprinted the information summarized by Bailey. +Since 1927 approximately twenty-five papers, mostly taxonomic, have +been published in which reference is made to Utah gophers, and +especially since 1930 much information has been accumulated about the +distribution and speciation of this genus within the state.</p> + +<p>Specimens to the number of 1,045 have been available for this study. +Whereas Bailey (<i>loc. cit.</i>) listed only four kinds belonging<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span> to four +different species, thirty-five kinds are now known from Utah. Seven of +these are herein described as new. The thirty-five kinds are found to +belong to only two instead of four full species.</p> + +<p>Inasmuch as the literature is scattered and since names have been +applied in different ways at different times, I have attempted to give +a synonomy as complete as possible for each form found within the +state.</p> + +<p>The bibliographies of Hayward (1936 and 1941) and Miller's (1924) "List +of North American mammals" have been of great use.</p> + +<p>Capitalized color terms in the accounts are after Ridgway, Color +Standards and Color Nomenclature, Washington, D. C., 1912.</p> + +<p>In the lists of specimens examined, the localities are listed by +counties from west to east, beginning at the northwestern corner of the +state, and within each county from north to south. When two localities +are on the same latitude, the westernmost is listed first.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>I am deeply indebted to Professor R. V. Chamberlin, of the +University of Utah, for encouragement and support in my +investigation. I also acknowledge critical assistance in the +preparation of this paper from Professor E. Raymond Hall of +the University of Kansas. For the loan of specimens I am +grateful to the following: Clinton G. Abbott and Lawrence M. +Huey, Natural History Museum of San Diego, San Diego, +California; Harold E. Anthony and J. Eric Hill, American +Museum of Natural History, New York City, New York; Seth B. +Benson, Museum of Vertebrate Zoölogy, University of +California, Berkeley, California; William H. Burt, Museum of +Zoölogy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; J. +Kenneth Doutt, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; +Ross Hardy, Dixie Junior College, St. George, Utah; C. Lynn +Hayward and Vasco M. Tanner, Brigham Young University, +Provo, Utah; H. H. T. Jackson and Viola S. Schantz, United +States Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. National Museum, +Washington, D. C.; Remington Kellogg and Alexander Wetmore, +U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C.; J. S. Stanford, +Utah State Agricultural College, Logan, Utah.</p> + +<p>Unless otherwise indicated, specimens are in the Museum of +Zoölogy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. In lists +of specimens examined, abbreviations are employed as +follows:</p> +</div> + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="abbrev"> +<tr><td align="left">(A. M. N. H.)</td><td align="left">American Museum of Natural History.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">(N. H. M. S. D.)</td><td align="left">Natural History Museum of San Diego.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">(M. V. Z.)</td><td align="left">Museum of Vertebrate Zoölogy, University of California.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">(U. M.)</td><td align="left">Museum of Zoölogy, University of Michigan.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">(C. M.)</td><td align="left">Carnegie Museum.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">(R. H.)</td><td align="left">Collection of Ross Hardy.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">(B. Y. U.)</td><td align="left">Brigham Young University.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">(U. S. N. M.)</td><td align="left">United States National Museum.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">(U. S. A. C.)</td><td align="left">Utah State Agricultural College.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">(K. U.)</td><td align="left">Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> +<hr class="tb" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span></p> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 371px;"> +<a name="fig1" id="fig1"></a> +<a href="images/i_001.jpg"> +<img src="images/i_001t.jpg" width="371" height="500" alt="Fig. 1. Map showing the distribution of species and +subspecies of pocket gophers in Utah." title="Fig. 1. Map showing the distribution of species and +subspecies of pocket gophers in Utah."/> +</a><span class="caption">FIG. 1. Map showing the distribution of species and +subspecies of pocket gophers in Utah.</span> +</div> +<hr class="r5" /> + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="subspecies"> +<tr><th align="left">Guide to subspecies:</th><td align="left">12. <i>T. b. aureiventris</i></td><td align="left">24. <i>T. b. lenis</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1. <i>T. t. gracilis</i></td><td align="left">13. <i>T. b. robustus</i></td><td align="left">25. <i>T. b. levidensis</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">2. <i>T. t. wasatchensis</i></td><td align="left">14. <i>T. b. minimus</i></td><td align="left">26. <i>T. b. osgoodi</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">3. <i>T. t. oquirrhensis</i></td><td align="left">15. <i>T. b. nesophilus</i></td><td align="left">27. <i>T. b. howelli</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">4. <i>T. t. uinta</i></td><td align="left">16. <i>T. b. stansburyi</i></td><td align="left">28. <i>T. b. wahwahensis</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">5. <i>T. t. pygmaeus</i></td><td align="left">17. <i>T. b. albicaudatus</i></td><td align="left">29. <i>T. b. dissimilis</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">6. <i>T. t. ravus</i></td><td align="left">18. <i>T. b. bonnevillei</i></td><td align="left">30. <i>T. b. aureus</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">7. <i>T. t. ocius</i></td><td align="left">19. <i>T. b. centralis</i></td><td align="left">31. <i>T. b. birdseyei</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">8. <i>T. t. moorei</i></td><td align="left">20. <i>T. b. sevieri</i></td><td align="left">32. <i>T. b. virgineus</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">9. <i>T. t. fossor</i></td><td align="left">21. <i>T. b. convexus</i></td><td align="left">33. <i>T. b. planirostris</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">10. <i>T. t. parowanensis</i></td><td align="left">22. <i>T. b. tivius</i></td><td align="left">34. <i>T. b. absonus</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">11. <i>T. t. levis</i></td><td align="left">23. <i>T. b. contractus</i></td><td align="left">35. <i>T. b. alexandrae</i></td></tr> +</table></div> + + + + +<hr class="chap" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="Genus_Thomomys_Wied" id="Genus_Thomomys_Wied"></a><span class="smcap1">Genus</span> <b>Thomomys</b> <span class="fwn">Wied</span></h2> + + +<p>All pocket gophers of Utah belong to the genus <i>Thomomys</i>. There are +only two species within the state, <i>Thomomys bottae</i> with twenty-four +subspecies and <i>Thomomys talpoides</i> with eleven subspecies.</p> + +<p>Due to marked mutational capacities and ready response to environmental +pressures and sedentary habits, pocket gophers differentiate readily +into numerous subspecies. It is well known that Utah by its highly +varied topography and climate possesses widely different types of +habitats. The aforementioned plasticity of these animals and possibly +the fact that both species are at the extreme limits of their ranges in +Utah account for the numerous forms found within the state.<br /><br /></p> + +<p>The genus may be characterized as follows: Highly specialized fossorial +rodents, with heavy, thick bodies; all four legs of approximately equal +length, but front legs more muscular for digging, and feet provided +with long claws; external fur-lined cheek pouches; small eyes, short +ears and tail; upper incisors long and projecting external to lips. +Skull: Stout and flattened; zygomatic arches well developed and usually +widely spreading; all teeth with permanent pulp cavities; incisors +superficially smooth, but fine median groove present on anterior face +of each upper incisor; dental formula, i. 1/1, c. 0/0, p. 1/1, m. 3/3; +external auditory canal long; stapedial artery small and enclosed +within an osseous canal.</p> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides</b> <span class="fwn">(Richardson)</span></h3> + +<p><i>Thomomys talpoides</i> is a northern species that in Utah approaches the +southern limits of its range. The animals of this species inhabit the +mountains and high valleys. In the southward extension of their range, +as in Utah, they are found at higher elevations which zonally represent +lower elevations at more northern latitudes. The specific characters +are: Sphenorbital fissure absent; incisive foramina anterior to +infraorbital canal; anterior prism of P4 triangular; interparietal +relatively large; lambdoidal suture concave posteriorly in region of +interparietal, in Utah specimens.</p> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides gracilis</b> <span class="fwn">Durrant</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><i>Thomomys quadratus gracilis</i> Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 39 +(No. 6):3, February 28, 1939.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys talpoides gracilis</i> Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 30 +(No. 5):6, August 24, 1939; Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 25:414, +December 12, 1944.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys quadratus fisheri</i> Hall, Univ. California Publ. +Zoöl., 37:4, April 10, 1931.</p></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><i>Thomomys uinta</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:114, November +15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, April, +1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):104, June, 1927.</p> +</div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male adult, skin and skull; No. 44866, Museum of Vertebrate +Zoölogy, University of California; Pine Canyon, 6,600 ft., 17 mi. NW +Kelton, Box Elder County, Utah; July 12, 1930; collected by Annie M. +Alexander; original number 676.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Mountainous regions of extreme northwestern Utah.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Buckthorn Brown grading over the sides and flanks to Light Buff on the +underparts; chin white; nose and postauricular patches grayish black. +Claws on front feet long and slender. Skull: Long and slender; rostrum +long and narrow; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths slight; palatal pits +deep; upper incisors narrow; basioccipital wide.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys talpoides +fisheri</i>, <i>gracilis</i> is of approximately the same size. Upper parts +darker and underparts lighter; postauricular patches larger and darker; +claws on front feet longer and slenderer. Skull: Generally longer and +narrower; nasals and rostrum longer; basioccipital wider.</p> + +<p>As compared with <i>T. t. uinta</i>, <i>gracilis</i> is of approximately the same +size but differs as follows: Color: Lighter throughout; postauricular +patches markedly smaller and lighter; inguinal and pectoral regions +much lighter. One characteristic difference is in the ear. In <i>uinta</i> +the external opening of the ear is much larger; the pinna of the ear is +larger, more rounded at the tip, and lacks most of the pigmentation on +the inner margin. Skull: Generally narrower and longer; nasals longer; +zygomatic arches weaker and less angular; upper incisors narrower.</p> + +<p>This form is easily distinguished from <i>bridgeri</i> by smaller size, and +by the skull being longer, narrower and less angular.</p> + +<p>From <i>Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis</i> to the southeast, <i>T. t. +gracilis</i> can be distinguished by: Total length and ear shorter. Color: +Generally lighter, except the underparts which are about the same; +postauricular patches larger and more deeply pigmented. Skull: +Braincase less inflated; nasals truncated posteriorly as opposed to +rounded; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths less; rostrum shorter but +narrower; upper incisors narrower and shorter.</p> + +<p>For comparisons with <i>wasatchensis</i> see comparisons under that form.</p> + +<p>In general, this mountain form can be distinguished from all other +<i>talpoides</i> in Utah by lighter color, narrow, slender, "graceful" skull +whence the name <i>gracilis</i> is derived.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—In Utah, <i>gracilis</i> is limited to the extreme northwestern +corner of the state. This part of the state is in the Snake River +drainage. The main part of the range of this race lies in south-central +and southwestern Idaho and northeastern Nevada. The center of its range +might be considered to be in the Jarbidge Mountains area of Nevada. The +south slopes of these mountains are in the Humboldt River drainage, +while the north slopes are in the Snake River drainage, and this +subspecies occurs as far north as the Snake River and south and west +almost to central Nevada. No specimens are available from the area in +Utah between the Raft River Mountains inhabited by <i>gracilis</i> and the +Wasatch Mountains in central Utah inhabited by <i>wasatchensis</i>. Judging +from the nature of the terrain, the range of <i>gracilis</i> does not extend +eastward much beyond the Raft River Mountains. The type locality for a +gopher of a different species, <i>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</i>, is in +the first valley east of these mountains. Furthermore, all valleys to +the east and south, as far as known, are inhabited by gophers of the +<i>bottae</i> group. Also, all mountain ranges in this area, as far east as +the Wasatch Mountains are inhabited by members of the <i>bottae</i> group.</p> + +<p>No specimens from Utah indicate intergradation between <i>gracilis</i> and +<i>wasatchensis</i>, the form to the east, but specimens from farther north +at Albion, Cassia County, Idaho, do show intergradation. Bailey +(1915:116), Hall (1931:4), and Durrant (1939:6) have reported on these +specimens which at the present time seem best referred to <i>T. t. +gracilis</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 24, distributed as follows: +<i>Box Elder County</i>: Yost, 4 (U. S. A. C.); Pine Canyon, +6,600 ft., 17 mi. NW Kelton, 7 (M. V. Z.): Lynn Canyon, Raft +River, 4; Park Valley, 3 (U. S. A. C.); Etna, 4 (U. S. A. +C.); Raft River Mountains, Clear Creek Camp of Minnedoka +National Forest, 1 (R. H.); Raft River Mountains, 1,500 feet +above Clear Creek Camp of Minnedoka National Forest, 1 (R. H.).</p> +</div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides wasatchensis</b> <span class="fwn">new subspecies</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys quadratus uinta</i> Hall, Univ. California Publ. +Zoöl., 37:4, April 10, 1931.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys talpoides uinta</i> Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234. +May 14, 1939.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys uinta</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:114, November +15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, April, +1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):104, June, 1927; +Stanford, Journ. Mamm., 12:360, November 11, 1931.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1604, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Midway, 5,500 ft., Wasatch County, Utah; September +1, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1049.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Wasatch Mountains and neighboring high valleys as far south +as Spanish Fork Canyon, Utah County.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Snuff +Brown, finely mixed with black; sides and flanks Sayal Brown; +underparts overlaid with Cinnamon Buff, with suffusion of black on +underfur; postauricular patches black, extending around ear; ears +pointed and covered with black hairs; nose, cheeks, chin and top of +head dusky; front feet, hind feet and distal part of tail white; tail +covered proximally with light brown hairs. Skull: Moderately heavy and +ridged; nasals long, wide posteriorly and not markedly dilated +distally; posterior ends of nasals emarginate; zygomatic arches fairly +widely spreading and angular, being nearly straight in adults, but +tending to bow out slightly at posterior ends in young; zygomatic +processes of maxillae heavy; interparietal small and variously shaped, +but always wider than long; interorbital region fairly wide; well +marked dorsal depression in frontals posterior to ends of nasals; +interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; tympanic bullae large; +occipital condyles large and widely separated; foramen magnum large and +higher than wide; basioccipital wide; dentition light.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—From topotypes of <i>Thomomys talpoides moorei</i>, +<i>wasatchensis</i> differs as follows: Size slightly larger; ears longer +and more pointed. Color: Generally darker throughout; postauricular +patches smaller. Skull: Zygomatic arches not as widely spreading; +zygomatic processes of squamosals dip farther ventrally; premaxillae +less extended posterior to nasals; nasals wider posteriorly and less +dilated distally; median dorsal depression of frontals present; +tympanic bullae generally larger, but less inflated ventrally; foramen +magnum larger especially in dorsoventral dimension; occipital condyles +farther apart; basioccipital wider; alveolar length of upper molar +series less; molariform teeth smaller; upper incisors wider and +shorter.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>wasatchensis</i> differ from topotypes and near topotypes of +<i>Thomomys talpoides uinta</i> as follows: Size larger in every measurement +taken. Color: Darker throughout; ears longer and more pigmented; +opening of external ear smaller; postauricular patches larger. Skull: +In females larger throughout, more massive and angular; nasals longer, +wider and not so dilated distally; rostrum longer but wider; zygomatic +arches wider, more angular and less widely spreading posteriorly; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals less; tympanic bullae +larger, but less inflated ventrally; foramen magnum larger and more +ovoid; width across occipital condyles greater; basioccipital wider; +molariform teeth smaller; upper incisors shorter and wider.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>wasatchensis</i> can be distinguished from those of +<i>Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis</i> as follows: Size larger; tail longer; +ears longer. Color: Slightly darker on sides and underparts. Skull: +Heavier, more ridged and angular; nasals more dilated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> distally; +posterior ends of nasals more deeply emarginate; zygomatic arches +heavier and more widely spreading, but more nearly parallel and less +divergent posteriorly; zygomatic processes of maxillae much heavier; +braincase and tympanic bullae larger; pterygoid hamulae shorter; +interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; wider across occipital +condyles; foramen magnum larger and more ovoid.</p> + +<p>From topotypes of <i>Thomomys talpoides gracilis</i>, <i>wasatchensis</i> differs +as follows: Size larger; hind foot longer; ears longer and more +pointed. Color: Darker throughout; postauricular patches relatively +smaller. Skull: Larger, heavier and more angular; nasals emarginate +posteriorly as opposed to truncate; rostrum heavier; zygomatic arches +heavier and more widely spreading; zygomatic processes of maxillae much +heavier and more angular; mastoid breadth greater; interparietal +relatively smaller; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +actually as well as relatively less; palatal pits deeper; tympanic +bullae larger; interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; foramen +magnum more ovoid; upper incisors wider.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>wasatchensis</i> can be readily distinguished from those of +<i>Thomomys talpoides levis</i> and <i>parowanensis</i> by larger size; more +massive, ridged, angular skulls; larger tympanic bullae; large, ovoid +foramen magnum; and relatively smaller interparietal.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Specimens from Mount Timpanogos and environs are +intergrades between <i>moorei</i> and <i>wasatchensis</i>. They resemble <i>moorei</i> +in the shape and size of the tympanic bullae, and are intermediate in +the size and shape of the foramen magnum. In the majority of characters +they resemble <i>wasatchensis</i> to which they are here referred. The +animals from east of Salt Lake City in Salt Lake County are intergrades +between <i>oquirrhensis</i> and <i>wasatchensis</i> and show some characters of +<i>uinta</i>, but are referable to <i>wasatchensis</i>. Animals from Morgan +County and western Summit County are intergrades between <i>wasatchensis</i> +and <i>uinta</i>. They resemble <i>uinta</i> in size, shape of nasals and size of +tympanic bullae. The remainder of the cranial details place them with +<i>wasatchensis</i>. Morphologically the animals from Wellsville, Cache +County, were the closest to the topotypes of any obtained and are +nearly indistinguishable from them. Like the topotypes of +<i>wasatchensis</i> this population inhabits a high valley. The remaining +specimens from Cache County resemble those from Morgan and Summit +counties.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 119, distributed as follows: +<i>Cache County</i>: Logan Canyon, Beaver Basin, Utah-Idaho Line, +2 (U. S. A. C); Logan Canyon, Tony Grove Camp, 6 (U. S. A. +C); Logan Canyon, Green Camp, 3 (U. S. A. C); Logan Canyon, +3 (U. S. A. C); Logan Mountains, 20 mi. E Logan, 3 (U. S. A. +C); Logan Peak area, 13 (U. S. A. C); near Providence Peak, +Logan Mountains, 1 (U. S. A. C.); Wellsville, 10 (U. S. A. +C); Hardware Ranch, Blacksmith Fork, 1 (U. S. A. C); Avon, 1 +(U. S. A. C); 1 mi. E Avon, 1 (U. S. A. C); 7-8 mi. E Avon, +1 (U. S. A. C). <i>Weber County</i>: South Fork, Ogden River, 18 +mi. E Ogden, 4 (M. V. Z.). <i>Morgan County</i>: East Canyon, 18 +mi. NW Park City, 6,000 ft., 1. <i>Davis County</i>: 8 mi. NE +Salt Lake City, 1. <i>Salt Lake County</i>: Mouth of Dry Canyon, +1 mi. NE Salt Lake City, 1; 4 mi. above mouth City Creek +Canyon, 5,000 ft., 1; mouth of Emigration Canyon, 1; mouth +of Millcreek Canyon, 1; Lambs Canyon, 13 mi. SE Salt Lake +City, 2 (C. M.); mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon, 1. <i>Summit +County</i>: Park City, 1 (U. S. N. M.). <i>Wasatch County</i>: +Midway, 5,500 ft., 29. <i>Utah County</i>: Mt. Timpanogos, 1 mi. +N Aspen Grove, 7,500 ft., 20; Aspen Grove, Mt. Timpanogos, 5 +(1, U. S. A. C.; 4, B. Y. U.); Head of Grove Creek, Mt. +Timpanogos, 4 (B. Y. U.).</p> + +<p><i>Additional Records</i>: <i>Weber County</i>: Ogden, 6. <i>Salt Lake +County</i>: Parleys Canyon, 1 (Bailey, 1915:114).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis</b> <span class="fwn">Durrant</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis</i> Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, +30 (No. 5):3, October 24, 1939.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull; No. 2605, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Settlement Creek, Oquirrh Mountains, 6,500 ft., +Tooele County, Utah; June 11, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; +original number 1461.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Known only from the Oquirrh Mountains, which are in Salt +Lake, Tooele and Utah counties, Utah.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements); ear long; tail short, +claws of front feet long and slender. Color: Upper parts Buckthorn +Brown, mixed with black, grading over the sides and flanks to Pinkish +Buff on the ventral surface; feet white; nose grayish black; +postauricular patches medium in size and black; chin and throat with +varying amounts of white; proximal two-thirds of tail dark brown, +distal third white. Skull: Long and slender, but relatively wide across +mastoidal region; nasals long and rounded posteriorly; rostrum long and +narrow; zygomatic arches weak and not widely spreading, tending to be +slightly bowed out posteriorly, but in the main roughly parallel to the +sides of the skull; outer margin of zygomatic arch slightly concave, +and zygomatic arch dips deeply ventrad; dorsal surface of skull smooth, +with weakly defined parietal crests; parietal crest nearly parallel, +but bowed medially, in parietal region, and flaring widely posteriorly +to pass lateral to interparietal; tympanic bullae large, truncate +anteriorly and markedly inflated ventrally; upper incisors short and +fairly robust.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—From <i>Thomomys talpoides uinta</i>, <i>oquirrhensis</i> may be +differentiated as follows: Color: Darker throughout; postauricular +patches larger and darker; ears longer and more pointed; inner margin +of pinna heavily pigmented; external opening of ear smaller. Skull: +Nasals rounded posteriorly rather than deeply emarginate, and less +flaring distally; zygomatic arches weaker and markedly less widely +spreading; pterygoid hamulae weaker; basisphenoid narrower; upper +incisors shorter and wider.</p> + +<p>For comparisons between <i>oquirrhensis</i> and <i>Thomomys talpoides<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> +gracilis</i>, and <i>oquirrhensis</i> and <i>wasatchensis</i>, see comparisons under +those forms.</p> + +<p>Topotypical specimens of <i>oquirrhensis</i> can be distinguished from those +of <i>Thomomys talpoides moorei</i> as follows: Color generally darker, due +to greater admixture of black; terminal bands of hair actually lighter; +postauricular patches larger and darker; ears longer, more pointed and +with more heavily pigmented pinnae; tail shorter. Skull: About the same +size; smoother; zygomatic arches weaker and less widely spreading; +nasals rounded posteriorly as opposed to emarginate; mastoid breadth +less; pterygoid hamulae weaker; upper incisors wider.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—This race is limited to the Oquirrh Mountains, a high +mountain range that lies parallel to, and just west of the Wasatch +Mountains, in Utah, Salt Lake and Tooele counties. These mountains were +connected in past times to the Wasatch Mountains by the Transverse +Range, and by a sand and gravel bar deposited by Pleistocene Lake +Bonneville. The Jordan River in its course from Utah Lake to the Great +Salt Lake has cut a channel through the aforementioned bar. This +channel has been cut to the level of the surrounding valleys as is +indicated by the meandering nature of the stream through this part of +its course. As a result the Oquirrh Mountains are relatively isolated. +Although separated from the Wasatch Mountains by the Jordan River +Valley only a few miles wide, the pocket gophers are distinct on each +mountain. A population of <i>T. bottae</i> is interposed between the two +mountain ranges as is indicated by specimens from Riverton, six miles +north of the Transverse Range. The populations of <i>bottae</i> are +subspecifically the same on the two sides of the Jordan River.</p> + +<p>On the east side of the Oquirrh Mountains, pocket gophers collected +from the Jordan Valley up Rose Canyon to about 5,000 feet elevation +were all of the species <i>T. bottae</i>. Between 5,000 and 6,000 feet there +is an area in which the ranges of <i>bottae</i> and <i>talpoides</i> overlap. +When trapping, it is possible to predict what species will be taken by +the types of burrows and soil. Gophers of the <i>bottae</i> group have their +burrows in the areas of the deepest soil and heaviest vegetation, +whereas the areas of shallow, rocky soil covered with sparse vegetation +are the habitat of <i>talpoides</i>. Above 6,000 feet the only gopher +encountered is <i>talpoides</i>. Along Settlement Creek on the west side of +the Oquirrh Mountains, which is the type locality of <i>oquirrhensis</i>, +<i>bottae</i> and <i>talpoides</i> have essentially<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> the same vertical +distribution as in Rose Canyon. On this mountain the two species appear +to be in competition.</p> + +<p>The available information, based on collections, indicates that the +Oquirrh Mountains are the only mountains west of the Wasatch Range upon +which <i>talpoides</i> occurs. In Utah, all other mountains to the west, as +far as known, are inhabited by subspecies of of <i>Thomomys bottae</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 41, as follows: <i>Tooele +County</i>: Settlement Creek, Oquirrh Mountains, 6,500 ft., 14. +<i>Salt Lake County</i>: Rose Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, 5,650 +ft., 27.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides uinta</b> <span class="fwn">Merriam</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys uinta</i> Merriam, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, +14:112, July 19, 1901; Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:113, +November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, +April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):104, June, 1927; +Stanford, Journ. Mamm., 12:360; November 11, 1931; Goldman, +Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., 28:333, July 15, 1938; Davis, +The Recent mammals of Idaho, pp. 239, 259, The Caxton +Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho, April 5, 1939.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys talpoides uinta</i> Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, +May 14, 1939.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys quadratus uinta Hall</i>, Univ. California Publ. +Zoöl., 37:4, April 10, 1931.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 22501/30051, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); north base Gilbert Peak, Uinta +Mountains, 10,000 ft., Summit County, Utah; June 6, 1890; collected by +Vernon Bailey; original number 1262 (after Merriam, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Uinta Mountains in Duchesne County, eastern Wasatch and +Summit counties, and western Uintah County south to the Roan, Brown and +Book cliffs in Carbon County.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Snuff +Brown finely mixed with black, paling over sides and flanks to near +Pinkish Buff on underparts; postauricular patches relatively small and +dusky; external opening of ear large; pinnae usually lightly pigmented; +hind feet white; front feet usually white only at base of toes; distal +third to half of tail white; tail usually light below, with proximal +dorsal half covered with darker hairs; nose, chin, cheeks and top of +head dusky; usually considerable white on throat. Skull: Small, +slender, and not heavily ridged; nasals short and dilated distally; +posterior margins of nasals emarginate; zygomatic arches moderately +widely spreading, widest posteriorly; interparietal pentagonal or +subquadrangular; interpterygoid space V-shaped; tympanic bullae well +inflated ventrally; upper incisors long and narrow.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—For comparisons with other subspecies of <i>Thomomys +talpoides</i>, see accounts of those forms.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—The range formerly ascribed to <i>uinta</i> (Bailey, 1915:114; +Barnes, 1922:83, 1927:104) is now known to be inhabited by animals +belonging to three distinct subspecies. The range of <i>uinta</i> as now +understood is restricted to the southern and western<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> parts of the +Uinta Mountains and their environs. Three specimens from the Book +Cliffs, Sunnyside, Carbon County, are not typical, but in a majority of +their characters agree with <i>uinta</i> to which they are here referred.</p> + +<p>I have seen only one specimen from the type locality. It is one of the +series on which Merriam (1901:112) based his original description. In +addition, I have studied several large series of near topotypes. From +the material at hand, and from Merriam's description (<i>loc. cit.</i>), I +regard the animals on which the name <i>uinta</i> was based as intergrades +between <i>Thomomys talpoides ravus</i>, the race to the northeast, on the +one hand and the animals of the western and southern parts of the Uinta +Mountains on the other hand. The affinities of the type series are with +the animals from the latter area which are here all referred to +<i>uinta</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 41, distributed as follows: +<i>Summit County</i>: 2 mi. S junction Bear River and Haydens +Fork, 2 (C. M.); N base, Gilbert Peak, 10,000 ft., 1 (U. S. +N. M.); Smith and Moorehouse Creek, 2; Bald Peak, 25 mi. NE +Kamas, 15 (8, M. V. Z.; 6, C. M.). <i>Duchesne County</i>: Petty +Mountain, 15 mi. N Mountain Home, 9,500 ft., 6 (C. M.). +<i>Wasatch County</i>: Wolf Creek Pass, 18 mi. NW Hanna, 1 (U. S. +A. C.); Lost Lake, Uinta Mountains, 10 (B. Y. U.); Current +Creek, Uinta Mountains, 1 (U. S. N. M.). <i>Carbon County</i>: +Forks, Sunnyside, 9,000 ft., 3.</p> + +<p><i>Additional records.</i>—<i>Summit County</i>: Uinta Mountains, 6 +(see Bailey, 1915:114).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides pygmaeus</b> <span class="fwn">Merriam</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys pygmaeus</i> Merriam, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, +14:115. July 19, 1901.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys talpoides pygmaeus</i> Davis, The Recent mammals of +Idaho, p. 252, The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho, +April 5, 1939.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 55251, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); 10 mi. NE Montpelier, in open +sagebrush of Transition Zone, 6,600 ft., Bear County, Idaho; July 29, +1893; collected by Vernon Bailey: original number 4150 (after Merriam, +type not seen: see, also, Bailey, 1915:109).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Limited to Daggett County.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size: Small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts near +Bister slightly mixed with black, grading over sides and flanks to +Ochraceous Buff on underparts; postauricular patches small and dusky; +hind feet white; front feet dusky, being white only at base of claws; +chin and nose dusky; tail brown, lighter below and tipped with white. +Skull: Very small, slender and smooth; nasals short and slender; +zygomatic arches weak and not widely spreading; rostrum narrow; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals short; parietal ridges +hardly noticeable; interparietal large; extension of supraoccipital +posterior to lambdoidal suture long; tympanic bullae actually small, +but relatively large; basioccipital narrow; interpterygoid space narrow +and acutely angled; upper incisors markedly recurved; molariform teeth +relatively large.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—This small pocket gopher can be distinguished from all +other members of <i>Thomomys talpoides</i> occurring in Utah by remarkably +small size, and slender, weak, small skull with strongly recurved upper +incisors.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—The specimens used in this study were those recorded by +Svihla (1931:261). She reports that they were obtained in the +flood-plain banks of the streamsides, and preferred the pine belt. This +shows probably an extension of range with reference to life zones, as +heretofore the main reported localities of capture have been in +sagebrush in the Transition Life-zone.</p> + +<p>Insofar as I am aware, Mrs. Svihla's specimens are the only ones of +this subspecies ever obtained in Utah. Additional work is necessary in +southwestern Wyoming to outline accurately the geographic distribution +of this subspecies. In comparison with topotypes, the specimens from +Utah are lighter in color and some specimens have slightly larger +skulls, suggesting slight intergradation with <i>Thomomys talpoides +uinta</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 18 (all in Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Michigan), distributed as follows: <i>Daggett +County</i>: Sheep Creek, 4; 1 mi. W Summit Springs, 4; Beaver +Creek, 22 mi. S Manila, 9; Granite Park, 24 mi. S Manila, 1.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides ravus</b> <span class="fwn">new subspecies</span></h3> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 13690, Carnegie Museum; +Vernal-Manila Highway, 19 mi. N Vernal, 8,000 ft., Uintah County, Utah; +August 22, 1937; collected by J. K. and M. T. Doutt; original number +4718.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Uinta Mountains in Daggett, northern Uintah and northern +Summit counties.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size large (see measurements); ears relatively narrow; +hind foot relatively small. Color: Upper parts between Drab and Light +Drab, darkest along middorsal line due to mixture of hairs tipped with +light brown; sides and flanks Light Drab; entire underparts creamy +white; front and hind feet, ventral surface of tail and end of tail +white; proximal two-thirds of tail covered dorsally with light brown +hairs; nose and cheeks dusky; postauricular patches black. Skull: +Large, heavy and ridged; rostrum long and narrow; nasals long, +moderately dilated distally and with a distal hump; posterior ends of +nasals emarginate; parietal and lambdoidal crests well developed; +zygomatic arches moderately heavy and widely spreading, widest +posteriorly; zygomatic processes of maxillae moderately heavy and +flaring abruptly from base of rostrum; marked middorsal depression in +frontals present; interparietal pentagonal; extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals long; posterior tongues of premaxillae long, +slender and rounded proximally; braincase high, vaulted and relatively +narrow; tympanic bullae well inflated ventrally, and ridged in old +animals; pterygoid hamulae long; interpterygoid space narrowly +V-shaped; upper incisors long and narrow; molariform teeth medium.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys talpoides +bridgeri</i>, <i>ravus</i> differs as follows: Size larger; hind foot smaller; +ears narrower. Color: Lighter throughout, grayish as opposed to brown. +Skull: Smaller, narrower, less angular and less massive; nasals, +rostrum, zygomatic processes of maxillae, ascending branches of +premaxillae and posterior tongues of premaxillae all narrower; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals longer; interparietal +wider; braincase higher and narrower; tympanic bullae approximately the +same size, but more inflated ventrally; interpterygoid space more +narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors narrower; molariform teeth weaker.</p> + +<p>Compared with topotypes and near topotypes of <i>Thomomys talpoides +uinta</i>, <i>ravus</i> differs as follows: Size larger in every measurement +taken. Color: Lighter throughout, being grayish as opposed to brown. +Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; rostrum and nasals actually +as well as relatively longer; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals longer; upper incisors longer and wider; molariform teeth +larger.</p> + +<p>There is only one other gray subspecies of <i>Thomomys talpoides</i> in +Utah, <i>Thomomys talpoides ocius</i>. Topotypes of <i>ravus</i> differ from it +as follows: Size markedly larger in every measurement taken. Color: +Darker, more brown hairs. Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; +premaxillae extended farther posteriorly to nasals; extension of +supraoccipital posterior to lambdoidal suture markedly less; tympanic +bullae actually as well as relatively smaller; upper incisors longer +and more procumbent.</p> + +<p>This new subspecies can be readily distinguished from all other +subspecies of <i>Thomomys talpoides</i> occurring in Utah by markedly +greater size and paler, more grayish color.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—The range of this form appears to be limited to the north +slopes of the Uinta Mountains, except in Daggett County where it occurs +also on the south slopes. Intergradation in color and in cranial +details with <i>bridgeri</i> is shown by animals from the East Fork of +Blacks Fork, thirty-one miles SSW Fort Bridger, and by those from +Henrys Fork, 8,300 ft., both in Summit County. Due to the grayish color +and the narrower, weaker skull they are referred to <i>ravus</i>. +Intergradation with <i>uinta</i> is shown by specimens from the type +locality of the latter race. The type series of <i>uinta</i> consists of +intergrades between <i>ravus</i> and the animals to the west and south (see +remarks under <i>uinta</i>).</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span></p> + +<p>It is doubtful whether <i>bridgeri</i> occurs in Utah. Material from Rich +County and extreme northern Cache County would settle the question. +Perhaps <i>bridgeri</i> is restricted to the lower valleys in southwestern +Wyoming. Two specimens from northern Cache County, from Logan Canyon, +Beaver Basin, Utah-Idaho Line appear to be intergrades between +<i>bridgeri</i> and <i>wasatchensis</i>, but are referable to the latter race.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 38, distributed as follows: +<i>Summit County</i>: Henrys Fork, 8,300 ft., 8; E Fork, Blacks +Fork, 31 mi. SSW Fort Bridger, 4 (C. M.). <i>Daggett County</i>: +Vernal-Manila Road, 4 mi. W Green's Lake, 7,500 ft., 6 (C. +M.); Elk Park, Uinta Mountains, 5 (B. Y. U.). <i>Uintah +County</i>: Trout Creek, SE Trout Peak, 22 mi. NW Vernal, 9,300 +ft., 5 (C. M.); Vernal-Manila Highway, 19 mi. N Vernal, +8,000 ft., 6 (C. M.); Taylor Peak, 17 mi. N Vernal, 4 (C. +M.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides ocius</b> <span class="fwn">Merriam</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys clusius ocius</i> Merriam, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 14:114, July 19, 1901.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys clusius</i> Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., +13:246, November 25, 1896.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys ocius</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:107, November +15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, April, +1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 18852/25586, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); dry sagebrush mesas at Harveys +Ranch, Smiths Fork, 6 mi. SW Fort Bridger, 6,657 ft., Uinta County, +Wyoming; May 24, 1890; collected by Vernon Bailey; original number 1194 +(after Bailey, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Tilleul +Buff overlaid with Avellaneous, grading over sides and flanks to nearly +white on underparts; underparts with faint wash of creamy white; +postauricular patches small and dusky and completely circling the ear; +nose and cheeks dusky; front feet, hind feet, throat, ventral surface +of tail and distal half of tail white. Skull: Small, slender but +compact; nasals rounded posteriorly; extension of premaxillae posterior +to nasals very short; zygomatic arches robust, but not widely +spreading, widest posteriorly; interparietal large and pentagonal in +shape; extension of supraoccipital posterior to lambdoidal suture long; +tympanic bullae actually as well as relatively large; basioccipital +narrow; pterygoid hamulae long and ridged; upper incisors short and +strongly recurved.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with one topotype and seven near topotypes of +<i>Thomomys talpoides pygmaeus</i>, <i>ocius</i> differs as follows: Size larger +in every measurement taken. Color: Lighter throughout, grayish as +opposed to brown; distal half of tail white as opposed to only a few +white hairs at tip of tail. Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; +skull more compact; zygomatic arches<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> heavier and more widely spreading +posteriorly; tympanic bullae larger; upper incisors larger, but equally +strongly recurved; molariform teeth larger.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of ocius can be distinguished from those of <i>Thomomys +talpoides uinta</i> as follows: Color: Lighter throughout, grayish as +opposed to brown. Skull: Nasals rounded posteriorly as opposed to +emarginate; zygomatic arches more robust; interparietal pentagonal as +opposed to subquadrangular; extension of supraoccipital posterior to +lambdoidal suture markedly greater; tympanic bullae actually as well as +relatively much larger; upper incisors short and strongly recurved as +opposed to long and procumbent.</p> + +<p>Specimens of this subspecies can be distinguished from all other +members of the species <i>Thomomys talpoides</i> occurring in Utah by their +grayish color, and by small, compact skulls with very large tympanic +bullae and short strongly recurved upper incisors.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Two specimens from Vernal, Uintah County, are intergrades +between <i>ocius</i> and <i>uinta</i>. They resemble <i>uinta</i> in size and dorsal +color, but are slightly lighter tending toward the color of <i>ocius</i>. +Ventrally they are intermediate in color but more like <i>ocius</i>. The +skulls are more like those of <i>ocius</i> in general appearance, extension +of supraoccipital posterior to the lambdoidal suture, shape and +thickness of the zygomatic arches, posterior tongues of premaxillae, +size of tympanic bullae and recurved upper incisors. They more closely +resemble <i>uinta</i> in shape of posterior ends of nasals, basioccipital +and shape of the zygomatic processes of the squamosals. In all of the +above mentioned characters, they are intermediate between the two named +forms, but tend towards one or the other as listed. The majority of +characters are more as in <i>ocius</i> to which they are here referred.</p> + +<p>When Goldman (1939:233, 234) listed the named subspecies of <i>Thomomys +talpoides</i>, he hesitated to include <i>ocius</i> and merely mentioned that +<i>ocius</i>, <i>pygmaeus</i> and <i>idahoensis</i> might also belong to <i>talpoides</i>. +Davis (1939:240, 241) found intergradation between <i>idahoensis</i> and +<i>fuscus</i> and also between <i>idahoensis</i> and <i>pygmaeus</i>, and, therefore, +arranged the last two mentioned forms as subspecies of <i>talpoides</i>. +This present study reveals intergradation between <i>ocius</i> and <i>uinta</i>, +and also between <i>ocius</i> and <i>fossor</i> (see account of <i>fossor</i>). +Therefore, <i>ocius</i> is properly to be treated as a subspecies of the +series of intergrading forms of which <i>talpoides</i> is the earliest +named.</p> + +<p>All specimens of <i>ocius</i> known from Utah are from the extreme<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> eastern +part of the northeastern corner of the state. The type locality of +<i>ocius</i> is near Fort Bridger, Wyoming, which is north of Utah. I have +seen one specimen from 12 miles west of Linwood, Daggett County, Utah, +on Henrys Fork in Wyoming. Additional collecting in northern Utah +probably will reveal <i>ocius</i> to inhabit also parts of northern Utah.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 4, distributed as follows: +<i>Uintah County</i>: Vernal, 2 (C. M.); Uncompahgre Indian +Reservation, 2 (A. M. N. H.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides moorei</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys fossor moorei</i> Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. +Sci., 28:335, July 15, 1938.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys talpoides moorei</i> Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, +May 14, 1939.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 248222, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); 1 mi. S Fairview, 6,000 ft., Sanpete +County, Utah; February 19, 1928; collected by A. W. Moore; X-catalogue +number 24799 (after Goldman, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Wasatch Plateau in Sanpete, Utah, Carbon and Emery counties, +and in Wasatch Mountains south of Spanish Fork Canyon.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +between Cinnamon and Sayal Brown, with mixture of black hairs, grading +through Cinnamon on sides and flanks to Pale Pinkish Buff on +underparts, clearest on inguinal and pectoral regions; nose and cheeks +dusky; postauricular patches medium in size and black; ears black; chin +buffy white; front and hind feet white; tail mostly white with brownish +hairs on dorsal surface. Skull: Large, robust; nasals long and deeply +emarginate on posterior ends, and dilated distally; zygomatic arches +robust and widely spreading; zygomatic processes of maxillae heavy; +interparietal comparatively small, but always wider than long; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals short; tympanic bullae +moderate in size, but markedly inflated ventrally; pterygoid hamulae +long; interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors long and +moderately recurved; molariform teeth light.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Topotypes of <i>moorei</i> differ from topotypes and near +topotypes of <i>Thomomys talpoides uinta</i> as follows: Size slightly +larger. Color: Upper parts and sides lighter; tail lighter; +postauricular patches larger and darker; ears more pointed, smaller and +darker. Skull: Larger, heavier and more massive; nasals longer, but +deeply emarginate posteriorly as in <i>uinta</i>; rostrum wider and longer; +zygomatic arches heavier and more angular; zygomatic processes of +maxillae heavier; interparietal generally smaller and shorter; +braincase wider; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; +interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors longer, but +not as procumbent; molariform teeth smaller.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>moorei</i> can be distinguished from those of <i>Thomomys<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> +talpoides oquirrhensis</i> as follows: Size slightly larger; tail longer; +ears larger, less pointed. Color: Lighter throughout; postauricular +patches larger. Skull: More ridged and angular; nasals narrower +posteriorly, but more dilated distally; posterior ends of nasals more +deeply emarginate (while shallowly emarginate in <i>oquirrhensis</i>, they +tend to be somewhat rounded); rostrum narrower; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; least interorbital breadth +less; zygomatic arches more angular and widely spreading; zygomatic +processes of maxillae heavier; interparietal smaller; tympanic bullae +larger and more inflated ventrally; upper incisors generally longer.</p> + +<p>The characters that distinguish <i>moorei</i> from <i>Thomomys talpoides +parowanensis</i> are: Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: Broader, more +angular and more nearly flat; zygomatic arches more widely spreading; +zygomatic processes of maxillae heavier; posterior ends of nasals +emarginate rather than rounded; upper incisors longer.</p> + +<p>For comparisons of <i>moorei</i> with <i>Thomomys talpoides levis</i> and +<i>wasatchensis</i> see accounts of these forms.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Specimens from Colton, show intergradation between +<i>moorei</i>, <i>uinta</i> and <i>wasatchensis</i>, but are referable to <i>moorei</i> in +the majority of characters. Specimens from Mount Nebo, and the mouth of +Reddicks Canyon, in the Wasatch and San Pitch mountains, respectively, +are intergrades between <i>moorei</i> and <i>wasatchensis</i>, but are referable +to <i>moorei</i>.</p> + +<p>That part of the Wasatch Mountains south of Spanish Fork Canyon is +inhabited by pocket gophers that are intergrades between <i>moorei</i> and +<i>wasatchensis</i>, but the cranial details show them to be referable to +<i>moorei</i>. The range here ascribed to <i>moorei</i> consists of the Wasatch +Plateau to the east of Sanpete Valley, the San Pitch Mountains and the +southern part of the Wasatch Mountains. The type locality of <i>moorei</i> +is situated in the southern end of a high valley that separates the +Wasatch Plateau from the San Pitch and Wasatch mountains. Topotypical +animals are larger and have more ridged, angular skulls than those from +the mountains.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 48, distributed as follows: +<i>Utah County</i>: Near Payson Lake, 1 (R. H.); Mt. Nebo, 25 mi. +SE Payson, 10,000 ft., 20; Colton, 8 (B. Y. U.). <i>Sanpete +County</i>: 1 mi. S Fairview, 6,000 ft., 12 (U. S. N. M.). +<i>Juab County</i>: Mouth of Reddicks Canyon, Wales Mountain (= +San Pitch Mountains), 7,500 ft., 5. <i>Emery County</i>: Lake +Creek, 11 mi. E Mt. Pleasant, 2 (C. M.).</p> + +<p><i>Additional records.</i>—<i>Sanpete County</i>: Ephraim, 5 (see +Goldman, 1938:336).</p></div><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span></p> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides fossor</b> <span class="fwn">Allen</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys fossor</i> Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 5:51, +April 28, 1893; Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:111, November 15, +1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, April, 1922; +Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927; Hall, Univ. +California Publ. Zoöl., 37:4, April 10, 1931.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys talpoides fossor</i> Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, +May 14, 1939.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 5240/4120, American Museum of +Natural History; Florida, 7,200 ft., La Plata County, Colorado; June +25, 1892; collected by Charles P. Rowley (after Allen, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—In the mountains of San Juan and Grand counties, east of the +Colorado and Green rivers.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Dresden Brown, grading over sides to Pale Buff on underparts; chin +white; ears small, pointed, with deeply pigmented pinnae; postauricular +patches grayish black; nose dusky. Skull: Long and narrow; nasals long, +rounded proximally and usually simple distally; rostrum long; +interparietal triangular; tympanic bullae large, and well inflated +ventrally; basioccipital narrow; palate narrow; palatal pits shallow; +dentition light.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Near topotypes of <i>fossor</i> can be distinguished from +topotypes of <i>Thomomys talpoides ocius</i> as follows: Size larger +throughout. Color: Darker throughout, being dark brown as opposed to +grayish. Skull: Longer and narrower; nasals and rostrum longer; +extension of supraoccipital posterior to lambdoidal suture markedly +less; tympanic bullae markedly smaller; upper incisors longer and not +as strongly recurved.</p> + +<p>Among the races of <i>Thomomys talpoides</i> occurring in Utah, <i>fossor</i> +most closely resembles <i>Thomomys talpoides uinta</i> in color and size, +but differs from it as follows: Ears smaller, more pointed and with +more darkly pigmented pinnae. Skull: Longer, narrower and weaker; +rostrum longer; nasals longer, and rounded proximally as opposed to +markedly emarginate; interparietal triangular instead of roughly +pentagonal; tympanic bullae larger and more inflated ventrally; +basioccipital narrower; palate narrower, palatal pits shallower; +dentition lighter.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Bailey (1915:111) remarked that <i>fossor</i> was one form that +held its distinctive characters over a wide range. At that time, its +range was understood to include practically all of the mountainous +parts of Colorado, Utah as far west as the central part of the state, +and parts of New Mexico, Arizona and Wyoming. Subsequently three new +forms have been named from central Utah, (Goldman 1938:334-337) thereby +showing variation to be much<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> more prevalent than formerly supposed. +The range of <i>fossor</i> in Utah, as now understood, is limited to the +mountainous parts of the state south and east of the Colorado and Green +rivers in Grand and San Juan counties.</p> + +<p>The Utah specimens are not typical. At first glance some differences +are noted in the premaxillae and nasals. Four specimens in the +collections of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, +three from 3 miles east of Creede, Mineral County, and one from 10 +miles east of Lake City, Hinsdale County, Colorado, both of which lie +north and east of the type locality of <i>fossor</i> show the same +characters as the Utah specimens.</p> + +<p>Eight specimens from Oak Spring are intergrades between <i>fossor</i> and +<i>ocius</i>. In size and color they are like <i>fossor</i>, but the skulls are +intermediate. Because the animals are more like <i>fossor</i> in the +majority of characters, they are here referred to that race.</p> + +<p>As a result of these studies and due to the paucity of specimens from +Utah, it is advisable, for the present, to refer all these Utah animals +to <i>fossor</i>. Additional specimens may reveal characters that will merit +the separation of the Utah animals from typical <i>fossor</i>; a desertlike +area unfavorable to <i>Thomomys</i> exists between the type locality and +eastern Utah.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 21, distributed as follows: +<i>Grand County</i>: Oak Spring, Middle Fork Willow Creek, 15 mi. +N Thompson, 8 (C. M.); La Sal Mountains, 1 (U. S. N. M.); +Warner Ranger Station, La Sal Mountains, 3 (B. Y. U.). <i>San +Juan County</i>: Geyser Pass, 18 mi. SE Moab, La Sal Mountains, +3 (1, B. Y. U.; 2, C. M.); 5 mi. W Monticello, 1 (C. M.); +Cooley Pass, 8 mi. W Monticello, 2 (C. M.); Joshua Flat, Elk +Ridge, 8,300 ft., 3 (M. V. Z.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides parowanensis</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys fossor parowanensis</i> Goldman, Journ. Washington +Acad. Sci., 28:334, July 15, 1938.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys talpoides parowanensis</i> Goldman, Journ. Mamm., +20:234, May 14, 1939; Long, Journ. Mamm., 21:176, May 14, +1940.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys fossor</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:112, November +15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, April, +1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927; Hall, +Univ. California Publ. Zoöl., 37:4, April 10, 1931; +Presnall, Zion-Bryce Mus. Bull., 2:14, January, 1938; +Tanner, Great Basin Nat., 1:111, 1940.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 158072, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Brian Head, Parowan Mountains, 11,000 +ft., Iron County, Utah; September 8, 1908; collected by W. H. Osgood; +original number 3483 (after Goldman, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—High mountains of eastern Iron and Beaver counties, and +western Kane and Garfield counties.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Sayal +Brown moderately mixed with black, lightest on head; sides lightly +washed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> with Buff; underparts Pinkish Buff, clearest on inguinal and +pectoral regions; nose and cheeks dusky; postauricular patches large +and black; front feet, hind feet and distal half of tail white. Skull: +Long and fairly slender; zygomatic arches not widely spreading; nasals +long; rostrum long and slender; posterior ends of nasals truncate or +moderately emarginate; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +usually short; tympanic bullae relatively small; upper incisors long +and narrow; molariform teeth large.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with <i>Thomomys talpoides kaibabensis</i>, +<i>parowanensis</i> differs as follows: Size smaller. Skull: Shorter; nasals +shorter; zygomatic breadth less; nasals truncate or shallowly +emarginate posteriorly as opposed to rounded; upper incisors narrower.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>parowanensis</i> differ from topotypes and near topotypes of +<i>Thomomys talpoides uinta</i> as follows: Size larger. Color: Usually +lighter; postauricular patches larger and darker; ears small with +pinnae deeply pigmented as opposed to large and lightly pigmented. +Skull: Larger; zygomatic arches more widely spreading; nasals longer; +rostrum longer; posterior ends of nasals truncate or shallowly +emarginate as opposed to deeply emarginate; sides of zygomatic arches +nearly parallel and not so divergent posteriorly; interparietal larger +and less quadrangular; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +less; upper incisors less procumbent; molariform teeth larger.</p> + +<p>Among named races of <i>Thomomys talpoides</i>, <i>parowanensis</i> most closely +resembles <i>levis</i>, the race nearest geographically to the east, but +differs from <i>levis</i> as follows: Size larger. Skull: Longer and wider; +rostrum and nasals longer; interparietal quadrangular as opposed to +roughly elliptical; upper incisors longer.</p> + +<p>For comparisons with <i>Thomomys talpoides moorei</i> and <i>wasatchensis</i> see +accounts of those forms.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—The mountains of south central Utah are inhabited by pocket +gophers that have been designated as <i>Thomomys talpoides parowanensis</i> +and <i>T. t. levis</i> by Goldman (1938:334, 336). They are nearly +indistinguishable in color and each is variable in cranial details. The +diagnostic characters of each form occasionally appear, in varying +degrees, throughout the range of the other. The Sevier River Valley +separates the ranges ascribed to these two forms. This valley is +inhabited by pocket gophers that belong to a different species, +<i>Thomomys bottae</i>. The ranges of these two races of <i>talpoides</i> +converge southward at the headwaters of the Sevier River. Specimens of +<i>parowanensis</i> from the northern limits of its range from the Beaver +Mountains in eastern Beaver County<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> and those of <i>levis</i> from the +northern limits of its range in the Fish Lake Mountains are readily +distinguishable from each other. As the ranges converge to the +southward, there is progressively more intergradation. The type +locality of <i>parowanensis</i> is located in the southern part of its +range, while that of <i>levis</i> is in the extreme northern part of its +range. Therefore, due to the convergence of the two ranges at the +south, the specimens from localities near the type locality of +<i>parowanensis</i> show the greatest amount of intergradation, if we regard +specimens of <i>parowanensis</i> from the type locality as typical of the +race. Four specimens from Webster Flat, sixteen miles east of Cedar +City, Iron County, and three from Duck Creek, Cedar Mountains, Kane +County could equally well be assigned to either <i>levis</i> or +<i>parowanensis</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 24, distributed as follows: +<i>Beaver County</i>: Britts Meadows, Beaver Mountains, 8,500 +ft., 7 (3, M. V. Z.; 2, U. S. N. M.; 2, C. M.); Puffer Lake, +Beaver Mountains, 1 (U. S. N. M.); Kents Lake, Beaver +Mountains, 1 (R. H.). <i>Iron County</i>: Lava Beds, 3-1/2 mi. SW +Panquitch Lake, 1 (C. M.); Brian Head, Parowan Mountains, 2 +(1, U. S. N. M.; 1, C. M.); Webster Flat, 16 mi. E Cedar +City, 4; Bear Valley, 2 mi. E B. V. Ranger Station, 1 (R. +H.). <i>Garfield County</i>: 1/4 mi. W Sunset Point, Bryce +National Park, 8,000 ft., 1 (M. V. Z.). <i>Kane County</i>: +Navajo Lake, 3 (R. H.); Duck Creek, Cedar Mountains, 9,000 +ft., 3 (1, R. H.).</p> + +<p><i>Additional records.</i>—<i>Garfield County</i>: Panquitch Lake, 1 +(see Goldman 1938:335). <i>Iron County</i>: Beaver Mountains, 9 +(see Bailey, 1915:112); Buckskin Valley, 1 (see Goldman, +1938:335).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys talpoides levis</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys fossor levis</i> Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. +Sci., 28:336, July 15, 1938.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys talpoides levis</i> Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, +May 14, 1939.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys fossor</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:112, November +15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, April, +1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 158079, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); Seven Mile Flat, 5 mi. N Fish +Lake, Fish Lake Plateau, 10,000 ft., Sevier County, Utah; October 1, +1908; collected by W. H. Osgood; original number 3616 (after Goldman, +type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Fish Lake Mountains in Sevier County south into Garfield +County, Utah.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts near +Sayal Brown, moderately mixed with black, darkest on head and middorsal +region, grading to Cinnamon Buff on sides and flanks; underparts +Pinkish Buff, clearest on inguinal and pectoral regions; chin, cheeks +and nose dusky; postauricular patches large and black; front feet, hind +feet and distal half of tail white; ears small and deeply pigmented. +Skull: Slender and weak; zygomatic arches not widely spreading; +posterior ends of nasals rounded; nasals moderately long and narrow; +rostrum long and narrow; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +short; interparietal usually much wider than<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> long; pterygoid hamulae +ridged; interpterygoid space usually narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors +short.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys talpoides moorei</i>, +<i>levis</i> differs as follows: Size smaller; tail shorter. Color: Darker +throughout, especially on dorsal surface due to more black of the +underfur; underparts deeper buff. Skull: Narrower, less massive; +zygomatic processes of maxillae weaker and not as widely spreading; +interparietal generally wider; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals less; posterior ends of nasals rounded rather than emarginate; +upper incisors shorter, less procumbent.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>levis</i> differ from near topotypes of <i>Thomomys talpoides +uinta</i> as follows: Size larger. Color: Upper parts slightly darker; +postauricular patches much darker and larger; ears small and deeply +pigmented as opposed to large and lightly pigmented; tail darker all +around at base, with white part more extensive and with fewer +buff-colored hairs. Skull: More convex dorsally; zygomatic arches more +widely spreading and angular; nasals longer; rostrum longer; +interparietal wider and more elliptical; posterior ends of nasals +rounded as opposed to emarginate; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals less; pterygoid hamulae more ridged; interpterygoid space more +narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors shorter and less procumbent.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>levis</i> can be distinguished from those of <i>Thomomys +talpoides kaibabensis</i> by markedly smaller measurements.</p> + +<p>For comparisons with <i>Thomomys talpoides parowanensis</i> and +<i>wasatchensis</i> see accounts of those forms.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Specimens from the Escalante Mountains and the Aquarius +Plateau are not typical. They are of approximately the same color as +<i>levis</i>, but are larger than <i>levis</i> and have cranial details that +indicate intergradation with <i>kaibabensis</i> to the south. They resemble +<i>kaibabensis</i> in large size, long nasals and widely spreading zygomatic +arches, but are like <i>levis</i> in shape of the interparietal, extension +of premaxillae posterior to the nasals, rounded posterior ends of +nasals, ridged pterygoid hamulae and relatively short upper incisors. +Additional material from these regions may prove these animals to merit +separation and naming.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 15, distributed as follows: +<i>Sevier County</i>: Seven Mile Flat, 5 mi. N Fish Lake, Fish +Lake Plateau, 10,000 ft., 2 (U. S. N. M.); Fish Lake +Experiment Station, 2 (U. S. A. C). <i>Garfield County</i>: Posy +Lake, Aquarius Plateau, 2 (B. Y. U.); 18 mi. N Escalante, +9,500 ft., 3; Steep Creek, Boulder-Teasdale Road, Boulder +Mountain, 4 (B. Y. U.); Summit Birch Creek, Escalante +Mountains, 2 (B. Y. U.).</p></div><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span></p> +<hr class="r5" /> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><b>Measurements of Adult Males of Thomomys</b></span></p> + +<p class="center">(In millimeters)</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="malett"> +<tr><th align="left"> </th> +<th align="center">Total<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of tail</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> hind<br /> foot</th> +<th align="center">Basilar<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Zygomatic<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Mastoid<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Interorbital<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Alveolar<br /> length<br /> of<br /> upper<br /> molar<br /> series</th> +<th align="center">Extension<br /> of<br /> premax<br /> post. to<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th> +<th align="center">Breadth<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. gracilis</i>, 4; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 204</td><td align="right"> 53</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 31.5</td><td align="right"> 13.4</td><td align="right"> 21.7</td><td align="right"> 18.3</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 1.3</td><td align="right"> 15.4</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 194</td><td align="right"> 47</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 30.3</td><td align="right"> 12.9</td><td align="right"> 21.1</td><td align="right"> 17.8</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 1.0</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 210</td><td align="right"> 63</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 33.5</td><td align="right"> 14.2</td><td align="right"> 22.0</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td><td align="right"> 1.7</td><td align="right"> 16.4</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. oquirrhensis</i>, 4; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 209</td><td align="right"> 58</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 32.2</td><td align="right"> 13.9</td><td align="right"> 21.9</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 0.9</td><td align="right"> 15.8</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 197</td><td align="right"> 55</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 31.9</td><td align="right"> 13.7</td><td align="right"> 21.4</td><td align="right"> 18.5</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 0.6</td><td align="right"> 15.5</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 216</td><td align="right"> 60</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 32.8</td><td align="right"> 14.3</td><td align="right"> 22.8</td><td align="right"> 19.5</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td><td align="right"> 1.0</td><td align="right"> 16.2</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. wasatchensis</i>, 10; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 221</td><td align="right"> 67</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 31.3</td><td align="right"> 13.4</td><td align="right"> 21.5</td><td align="right"> 18.9</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td><td align="right"> 1.1</td><td align="right"> 15.1</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 204</td><td align="right"> 60</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 27.4</td><td align="right"> 11.6</td><td align="right"> 19.1</td><td align="right"> 17.2</td><td align="right"> 6.0</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 0.9</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 237</td><td align="right"> 75</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 34.5</td><td align="right"> 15.2</td><td align="right"> 23.7</td><td align="right"> 20.4</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 2.0</td><td align="right"> 16.5</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. uinta</i>, 5; SW slope Bald Peak, Uinta Mts.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 199</td><td align="right"> 51</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 31.5</td><td align="right"> 13.1</td><td align="right"> 21.7</td><td align="right"> 19.4</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 1.1</td><td align="right"> 15.2</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 185</td><td align="right"> 47</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 29.6</td><td align="right"> 12.1</td><td align="right"> 20.3</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 5.7</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 0.7</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 208</td><td align="right"> 54</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 32.8</td><td align="right"> 13.8</td><td align="right"> 22.2</td><td align="right"> 20.0</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 1.4</td><td align="right"> 15.6</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. moorei</i>, 7; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 216</td><td align="right"> 65</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 32.4</td><td align="right"> 13.9</td><td align="right"> 22.9</td><td align="right"> 19.2</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td><td align="right"> 1.5</td><td align="right"> 15.9</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 203</td><td align="right"> 52</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 31.3</td><td align="right"> 13.0</td><td align="right"> 21.5</td><td align="right"> 18.4</td><td align="right"> 6.0</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 0.9</td><td align="right"> 14.8</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 236</td><td align="right"> 72</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 34.7</td><td align="right"> 14.5</td><td align="right"> 23.7</td><td align="right"> 20.0</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td><td align="right"> 2.0</td><td align="right"> 16.3</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. fossor</i>, 8; Cascade Creek, La Plata Co., Colo.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 215</td><td align="right"> 61</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 31.7</td><td align="right"> 13.2</td><td align="right"> 21.2</td><td align="right"> 18.7</td><td align="right"> 5.9</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td><td align="right"> 0.6</td><td align="right"> 15.5</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 202</td><td align="right"> 54</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 30.5</td><td align="right"> 12.0</td><td align="right"> 20.5</td><td align="right"> 18.2</td><td align="right"> 5.5</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 0.0</td><td align="right"> 14.5</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 228</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 33.0</td><td align="right"> 14.4</td><td align="right"> 23.5</td><td align="right"> 19.9</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td><td align="right"> 1.1</td><td align="right"> 16.9</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. ravus</i>, 3; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 248</td><td align="right"> 73</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 35.2</td><td align="right"> 14.6</td><td align="right"> 24.8</td><td align="right"> 21.4</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 8.3</td><td align="right"> 2.4</td><td align="right"> 17.1</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 244</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 34.5</td><td align="right"> 14.3</td><td align="right"> 23.6</td><td align="right"> 20.5</td><td align="right"> 6.0</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td><td align="right"> 2.2</td><td align="right"> 16.7</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 253</td><td align="right"> 74</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 35.9</td><td align="right"> 15.1</td><td align="right"> 25.7</td><td align="right"> 22.5</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 8.4</td><td align="right"> 2.7</td><td align="right"> 17.5</td><td align="right"> 8.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13">No. 55270 (U. S. N. M.) <i>T. t. pygmaeus</i>, 1; topotype</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right">165</td><td align="right"> 40</td><td align="right"> 20</td><td align="right"> 24.6</td><td align="right"> 10.2</td><td align="right"> 16.3</td><td align="right"> 15.1</td><td align="right"> 5.4</td><td align="right"> 5.9</td><td align="right"> 0.7</td><td align="right"> 12.0</td><td align="right"> 5.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13">No. 177506 (U. S. N. M.) <i>T. t. ocius</i>, 1; 12 mi. W Linwood, Henrys Fork, Wyo.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right">200</td><td align="right"> 62</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 27.5</td><td align="right"> 11.5</td><td align="right"> 19.9</td><td align="right"> 17.8</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 1.0</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. parowanensis</i>, 2; Britts Meadow, Beaver Mountains</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 215</td><td align="right"> 59</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 34.3</td><td align="right"> 14.5</td><td align="right"> 22.4</td><td align="right"> 18.6</td><td align="right"> 6.0</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td><td align="right"> 1.4</td><td align="right"> 17.3</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 202</td><td align="right"> 48</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 34.1</td><td align="right"> 14.1</td><td align="right"> 22.0</td><td align="right"> 18.4</td><td align="right"> 5.8</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 1.0</td><td align="right"> 17.2</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 228</td><td align="right"> 69</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 34.6</td><td align="right"> 14.8</td><td align="right"> 22.7</td><td align="right"> 18.9</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td><td align="right"> 1.7</td><td align="right"> 17.3</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td></tr> +</table></div> +<hr class="r5" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span></p> + + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><b>Measurements of Adult Females of Thomomys</b></span><br /><br /> + +(In millimeters)</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="femalett"> +<tr><th align="left"> </th> +<th align="center">Total<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of tail</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> hind<br /> foot</th> +<th align="center">Basilar<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Zygomatic<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Mastoid<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Interorbital<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Alveolar<br /> length<br /> of<br /> upper<br /> molar<br /> series</th> +<th align="center">Extension<br /> of<br /> premax<br /> post. to<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th> +<th align="center">Breadth<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. gracilis</i>, 2; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 190</td><td align="right"> 58</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 29.7</td><td align="right"> 12.0</td><td align="right"> 19.7</td><td align="right"> 17.3</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 1.2</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 185</td><td align="right"> 54</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 29.5</td><td align="right"> 11.9</td><td align="right"> 19.7</td><td align="right"> 16.9</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 1.1</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 194</td><td align="right"> 61</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 29.9</td><td align="right"> 12.0</td><td align="right"> 19.7</td><td align="right"> 17.6</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td><td align="right"> 1.4</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. oquirrhensis</i>, 7; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 203</td><td align="right"> 56</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 30.2</td><td align="right"> 12.9</td><td align="right"> 20.4</td><td align="right"> 18.2</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td><td align="right"> 0.8</td><td align="right"> 14.8</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 193</td><td align="right"> 52</td><td align="right"> 25</td><td align="right"> 28.5</td><td align="right"> 12.2</td><td align="right"> 19.5</td><td align="right"> 17.5</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 0.5</td><td align="right"> 14.2</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 215</td><td align="right"> 59</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 31.5</td><td align="right"> 13.3</td><td align="right"> 21.0</td><td align="right"> 19.1</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 1.0</td><td align="right"> 15.5</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. wasatchensis</i>, 19; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 205</td><td align="right"> 62</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 31.5</td><td align="right"> 12.7</td><td align="right"> 20.5</td><td align="right"> 18.0</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td><td align="right"> 0.9</td><td align="right"> 14.6</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 180</td><td align="right"> 52</td><td align="right"> 23</td><td align="right"> 28.1</td><td align="right"> 11.2</td><td align="right"> 19.3</td><td align="right"> 17.2</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 6.0</td><td align="right"> 0.6</td><td align="right"> 13.0</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 222</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 32.5</td><td align="right"> 14.5</td><td align="right"> 22.0</td><td align="right"> 19.9</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td><td align="right"> 1.2</td><td align="right"> 16.2</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. uinta</i>, 2; SW slope Bald Peak, Uinta Mts.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 181</td><td align="right"> 49</td><td align="right"> 25</td><td align="right"> 28.4</td><td align="right"> 11.6</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 17.3</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 1.3</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 177</td><td align="right"> 47</td><td align="right"> 25</td><td align="right"> 28.3</td><td align="right"> 11.6</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 17.2</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 1.1</td><td align="right"> 13.3</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 185</td><td align="right"> 50</td><td align="right"> 25</td><td align="right"> 28.4</td><td align="right"> 11.6</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 17.4</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 1.5</td><td align="right"> 13.6</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. moorei</i>, 5; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 206</td><td align="right"> 62</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 29.9</td><td align="right"> 12.8</td><td align="right"> 21.5</td><td align="right"> 18.4</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 1.3</td><td align="right"> 14.6</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 198</td><td align="right"> 55</td><td align="right"> 24</td><td align="right"> 29.0</td><td align="right"> 12.3</td><td align="right"> 21.0</td><td align="right"> 18.0</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 1.0</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 213</td><td align="right"> 69</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 31.2</td><td align="right"> 14.1</td><td align="right"> 22.5</td><td align="right"> 19.1</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td><td align="right"> 1.6</td><td align="right"> 15.6</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. fossor</i>, 4; Cascade Creek, La Plata Co., Colo.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 215</td><td align="right"> 57</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 32.6</td><td align="right"> 14.2</td><td align="right"> 22.0</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 6.0</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td><td align="right"> 0.7</td><td align="right"> 16.2</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 204</td><td align="right"> 51</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 31.3</td><td align="right"> 13.6</td><td align="right"> 21.5</td><td align="right"> 18.0</td><td align="right"> 5.7</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td><td align="right"> 0.5</td><td align="right"> 15.9</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 223</td><td align="right"> 63</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 34.0</td><td align="right"> 14.8</td><td align="right"> 22.9</td><td align="right"> 19.6</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 1.0</td><td align="right"> 16.3</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13">No. 13684 (C. M.) <i>T. t. ravus</i>, 1; topotype</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right"> 241</td><td align="right"> 71</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 35.7</td><td align="right"> 14.5</td><td align="right"> 24.4</td><td align="right"> 21.5</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 2.7</td><td align="right"> 17.1</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13">No. 178868 (U. S. N. M.) <i>T. t. pygmaeus</i>, 1; Fossil, Wyo.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right"> 167</td><td align="right"> 52</td><td align="right"> 20</td><td align="right"> 24.0</td><td align="right"> 10.2</td><td align="right"> 16.5</td><td align="right"> 14.8</td><td align="right"> 5.2</td><td align="right"> 5.6</td><td align="right"> 0.7</td><td align="right"> 11.1</td><td align="right"> 5.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. ocius</i>, 3; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 201</td><td align="right"> 60</td><td align="right"> 25</td><td align="right"> 30.0</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 20.5</td><td align="right"> 17.9</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 0.8</td><td align="right"> 15.0</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min</td><td align="right"> 196</td><td align="right"> 57</td><td align="right"> 25</td><td align="right"> 29.9</td><td align="right"> 13.0</td><td align="right"> 19.9</td><td align="right"> 17.5</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td><td align="right"> 0.5</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 205</td><td align="right"> 64</td><td align="right"> 25</td><td align="right"> 30.1</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 21.5</td><td align="right"> 18.6</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 1.0</td><td align="right"> 15.3</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. parowanensis</i>, 4; Britts Meadow, Beaver Mountains</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 221</td><td align="right"> 58</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 33.2</td><td align="right"> 14.5</td><td align="right"> 22.8</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 6.0</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 0.9</td><td align="right"> 15.4</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 207</td><td align="right"> 50</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 30.5</td><td align="right"> 12.8</td><td align="right"> 22.7</td><td align="right"> 18.6</td><td align="right"> 5.8</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td><td align="right"> 0.5</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 240</td><td align="right"> 66</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 34.8</td><td align="right"> 15.5</td><td align="right"> 23.0</td><td align="right"> 19.6</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td><td align="right"> 1.5</td><td align="right"> 17.8</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. t. levis</i>, 2; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 203</td><td align="right"> 65</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 28.1</td><td align="right"> 11.1</td><td align="right"> 19.2</td><td align="right"> 17.7</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td><td align="right"> 0.8</td><td align="right"> 13.0</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 199</td><td align="right"> 61</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 28.0</td><td align="right"> 10.6</td><td align="right"> 18.9</td><td align="right"> 17.5</td><td align="right"> 5.8</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 0.6</td><td align="right"> 12.8</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 206</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 28.2</td><td align="right"> 11.6</td><td align="right"> 19.5</td><td align="right"> 17.9</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 1.0</td><td align="right"> 13.2</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td></tr> +</table></div> +<hr class="r5" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span></p> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae</b> <span class="fwn">(Eydoux and Gervais)</span></h3> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae</i> is a southern species that, within the Great Basin, +reaches the most northern limits of its distribution in Utah. The +animals of this species inhabit the lower valleys, and with the +exception of the Oquirrh Mountains, inhabit also the mountains in that +part of the state west of the central mountain ranges. The specific +characters are: Sphenorbital fissure present; incisive foramina +posterior to infraorbital canal; anterior prism of P4 rounded; +interparietal relatively small; lambdoidal suture straight in region of +interparietal, in Utah specimens.</p> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</b> <span class="fwn">Hall</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys perpallidus aureiventris</i> Hall, Univ. California +Publ. Zoöl., 32:444, July 8, 1930; Univ. California Publ. +Zoöl., 37:3, April 10, 1931.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</i> Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 43980, Museum of Vertebrate +Zoölogy, University of California; Fehlman Ranch, 3 mi. N Kelton, 4,225 +ft., Box Elder County, Utah; September 27, 1929; collected by Louise +Kellogg; original number 451.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Northwestern Utah, and extreme western Utah as far south as +the southern end of the Deep Creek Mountains.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet +small. Color: Near Cinnamon on dorsal and ventral surfaces; inguinal +region, front and hind feet and distal third to half of tail white; +nose, cheeks and postauricular patches grayish black. Skull: Moderately +angular and ridged; zygomatic arches nearly parallel with sides of +skull; jugals vertical; marked thickening at union of jugal and +zygomatic process of maxilla; greatest zygomatic breadth at anterior +part of arches; interpterygoid space lyre-shaped; ventral margin of +jugal concave dorsally; nasals long and denticulate distally; parietal +ridges bowed in at two places, at coronal suture and at middle of +interparietal; paroccipital processes extremely well developed; dorsal +frontomaxillary suture usually straight.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—From near topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i>, +<i>aureiventris</i> differs as follows: Size larger; tail shorter; hind foot +longer; claws on front feet shorter. Color: Slightly darker on upper +parts, but with greater extension of white on ventral surface. Skull: +Zygomatic breadth greater; greatest width across zygomatic arches at +anterior rather than posterior region; zygomatic arches thicker at +union of jugals and zygomatic processes of maxillae; dorsal +frontomaxillary suture less convex medially; mastoid breadth greater; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals less; interpterygoid space +lyre-shaped rather than V-shaped.</p> + +<p>From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae albicaudatus</i>, <i>aureiventris</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> can +be distinguished by: Size larger; hind foot longer. Color: Markedly +lighter throughout, Cinnamon as opposed to near (13''''<i>n</i>) Black. +Skull: Larger in all but three measurements taken; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals less; alveolar length of upper molar +series shorter; zygomatic arches widest anteriorly rather than +posteriorly; thickening at union of jugal and zygomatic process of +maxilla markedly greater; interpterygoid space lyre-shaped as opposed +to V-shaped; lacrimal processes more globose at tips.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</i> can be readily distinguished from <i>T. b. +bonnevillei</i>, <i>sevieri</i>, <i>wahwahensis</i>, and <i>convexus</i> by larger size +in all measurements taken and darker coloration. The same differences +obtain in comparison with <i>T. b. tivius</i> and <i>stansburyi</i> except that +<i>aureiventris</i> is much lighter colored. See comparisons under those +forms.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—<i>T. b. aureiventris</i> has one of the most extensive ranges +of any race of <i>T. bottae</i> occurring in Utah. The range extends from +the valleys of the northwest corner of the state south along the +extreme western margin of the state approximately to the southern end +of the Deep Creek Mountains. This ascribed range practically bounds the +northwest and western margins of the great salt desert in Box Elder and +Tooele counties. As far as known, this great waste area harbors no +members of the Geomyidae. Pocket gophers were available from four +localities in addition to the type locality. In these four localities +all of the animals were intergrades. The three specimens from Queen of +Sheba Canyon, Deep Creek Mountains, although smaller than +<i>aureiventris</i> in every measurement taken, resemble it in color and +general configuration of the skull. The animals from Trout Creek and +Ibapah at the southern end of the range, although referred to +<i>aureiventris</i>, are intermediate between it and <i>centralis</i>. In color +and measurements they more closely resemble <i>centralis</i>, but the skulls +closely resemble those of <i>aureiventris</i>. The skulls show some slight +characteristics of <i>bonnevillei</i>, the form to the east, which indicate +an early relationship between the two. Specimens from the east side of +Tecoma Range, adjacent to Pilot Peak, although referred to +<i>aureiventris</i> are intergrades between it and <i>centralis</i>. Although +this locality is nearer the type locality of <i>aureiventris</i> than any of +the other record stations, the animals show the maximum departure from +topotypes in morphological features. In color they approach +<i>centralis</i>, and agree with it in one-half of the measured characters. +The general configuration of the skull and a majority of the critical +diagnostic characters, for example,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> jugal thickening, are more nearly +as in <i>aureiventris</i>. From the above remarks it is readily understood +that this subspecies is extremely variable.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 55, distributed as follows: +<i>Box Elder County</i>: Fehlman Ranch, 3 mi. N Kelton, 4,255 +ft., 8 (7, M. V. Z.); Utah-Nevada Boundary, E Side Tecoma +Range, 4,300 ft., 12. <i>Tooele County</i>: Ibapah, 5,000 ft., +21. <i>Juab County</i>: Queen of Sheba Canyon, W side Deep Creek +Mountains, 5,600 ft., 11.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae robustus</b> <span class="fwn">new subspecies</span></h3> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 2726, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Orr's Ranch, Skull Valley, 4,300 ft., Tooele +County, Utah; June 19, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; original +number 1583.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Skull Valley, Tooele County, Utah.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements); tail short; hind foot +short. Color: In a series of 24 animals, upper parts vary from Pale +Smoke Gray (4 specimens) through Cinnamon Buff (19 specimens) to Dark +Mouse Gray (1 specimen). The Cinnamon Buff color is considered to be +typical. Color grading to lighter on underparts; postauricular patches +small and grayish black; front and hind feet and distal part of tail +white. Skull: Small, flat and heavily ridged; nasals short; zygomatic +arches heavy and widely spreading, widest posteriorly at union of jugal +and squamosal; union of jugal and zygomatic process of maxilla +thickened, with a ventrally directed spinous process in sixty percent +of the specimens; occasionally there is a second process, also directed +ventrally at union of jugal and zygomatic process of squamosal; +zygomatic arches convex dorsally; deep dorsal depression present in +frontal bones in mature specimens; lacrimal processes prominent, +projecting well above the arch at the anteromedial angle of the orbit; +interpterygoid spaces V-shaped; tympanic bullae well inflated +ventrally; upper incisors short, and pale; when placed on a flat plane +the dorsal surface of the skull is nearly parallel to the substratum; +space enclosed within the zygomatic arches nearly quadrangular.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</i>, +<i>robustus</i> can be distinguished as follows: Size smaller; tail and hind +foot shorter. Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller, more heavily +ridged and more nearly flat; nasals shorter; rostrum relatively wider +and shorter; zygomatic arches shorter and relatively more widely +spreading with greatest width posteriorly as opposed to anteriorly; +junction of jugal and zygomatic process of maxilla not as prominent; +<i>aureiventris</i> shows no spinous process at this junction; lacrimal +processes larger and projecting farther dorsally; enclosed space within +zygomatic arches roughly quadrangular as opposed to triangular; +mastoidal part of tympanic bullae less exposed; sphenorbital fissure +smaller; interpterygoid space V-shaped rather than lyre-shaped; palatal +pits smaller and shallower; tympanic bullae smaller, but more inflated +ventrally; basioccipital<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> averaging relatively wider; molars smaller; +upper incisors shorter, smaller and cadmium yellow as opposed to orange +yellow.</p> + +<p>Comparisons of <i>robustus</i> with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus</i> show the following: Size smaller. Color: Lighter +throughout; postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Smaller, +more compact and more nearly flat; rostrum shorter and more nearly +straight; lacrimal processes larger, projecting higher above the +anteromedial angle of the orbit; parietal ridges uniformly heavier; +mastoid width actually as well as relatively wider; zygomatic arches +heavier and relatively much wider (males 76.2 percent of basilar +length, females 73.8 percent as opposed to males 73.8 percent and +females 73.5 percent); union of jugal and zygomatic process of maxilla +uniformly more thickened; spinous process at jugal-maxillary suture +present; zygomatic arches much more concave on ventral surface; uniform +deep depression present in mature adults, between frontal processes of +premaxillae, and anterior interorbital region of frontals; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals less; sphenorbital fissure more +constricted; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally, extending well +ventrad of basioccipital; palatal pits shallower and smaller; molars +smaller; upper incisors shorter, narrower and paler (see comparison of +<i>aureiventris</i>).</p> + +<p>From near topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i> from 1 mile east of +Garrison, Millard County, Utah, <i>robustus</i> differs in: Size smaller; +tail and hind foot shorter. Color: Lighter, terminal bands of hair +cinnamon, but because more black in underfur the animals appear darker; +postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Shorter, more nearly +flat and much more heavily ridged; nasals shorter; rostrum shorter and +wider; lacrimal processes larger and projecting higher above +anteromedial angle of orbit; zygomatic arches heavier, shorter, more +angular and actually as well as relatively wider; jugals thicker; angle +between maxillary plate and rostrum less obtuse; spinous process at +jugal-maxillary suture present; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals less; parietal ridges much more pronounced; looked at from +above, space enclosed within zygomatic arches more quadrangular in +shape as opposed to roughly triangular; tympanic bullae more inflated +ventrally; molars smaller; upper incisors shorter, narrower and paler.</p> + +<p>The characters that distinguish <i>robustus</i> from topotypes of <i>Thomomys +bottae wahwahensis</i> are: Size slightly smaller. Color: Darker +throughout. Skull: Rostrum longer and narrower; nasals<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> longer; +zygomatic arches wider and longer; lacrimal processes larger and +projecting higher above anteromedial angle of the orbit; parietal +ridges more roughened; tympanic bullae much larger and more inflated +ventrally; supraoccipital higher; middorsal depression in frontals +present. For comparisons with <i>Thomomys bottae bonnevillei</i> see account +of that form.</p> + +<p>The remaining forms from the Bonneville Basin, namely, <i>Thomomys bottae +sevieri</i>, <i>convexus</i>, <i>tivius</i> and <i>stansburyi</i> are all easily +distinguished from <i>robustus</i>. Specimens of <i>sevieri</i> are paler, +smaller in every measurement taken, and the skulls are weaker and less +angular. All specimens of <i>convexus</i> are paler, the skulls are more +convex dorsally and narrower, with less ridging and angularity. Both +<i>tivius</i> and <i>stansburyi</i> are small dark forms, with weak, smooth, +small skulls as compared with <i>robustus</i> which is light colored and has +compact, ridged and angular skulls.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Twenty-three specimens were obtained at a small isolated +spring. Critical study of animals taken only a few miles to the east +prove them to be so different as to be referable to another subspecies, +<i>albicaudatus</i>. <i>T. b. robustus</i> is an endemic form in this desert +valley. The variable color is noteworthy but difficult to explain in an +isolated population as small as this one. All five of the gray animals +are females of which four are lactating adults. The affinities of this +subspecies are with <i>albicaudatus</i> to the east, but enough time has +elapsed since isolation to enable them to differentiate.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 23, from the type locality.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae minimus</b> <span class="fwn">Durrant</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys bottae minimus</i> Durrant, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 52:161, October 11, 1939; Marshall, Journ. +Mamm., 21:154, May 14, 1940.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 263942, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake, +Tooele County, Utah; June 25, 1938; collected by William H. Marshall; +original number 141.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Known only from the type locality.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size small (see measurements); tail relatively long. +Color: Upper parts Pinkish Buff, darker on head; underparts Pale +Pinkish Buff; front and hind feet white; nose, chin and postauricular +patches black. Skull: Long, slender and nearly devoid of ridges; +braincase moderately inflated; interparietal quadrangular; zygomatic +arches weak, widest in temporal region, but neither widely spreading +nor angular; nasals straight and truncate posteriorly; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals relatively great; tympanic bullae +moderately inflated; palatal pits deep; rostrum short but narrow;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> +interpterygoid space moderately lyre-shaped; upper incisors narrow; +molars light.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus</i>, <i>minimus</i> differs as follows: Size markedly smaller; +claws on front feet shorter and weaker. Color: Markedly lighter +throughout, being Pinkish Buff as contrasted with near (13''''<i>n</i>) +Black. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; slender, smooth, weak +and nonangular as opposed to ridged, robust, wide and angular; +zygomatic arches much weaker and not so widely spreading posteriorly; +ascending processes of premaxillae much narrower; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals less; interpterygoid space moderately +lyre-shaped as opposed to V-shaped; dentition lighter.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>minimus</i> differ from those of <i>Thomomys bottae +aureiventris</i> as follows: Size markedly smaller. Color: Lighter +dorsally and no "gold color" on underparts. Skull: Markedly smaller in +every measurement taken; weak, smooth and slender as opposed to ridged, +angular and robust; zygomatic arches weak and widest posteriorly rather +than heavy and widest anteriorly; no great thickening at region of +union of jugal and zygomatic process of the maxilla; jugals more nearly +straight rather than concave laterally; interpterygoid space not so +markedly lyre-shaped; dentition lighter.</p> + +<p>The races nearest geographically to <i>minimus</i> are <i>Thomomys bottae +nesophilus</i> and <i>T. b. stansburyi</i>. For comparisons see accounts of +those forms.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—This subspecies is the smallest of all the races of +<i>Thomomys bottae</i> occurring in Utah. As far as known it is endemic to +Stansbury Island, and since the Pleistocene Lake Bonneville attained +its highest level has remained on that part of Stansbury Island that +was above this high level. (See comments under <i>nesophilus</i>.) The sandy +nature of the soil and the desert conditions of the area that has since +been exposed at lower levels apparently do not constitute a favorable +environment. Unlike <i>nesophilus</i> from Antelope Island, this form does +not have its affinities with <i>albicaudatus</i>, the valley form of the +adjacent mainland, but does show affinities with <i>stansburyi</i>, the +nearest mountain form on the mainland. This is easily understood when +one realizes that Stansbury Island is only an isolated part of +Stansbury Mountain that projects northward as a peninsula into Great +Salt Lake. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> history of Stansbury Island with reference to isolation +of <i>minimus</i> parallels that of <i>nesophilus</i> on Antelope Island. See +discussion under <i>nesophilus</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 5, as follows: <i>Tooele +County</i>: Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake, 5 (U. S. N. M.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae nesophilus</b> <span class="fwn">Durrant</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys bottae nesophilus</i> Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 27 +(No. 2):2, October, 1936; Marshall, Journ. Mamm., 21:156, +May 14, 1940.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1136, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Antelope Island, Great Salt Lake, Davis County, +Utah; April 20, 1935; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 761.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Known only from the type locality.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet long. +Color: Upper parts Cinnamon Buff; lighter below; sides Pinkish Buff +interspersed with gray; pectoral and inguinal regions Cinnamon; nose +grayish black; postauricular patches black. Skull: Interparietal +wedge-shaped; tympanic bullae small; dorsal surface of lambdoidal +prominence 3 mm. wide rather than developed as a crest; jugals nearly +straight; zygomatic arches strongly rectangular.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus</i>, <i>nesophilus</i> is of approximately the same size, but +differs as follows: Claws on front feet longer. Color: Lighter +throughout; tail white terminally, but much darker at base; +postauricular patches smaller. Skull: Interparietal wedge-shaped as +opposed to roughly quadrangular; lambdoidal eminence more of a crest +than a ridge; tympanic bullae smaller; jugals more nearly straight; +zygomatic arches more nearly rectangular.</p> + +<p>From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</i>, <i>nesophilus</i> differs +in: Size smaller; claws on front feet longer. Color: Darker throughout; +postauricular patches larger. Skull: Heavier, more massive; zygomatic +arches more robust and convex laterally rather than concave; +interparietal wedge-shaped rather than roughly quadrangular; braincase +more nearly flat; tympanic bullae markedly smaller; upper molariform +series longer; molariform teeth wider and heavier; interpterygoid space +V-shaped rather than lyre-shaped.</p> + +<p>The race nearest geographically to <i>nesophilus</i> is <i>T. b. minimus</i> from +Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake. It can easily be distinguished from +<i>minimus</i> by the following features: Size much larger; claws on front +feet longer and thicker. Color: Darker throughout; postauricular +patches larger and with more admixture of buff colored<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> hairs. Skull: +Larger in every measurement taken; wide and robust as opposed to narrow +and slender; zygomatic arches more widely spreading and angular; +braincase more nearly flat; tympanic bullae actually larger, but +relatively smaller; lambdoidal eminence flat-topped rather than a +crest; interparietal wedge-shaped as opposed to quadrangular; teeth +larger.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—The affinities of <i>nesophilus</i> of Antelope Island are +unquestionably with <i>albicaudatus</i> of the eastern and southern +mainland. At the time of this writing (1945), Antelope Island is not +truly an island, but only the tip of a broad peninsula projecting +westward into Great Salt Lake. Nevertheless, the area of occurrence of +<i>nesophilus</i> is effectively isolated by the exposed, sandy lake bottom +that is unsuited to occupancy by pocket gophers. Fluctuations in the +level of the Great Salt Lake have broken and reëstablished this +connection with the mainland many times. Each of the several other +kinds of mammals which are known from both the island and the mainland +show no differentiation on the island. These are kinds (see Marshall, +1940:156), which more freely cross the exposed, sandy lake bottom. I, +myself, have noted tracks of coyotes going to and from the island. The +pocket gopher, <i>nesophilus</i>, so far as known is the only mammal which +has developed a subspecies endemic to the island. The beach levels of +Pleistocene Lake Bonneville are well marked on both Antelope Island and +Stansbury Island, which is fifteen miles west of Antelope Island. On +the eastern side of Antelope Island the lower beach levels of this +prehistoric lake are farmed. Although sought for elsewhere on this +island, pocket gophers were found only in the farmed land. On Stansbury +Island there has been no farming, and the endemic pocket gophers, +<i>minimus</i>, although sought for elsewhere on that island were found only +above the highest beach levels of the ancient lake. Evidently these +pocket gophers still occupy only that part of Stansbury Island that +projected above water during the greatest height of Lake Bonneville. +Farming on Antelope Island may have developed a more favorable +environment for pocket gophers, thus causing them to move down to the +lower levels from that part of the island that was above water during +Pleistocene times.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 5, from the type locality.</p></div><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span></p> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae stansburyi</b> <span class="fwn">new subspecies</span></h3> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 2045, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; South Willow Creek, Stansbury Mountains, 7,500 ft., +Tooele County, Utah; July 2, 1937; collected by O. S. Walsh and S. D. +Durrant; original number 1257 of Durrant.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Stansbury Mountains, Tooele County, Utah.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Saccardo's Umber, darker on head; sides and underparts Pinkish Buff; +nose, chin and postauricular patches black; front and hind feet and +distal third to half of tail white. Skull: Small, slender, weak and +smooth; zygomatic arches light and not widely spreading; zygomatic +arches actually as well as relatively short; interparietal generally +quadrangular; nasals relatively long and slender; interpterygoid space +narrowly V-shaped; basioccipital fairly wide; tympanic bullae +moderately inflated ventrally; dentition light.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Topotypical specimens of <i>stansburyi</i> can be readily +distinguished from those of <i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i>, <i>aureiventris</i> +and <i>albicaudatus</i> by being smaller in every measurement taken, +particularly those of the skull; the skull is weaker and smoother. In +color <i>stansburyi</i> is like <i>albicaudatus</i> but is much darker throughout +than <i>aureiventris</i> and <i>centralis</i>.</p> + +<p>Comparisons of topotypes of <i>stansburyi</i> with those of <i>Thomomys bottae +sevieri</i> show them to be of approximately the same size, but to differ +as follows: Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Zygomatic arches shorter; +tympanic bullae less inflated ventrally; zygomatic breadth less; +mastoid breadth greater; width across alveolar processes of maxillae +greater; alveolar length of upper molar series greater; molariform +teeth larger.</p> + +<p>Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae minimus</i>, <i>stansburyi</i> is +seen to be of larger size and darker color throughout, with a skull +that is larger in most every measurement taken, although of the same +slender, smooth, nonangular type.</p> + +<p>Among named races of <i>Thomomys bottae</i>, <i>stansburyi</i> most closely +resembles tivius, a small, dark, mountain form from central Utah. Size +and color are almost the same but <i>stansburyi</i> differs in: Tail +shorter; hind foot averaging slightly longer. Skull: Generally larger +in every measurement taken; zygomatic arches shorter; width across +alveolar processes of maxillae greater; zygomatic arches more widely +spreading, and widest in extreme posterior region rather than in region +of jugal-squamosal suture.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—The Stansbury Mountains are separated from the Oquirrh +Mountains by the Stockton Bar, and from the Onaqui Mountains, which are +in reality a continuation of the Stansbury<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> Mountains, by only a low +pass. Pocket gophers from Clover Creek, Onaqui Mountains and Little +Valley, Sheeprock Mountains, although intergrades between <i>robustus</i> +and <i>albicaudatus</i> are dark in color like <i>stansburyi</i>. These +intergrades are large, dark colored, and have heavy, ridged, angular +skulls. It appears that <i>stansburyi</i> is a mountain subspecies derived +from <i>albicaudatus</i> of the valley. It would be instructive to +artificially transplant gophers from mountains to valleys, and <i>vice +versa</i>, so as to reveal what effects if any on the animals' morphology +the environment might have in one or a few generations. Gophers are +well known to be very plastic, and such an experiment as suggested +might call for modification of the view, held here, that the +differential features of gophers from South Willow Creek and, say, +Bauer, are hereditary.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 11, from the type locality.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae albicaudatus</b> <span class="fwn">Hall</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys perpallidus albicaudatus</i> Hall, Univ. California +Publ. Zoöl., 32:444, July 8, 1930; Univ. California Publ. +Zoöl., 37:3, April 10, 1931.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae albicaudatus</i> Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Durrant, Bull. Univ. +Utah, 28 (No. 4):5, August 18, 1937.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys perpallidus aureiventris</i> Hall, Univ. California +Publ. Zoöl., 37:3, April 10, 1931.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 43971, Museum of Vertebrate +Zoölogy, University of California; Provo, 4,510 ft., Utah County, Utah; +October 17, 1929; collected by Annie M. Alexander; original number 506.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—From the area between the Great Salt Lake and the Wasatch +Mountains south along the western margin of the central mountains of +the state to the Sevier River, in Juab County, west into Tooele County +to the Onaqui and Sheeprock mountains.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet +medium. Color: Upper parts near (13''''<i>n</i>) Black, grading over sides +and flanks to Pinkish Cinnamon on underparts; chin, nose, top of head +and postauricular patches black; front feet, hind feet and distal third +to half of tail white. Skull: Angular and ridged; zygomatic arches +moderately wide spreading, widest posteriorly; paroccipital processes +weak; zygomatic processes of maxillae convex anteriorly; lacrimal +processes small and peglike; jugals convex dorsally on ventral surface; +nasals short, rounded distally and truncate proximally; parietal crests +bowed in, in two places; interpterygoid space broadly V-shaped.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>-For comparisons of <i>albicaudatus</i> with <i>Thomomys bottae +aureiventris</i> and <i>centralis</i> see accounts of those forms.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>albicaudatus</i> are dark colored and can be distinguished +from those of <i>Thomomys bottae birdseyei</i>, <i>tivius</i>, <i>stansburyi</i> and +<i>contractus</i> which are also dark forms, by larger size and larger, more +robust skulls (see accounts of those forms). It can be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> distinguished +from the remainder of the known subspecies of <i>Thomomys bottae</i> in Utah +by darker color and by cranial details (see accounts of those forms).</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—The range of <i>albicaudatus</i> is larger than that of any +other race of <i>Thomomys bottae</i> limited to Utah. Specimens are +available from thirty localities which represent widely varied habitats +and environments. This subspecies consists of many highly variable +local populations, and the marginal populations intergrade freely with +adjacent races. In many populations, it is really difficult to +recognize the relationships on account of the great variation, and one +is frequently tempted to name some of them as distinct. Careful study +of the large number of specimens has enabled me to recognize diagnostic +characters common to all of these variable populations. The animals +range from large and dark at the north to small and light at the south.</p> + +<p>The Jordan River bisects Salt Lake County from north to south. Pocket +gophers were taken at nine places east of the river, and at three +places west of it.</p> + +<p>Gophers from Salt Lake City and environs (east of the river) vary in +color from almost black to dark cinnamon. Specimens from Draper, which +locality is likewise east of the river, are uniformly lighter, but also +vary in color. The skulls of animals from both localities are +indistinguishable from each other and closely resemble those of +topotypes. Specimens from the west side of the river, from Riverton, +two miles west of Murray and Rose Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, all are +lighter in color than topotypes. The color varies from darkest at the +north at Murray to lightest at the south at Riverton. This is exactly +the reverse of what would be expected since Riverton is the locality +geographically nearest to the type locality, Provo. The skulls are +quite uniform and are all referable to <i>albicaudatus</i>. The Jordan River +may be one factor which causes this lack of uniformity between the +animals from the two sides of the river. Davis (1939:56-57) states that +rivers are not barriers to movement of pocket gophers where the river +completely freezes over and has the ice covered with thick snow. +Although the Jordan River does occasionally freeze over, it is never +frozen for more than a few days at a time, and snow in this area does +not last for long periods. The material at hand indicates that the +gophers from both sides of the river are referable to the same +subspecies <i>albicaudatus</i>. The animals from the east side of the river +are in the aggregate of characters the most typical of <i>albicaudatus</i> +of any<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> in the entire range. Those from the west side of the river, +although definitely referable to <i>albicaudatus</i> do show some +intergradation with <i>Thomomys bottae robustus</i>, the subspecies to the +west.</p> + +<p>The specimens from Bauer, Tooele County, are relatively uniform in +color, and are considerably lighter than topotypes of <i>albicaudatus</i>. +Their upper parts vary from Sepia to Saccardo's Umber as compared with +near (13''''<i>n</i>) Black of the topotypes. The sides and underparts are +lighter, due primarily to much less black in the underfur. They average +slightly longer in total length, but shorter in hind foot. All cranial +measurements are slightly smaller than in topotypes of <i>albicaudatus</i>. +The shape of the skull closely resembles that of <i>albicaudatus</i>, +although the rostrum, nasals, upper incisors and posterior tongues of +the premaxillae tend to be narrower. This narrowness indicates +intergradation with <i>Thomomys bottae stansburyi</i>, the race nearest to +the west. These animals are in the majority of characters referable to +<i>albicaudatus</i>.</p> + +<p>Bauer is situated in extreme western Tooele Valley at the foot of +Stockton Bar, a low pass between the Stansbury and the Oquirrh +mountains. This valley lies to the west of the aforementioned Jordan +River. Although these gophers are definitely referable to +<i>albicaudatus</i> they are more unlike topotypes than are the animals from +Riverton.</p> + +<p>The specimens from Settlement Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, Tooele County, +show the same characteristics as those from Bauer.</p> + +<p>In a large series of animals from St. John, in Rush Valley, Tooele +County, the upper parts vary from black, even darker than topotypes of +<i>albicaudatus</i>, to Tawny Olive, and the underparts vary from black +through Cinnamon Buff to Pinkish Buff. Most of the animals are Cinnamon +Buff. Although variable they approach <i>albicaudatus</i> in color. The +total length, tail and hind foot of males are longer than in topotypes +of <i>albicaudatus</i>; females differ in the same direction but only +slightly. In both sexes the zygomatic breadth is less, but the mastoid +breadth is greater than in <i>albicaudatus</i>. In size and shape of the +lacrimal processes, and the great thickening of the jugal at the +maxillo-jugal suture they approach <i>robustus</i>. They are much larger, +however, and in the majority of characters are referable to +<i>albicaudatus</i>.</p> + +<p>What has just been said relative to the animals from St. John applies +also to those from Clover Creek in the Onaqui Mountains of Tooele +County. At the latter locality the tendencies towards <i>robustus</i> are +accentuated. This is to be expected, since this locality<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> is midway +between St. John and the type locality of <i>robustus</i>. All characters +considered, these animals are all referable to <i>albicaudatus</i>.</p> + +<p>The animals from Little Valley, Sheeprock Mountains, Tooele County, +resemble <i>albicaudatus</i> in color. They vary on the upper parts from +near (1) Sepia to Clay Color, and ventrally from nearly black to +Pinkish Buff. They are markedly smaller in every measurement taken, +except zygomatic and mastoidal breadths, and extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals. This relatively greater breadth indicates +intergradation with <i>robustus</i> to the west. These gophers are smaller +in most measurements than any other population referred to +<i>albicaudatus</i>. This is understandable because gophers from mountains +usually are smaller and have weaker, smoother skulls than animals from +low lands. Although approaching <i>robustus</i> in size and in some +aforementioned cranial details, the aggregate of characters including +color, make these animals referable to <i>albicaudatus</i>.</p> + +<p>The animals from Fairfield, Utah County, are closer geographically to +the type locality of <i>albicaudatus</i> than any other series, but +morphologically are the least like topotypes. At first glance one is +struck with the differences. They are uniformly Clay Color above, with +Cinnamon Buff sides and flanks and Pinkish Buff underparts. Their color +closely approaches that of <i>robustus</i> to the west which has Cinnamon +Buff on the upper parts. Examination of eleven measurements of males +and the same number for females, shows that the animals are nearest to +<i>robustus</i> in two measurements, to <i>albicaudatus</i> in 12, distinct in 7 +and intermediate in one. The general appearance of the skull is +intermediate between that of the two above mentioned forms. The +differences from <i>albicaudatus</i> in size and color may be correlated +with the differences in soil at Fairfield and Provo. At Fairfield the +soil is light-colored clay, but at Provo it is sandy and darker. +Although they are intergrades between <i>robustus</i> and <i>albicaudatus</i>, +the animals are referred to the latter race. Utah Lake and its outlet, +the Jordan River, make a partial barrier between populations at +Fairfield and at the type locality at Provo. During Pleistocene times, +when Lake Bonneville was present it formed a complete barrier. Enough +time has evidently elapsed since the disappearance of this lake to +allow <i>albicaudatus</i>, the mainland form, to expand its range to the +west. Intergradation has taken place, with the result that the animals +from Fairfield, although unstable, agree with the mainland form, +<i>albicaudatus</i>, in a majority of their characters.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span></p> + +<p>Pocket gophers were taken at four localities from north to south in +eastern Juab County. They range in color from Ochraceous Tawny on the +upper parts and Cinnamon Buff on the underparts to shades that are +slightly lighter. All are much lighter than topotypes of +<i>albicaudatus</i>. The general configuration of the skull is the same as +that of <i>albicaudatus</i>, and this is especially true in the females. In +the narrower rostrum and weaker dentition they approach <i>contractus</i>, +but are distinctly lighter colored. Hall (1931:3) referred one specimen +from Nephi, Juab County, to <i>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</i>. Since that +time <i>Thomomys bottae lenis</i> which has some affinities with +<i>aureiventris</i> has been described (see account of <i>contractus</i>). The +large series now available from Nephi and nearby localities do show +some intergradation with <i>lenis</i>, in that four characters are more as +in <i>lenis</i> and <i>contractus</i> and seven characters are more as in +<i>albicaudatus</i>. Although differing markedly in many respects from +topotypes of <i>albicaudatus</i> they fit the aforementioned concept of this +subspecies, and are being treated as a variable local population of it.</p> + +<p>Provo is the locality listed for specimens which were available to +naturalists from 1875-1877. To these specimens the following names were +applied: <i>Thomomys talpoides bulbivorus</i> Coues (1875:256; 1877:627) and +<i>Thomomys talpoides umbrinus</i> Coues and Yarrow (1875:112). Possibly +these names were applied to the animals currently known as <i>Thomomys +bottae albicaudatus</i> which does occur at Provo. Without the opportunity +to examine the actual specimens, which so far as I know are no longer +in existence, I cannot exclude the possibility that the locality +designation "Provo" was used in a general sense to include pocket +gophers taken a few miles to the eastward of Provo, where it is known +that pocket gophers of only the species <i>Thomomys talpoides</i> (current +terminology) occur.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 239, distributed as follows: +<i>Davis County</i>: Bountiful, 4,500 ft., 1. <i>Salt Lake County</i>: +Salt Lake City and environs, 4,300 ft., 51; 2 mi. W Murray, +4,300 ft., 6; Riverton, 4,300 ft., 11; Draper, 4,500 ft., 7; +Rose Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, 5,650 ft., 4. <i>Tooele +County</i>: Bauer, 4,500 ft., 30; Settlement Creek, Oquirrh +Mountains, 6,500 ft., 1; St. John, 4,300 ft., 28; Clover +Creek, Onaqui Mountains, 5,500 ft., 15; Vernon, 4,300 ft., 2 +(U. S. A. C.); Little Valley, Sheeprock Mountains, 5,500 +ft., 20. <i>Utah County</i>: Fairfield, 4,800 ft., 24; Provo, +4,400 ft., 20 (8, B. Y. U.; 12, M. V. Z.). <i>Juab County</i>: +Neff Farm, 4 mi. N Nephi, 5,000 ft., 2 (1, R. H.); Nephi, +5,000 ft., 1 (M. V. Z.); 2 mi. S Nephi, 4,700 ft., 14; 7 mi. +SW Nephi, 6,000 ft., 2.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae bonnevillei</b> <span class="fwn">new subspecies</span></h3> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 3576, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Fish Springs, 4,400 ft., Juab County, Utah; June 8, +1940; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1955.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Known only from the type locality.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet +small. Color: Entire dorsal surface Warm Buff; sides near (<i>e</i>) +Cinnamon Buff, underparts near (16") Pale Pinkish Buff; inguinal +region, front and hind feet and distal part of tail white: top of head, +nose and cheeks grayish black; postauricular patches small and grayish +black; ears small, pointed and with heavily pigmented pinnae. Skull: +Angular, short and wide; nasals of medium length, narrow proximally but +widely flared distally; interparietal small; lambdoidal suture concave +towards the interparietal; zygomatic arches uniformly widely spreading; +interpterygoid space widely V-shaped; extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals long; lambdoidal crest well developed.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</i>, +<i>bonnevillei</i> differs as follows: Size smaller, hind foot shorter. +Color: Upper parts and sides lighter; underparts pale buff rather than +"gold." Skull: Shorter and relatively wider; rostrum wider and heavier; +zygomatic arches relatively wider and more massive, with greatest width +posteriorly instead of anteriorly; interpterygoid space widely V-shaped +rather than lyre-shaped; thickening at union of jugal and zygomatic +process of maxilla less developed; anterior palatine foramina larger; +nasals shorter and more markedly flared distally; zygomatic breadth +relatively, and mastoidal breadth actually, wider; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; tympanic bullae more inflated +ventrally; upper incisors wider.</p> + +<p>From near topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i>, from 1 mile east of +Garrison, Millard County, Utah, <i>bonnevillei</i> differs as follows: Size +smaller; hind foot and tail shorter. Color: Generally darker above and +lighter below; top of head darker; postauricular patches smaller and +lighter. Skull: Shorter and wider (zygomatic breadth expressed in +percent of basilar length being, in males, 74.5 in <i>bonnevillei</i> and +71.5 in <i>centralis</i>); interpterygoid space more widely V-shaped; +interparietal smaller, and more triangular; nasals shorter and much +more dilated distally, as well as more constricted proximally; lacrimal +processes smaller and less globuse at tips; temporal fossae larger; +braincase and entire dorsal surface of skull more nearly flat; +lambdoidal suture convex posteriorly as opposed to nearly straight; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally.</p> + +<p>Comparisons of <i>bonnevillei</i> with the type and type series of <i>Thomomys +bottae wahwahensis</i> show them to be of approximately the same size, but +to differ as follows: Color: Slightly darker above and lighter below; +postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Larger in every +measurement taken, except breadth of rostrum which is smaller; skull +not as flat; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; nasals and +rostrum longer; extension of premaxillae posterior<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> to nasals greater; +interparietal smaller and more triangular; zygomatic arches more bowed +out laterally; jugals heavier; interpterygoid space more widely +V-shaped; upper incisors less massive.</p> + +<p>The characters that distinguish <i>bonnevillei</i> from <i>Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus</i> are: Size smaller. Color: Markedly lighter throughout. +Skull: Shorter and wider; mastoid and zygomatic breadths greater; +rostrum narrower but shorter; angle between rostrum and zygomatic +processes of maxillae less; interparietal smaller and more triangular; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; upper incisors +shorter, narrower and more recurved.</p> + +<p><i>T. b. bonnevillei</i> is indistinguishable in color from <i>Thomomys bottae +convexus</i>, but differs from it in the following features: Size larger +in nearly every measurement taken. Skull: Flattened dorsally as opposed +to convex; zygomatic arches longer and weaker; jugals more nearly +perpendicular; tympanic bullae larger; upper incisors longer; alveolar +length of upper molar series the same, but molars narrower; rostrum +longer but nasals shorter; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +greater.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>bonnevillei</i> can be distinguished from those of both +<i>Thomomys bottae tivius</i> and <i>stansburyi</i> by being larger in every +measurement taken, by markedly lighter color throughout, and by ridged, +massive, angular skulls rather than smooth, weak, nonangular skulls.</p> + +<p>The races closest geographically to <i>bonnevillei</i> are <i>Thomomys bottae +robustus</i> and <i>T. b. sevieri</i>. Compared with topotypes of <i>robustus</i>, +<i>bonnevillei</i> differs in: Size larger. Color: Lighter throughout. +Skull: Larger, although not as compact; zygomatic arches more widely +spreading; jugals lighter; lacrimal processes not as prominent; +zygomatic processes of maxillae not as robust; nasals more flared +distally; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; +alveolar length of upper molar series longer; molars larger; upper +incisors longer, wider and darker in color; when placed ventral side +down on a surface, the dorsal face of a skull of <i>robustus</i> is +approximately parallel to the surface, whereas one of <i>bonnevillei</i> +dips down in the occipital region.</p> + +<p><i>T. b. sevieri</i> can be easily distinguished from <i>bonnevillei</i> by being +smaller in every measurement taken, darker in color, and by small, +weak, smooth skulls as opposed to large, robust, ridged skulls.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Fish Springs, where <i>bonnevillei</i> occurs is a marshy area +south of the barren, salt-desert country of western Utah. The source of +water is springs at the base of the north end of the Fish<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> Springs +Mountains. Only the moist area supports pocket gophers. Specimens from +Trout Creek, Juab County, twenty-five miles to the southwest are +intergrades between <i>bonnevillei</i> and <i>aureiventris</i>, and are referred +to the latter subspecies. The country between Fish Springs and Trout +Creek in 1937 and 1940 lacked pocket gophers; it was of the playa and +sand type. Probably <i>T. b. bonnevillei</i> was derived from <i>T. b. +aureiventris</i>, a western mainland form of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville, +through isolation and subsequent differentiation morphologically. The +moist soils at Cane Springs, seven miles south of Fish Springs, had no +pocket gophers when visited in 1940.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 11, from the type locality.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae centralis</b> <span class="fwn">Hall</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys perpallidus centralis</i> Hall, Univ. California +Publ. Zoöl., 32:445, July 8, 1930.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i> Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Hall and Johnson, +Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. Arts and Letters, 15:121, 1938.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 41688, Museum of Vertebrate +Zoölogy, University of California; 2-1/2 mi. E Baker (1-1/4 mi. W +Nevada-Utah boundary on 39th parallel), 5,700 ft., White Pine County, +Nevada; May 30, 1929; collected by E. Raymond Hall; original number +2683.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Extreme western Utah, in Millard, Beaver and Iron counties.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements); tail long; claws on front +feet long. Color: Near Cinnamon Buff on upper parts, darker in +middorsal region, grading to Pinkish Buff on underparts, more +accentuated in pectoral and inguinal regions; nose, cheeks and +postauricular patches grayish black; front and hind feet and distal +half of tail white. Skull: Robust and moderately ridged; zygomatic +breadth about the same for entire length of arches; jugals vertical +posterior to middle; moderate thickening present at region of +maxillo-jugal suture; interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; dorsal +frontomaxillary sutures convex medially; lacrimal processes globose and +well developed; nasals long and with distal denticulations; +paroccipital processes well developed.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus</i>, <i>centralis</i> differs as follows: Size larger; tail +longer; claws on front feet longer. Color: Lighter throughout, Cinnamon +Buff as opposed to near (13''''<i>n</i>) Black. Skull: Basilar length and +length of nasals greater; zygomatic breadth less; zygomatic arches +thicker at region of maxillo-jugal sutures; interpterygoid space more +broadly V-shaped; dorsal frontomaxillary sutures convex medially as +opposed to straight; paroccipital processes more developed; zygomatic +arches approximately the same width throughout as opposed to widest +posteriorly.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span></p> + +<p>For comparisons with <i>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</i> see account of that +form.</p> + +<p><i>T. b. centralis</i> can be distinguished from <i>Thomomys bottae +bonnevillei</i>, <i>robustus</i>, <i>sevieri</i> and <i>convexus</i> by larger size +throughout and generally darker color (see accounts of those forms). +From <i>Thomomys bottae stansburyi</i> and <i>tivius</i>, <i>centralis</i> differs in +larger size throughout and lighter color (see accounts of those forms).</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—<i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i> has one of the most extensive +ranges of any of the known races of <i>T. bottae</i>. The eastern limits +extend into extreme western Utah. Specimens from Utah for the most part +are intergrades between <i>centralis</i> and <i>aureiventris</i>, the race to the +north. Some minor intergradation is also noted between <i>centralis</i> and +<i>sevieri</i> and <i>bonnevillei</i>, the races to the east. Intergradation is +the expected condition because the animals belonging to <i>centralis</i> are +at the extremes of their range in this area. The greater affinities of +these animals with <i>aureiventris</i> is to be expected because both +<i>aureiventris</i> and <i>centralis</i> are forms of the western mainland of the +Pleistocene Lake Bonneville; while the races to the east, although +closest geographically, were isolated from the gophers of the western +mainland during prehistoric times by this lake. They are still isolated +and enough time has elapsed so that only vestiges of morphological +intergradation exist between <i>centralis</i> and these eastern forms. Two +specimens from Cedar City, Iron County, are intergrades between +<i>Thomomys bottae wahwahensis</i>, <i>centralis</i> and <i>planirostris</i>. Their +skulls are slightly convex as in <i>planirostris</i>, and the rostrum is +short and wide as in <i>wahwahensis</i>. In shape of the zygomatic arches, +length of the nasals, and color, they resemble <i>centralis</i> to which +they are here referred.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 49, distributed as follows: +<i>Millard County</i>: 1 mi. SE Gandy, 5,000 ft., 15 (M. V. Z.); +White Valley (Tule Spring), 60 mi. W Delta, 4, (3 in R. W. +Fautin Vertebrate Collection); Robison Ranch, 5,300 ft., (on +Hendry Creek) Simonsons Ranch, 4,596 ft., 2 (M. V. Z.); 1 +mi. E Garrison, 5,000 ft., 21; 5 mi. S Garrison, 5,400 ft., +5 (M. V. Z.). <i>Iron County</i>: Cedar City, 2 (M. V. Z.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae sevieri</b> <span class="fwn">new subspecies</span></h3> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 2530, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Swasey Spring, House Mountains, 6,500 ft., Millard +County, Utah; May 16, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number +1380.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Known only from the type locality.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet short +and weak; ears short; tail relatively long. Color: Upper parts Pinkish +Buff, grading over sides to Pale Pinkish Buff on underparts; nose, top +of head, chin and cheeks grayish black; postauricular patches small and +grayish black; front and hind feet and distal two-thirds of tail white. +Skull: Small, weak<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> and smooth; rostrum narrow; nasals narrow, not +markedly flared distally; zygomatic arches weak, not angular, and of +"graceful" contour; lacrimal processes small; characteristic dorsal +depression present in region of sagitto-coronal suture; mastoid and +zygomatic breadths narrow; occiput narrow and high; braincase well +inflated; paroccipital processes small and smooth; interpterygoid space +narrowly V-shaped; tympanic bullae small, but well inflated ventrally; +alveolar length of upper molar series short; molars small; upper +incisors short, but narrow.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</i>, +<i>sevieri</i> differs as follows: Size smaller. Color: Lighter throughout, +no "gold" on underparts. Skull: Much smaller in every measurement +taken, less massive and not angular; zygomatic arches weaker and widest +posteriorly rather than anteriorly; union of jugal and zygomatic +process of maxilla not greatly thickened; interpterygoid space narrowly +V-shaped rather than lyre-shaped; pterygoid hamulae shorter and weaker; +tympanic bullae smaller, but markedly more inflated ventrally; +dentition smaller and weaker.</p> + +<p>From near topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i>, <i>sevieri</i> can be +distinguished by the following features: Size markedly smaller. Color: +Lighter throughout. Skull: Markedly smaller in every measurement taken, +weaker and smoother; zygomatic arches weaker, less angular and more +"graceful"; rostrum shorter, but narrower; lacrimal processes smaller; +tympanic bullae smaller, but more inflated ventrally, being triangular +in shape as opposed to ovate and with anteromedial margin decidedly +pointed; pterygoid hamulae smaller and weaker; dentition smaller and +weaker.</p> + +<p><i>T. b. sevieri</i> can readily be distinguished from <i>Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus</i> by the following features: Size smaller in every +measurement taken. Color: Markedly lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller, +and weaker; rostrum shorter and narrower; ascending processes of +premaxillae narrower; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +shorter; posterior tongues of premaxillae narrower; dentition much +lighter.</p> + +<p>Comparisons of <i>sevieri</i> with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae +wahwahensis</i> show them to be of approximately the same size, but to +differ as follows: Hind foot longer; ear shorter. Color: Slightly +darker. Skull: Smaller, weaker, less ridged; zygomatic breadth less; +zygomatic arches markedly less angular; mastoid breadth less; rostrum +much longer and narrower, not as blunt nor flattened; tympanic bullae +much larger and more inflated ventrally; braincase vaulted as opposed +to flattened.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span></p> + +<p>From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae bonnevillei</i>, <i>sevieri</i> differs in: +Size smaller throughout. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken, +weaker, smoother and less angular; dentition smaller and weaker.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>sevieri</i> are easily distinguished from those of <i>Thomomys +bottae robustus</i> by smaller size, and smaller, markedly weaker skull +which is less angular and ridged.</p> + +<p>Among named races of <i>Thomomys bottae</i>, <i>sevieri</i> is closest +geographically to <i>convexus</i>, but differs from it as follows: Size +larger; hind foot longer. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; +nasals shorter and not so flaring distally; rostrum weaker, narrower +and not so depressed; zygomatic arches markedly weaker and less +angular; lacrimal processes smaller; supraoccipital narrower and +higher; paroccipital processes weaker; tympanic bullae smaller; +dentition markedly weaker.</p> + +<p>Topotypical specimens of <i>sevieri</i> can be readily distinguished from +those of <i>Thomomys bottae tivius</i> by Pinkish Buff instead of Mummy +Brown on upper parts. Tympanic bullae larger and markedly more +inflated; nasals longer; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths greater; +rostrum longer and more depressed; upper incisors longer and wider; +molariform teeth smaller. The skulls of <i>sevieri</i> resemble those of +<i>tivius</i> more closely than those of any other subspecies.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—The House Mountains in western Millard County are +surrounded by desertlike terrain that is seemingly unsuited to pocket +gophers. In these mountains, gophers were sought in vain at several +localities, including Antelope Springs which superficially appeared +suitable for the animals. Pocket gophers were found only at the type +locality, Swasey Spring, which is well above the highest level of the +Pleistocene Lake Bonneville. <i>T. b. sevieri</i>, like <i>T. b. minimus</i> on +Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake, appears to remain only on land that +was an island when Lake Bonneville was at its highest level.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 10, from the type locality.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae convexus</b> <span class="fwn">Durrant</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys bottae convexus</i> Durrant, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 52:159, October 11, 1939.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 2482, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; E side Clear Lake, 4,600 ft., Millard County, Utah; +May 20, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1401.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Westcentral Utah in Delta Valley.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts and +sides Pinkish Buff, purest on sides; underparts Pale Pinkish Cinnamon; +inguinal and pectoral regions Pale Pinkish Buff; nearly all specimens +have white on perineal region; nose grayish black; front feet, hind +feet and distal third to half of tail white; postauricular patches +black. Skull: Braincase moderately convex on dorsal surface; rostrum +strongly depressed, giving the entire dorsal surface of the skull a +"rocker-shape"; zygomatic arches heavy, short and widely spreading, +widest posteriorly; upper incisors recurved, short and wide; molariform +teeth large; alveolar length of upper molar series long; palatal pits +deep; tympanic bullae moderately inflated ventrally; mastoidal breadth +actually as well as relatively wide.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae +wahwahensis</i>, <i>convexus</i> is of approximately the same color, but +differs as follows: Size smaller; tail, hind foot, and ear shorter. +Skull: Rostrum longer, narrower and more depressed; skull convex rather +than flat; nasals longer, and convex rather than flat; tympanic bullae +larger; zygomatic arches shorter and more massive; molariform teeth +larger.</p> + +<p>From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i>, <i>convexus</i> differs in: +Size smaller; tail and hind foot shorter. Color: Uniformly lighter, +more white in perineal region. Skull: Smaller, more convex; rostrum +shorter, wider and more depressed; zygomatic arches shorter and +heavier; mastoidal breadth actually, as well as relatively wider; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; upper incisors shorter and +wider.</p> + +<p>Comparatively, topotypes of <i>convexus</i> can be distinguished from those +of <i>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</i> by: Size smaller; tail and hind foot +shorter. Color: Darker on upper parts; no "gold" on underparts. Skull: +Smaller and more nearly flat; rostrum shorter and more depressed; +zygomatic arches shorter, heavier and widest posteriorly rather than +anteriorly; interpterygoid space V-shaped as opposed to lyre-shaped; +upper incisors shorter, narrower and more recurved.</p> + +<p>Topotypical specimens of <i>convexus</i> differ from those of <i>Thomomys +bottae nesophilus</i> as follows: Size smaller; tail and hind foot +shorter. Color: Uniformly lighter throughout, Cinnamon Buff as opposed +to Pinkish Buff. Skull: Smaller; rostrum heavier, shorter and more +depressed; zygomatic arches shorter, heavier and not so widely +spreading; no widening of supraoccipital as in <i>nesophilus</i>; upper +incisors shorter and more recurved.</p> + +<p>When compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae albicaudatus</i>, +<i>convexus</i> shows the following differences: Size smaller; tail <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span>and +hind foot shorter. Color: Markedly lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller, +more convex and compact; rostrum shorter, heavier, more depressed and +compact; zygomatic arches shorter and more robust; upper incisors +shorter and more recurved.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae tivius</i> is the race closest geographically to +<i>convexus</i>. From it, <i>convexus</i> can be readily distinguished by: Size +larger; tail shorter; hind foot longer. Color: Markedly lighter +throughout. Skull: Much heavier and more compact, weights of skulls of +males and females of the two subspecies being 2.4 grs., 1.6; 1.6, 1.2, +respectively; rostrum heavier, wider and more depressed; zygomatic +arches shorter, and more massive; upper incisors shorter, wider and +more recurved; molariform teeth larger.</p> + +<p>For comparisons with <i>Thomomys bottae lenis</i>, <i>contractus</i>, <i>sevieri</i>, +<i>bonnevillei</i>, and <i>robustus</i> see accounts of those forms.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—<i>T. b. convexus</i> is limited to the area around Clear Lake +in Millard County. This lake is surrounded by areas of loose, shifting +sand and flat areas of barren alkali. The lake is fed by springs which +flow from lava outcroppings on its eastern side. As far as discernible, +the only area populated by pocket gophers (1938) was that adjacent to +the lake where vegetation had trapped the sand. The factor which limits +the extension of range of this subspecies probably is plant food. Also, +the soil is mechanically poor for burrowing, since it caves in easily +and burrows were found only in the sand where salt grass (<i>Distichlis +stricta</i>) had trapped and stabilized it. Burrows were found from the +edge of the water back as far as this grass persisted.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 17, from the type locality.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae tivius</b> <span class="fwn">Durrant</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys bottae tivius</i> Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 (No. +4):5, August 18, 1937.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 1827, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Oak Creek Canyon, 6 mi. E Oak City, 6,000 ft., +Millard County, Utah; September 14, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; +original number 1100.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Limited to the Cañon Mountains, Millard County.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Mummy +Brown, grading through Cinnamon on the sides to Pale Cinnamon on the +underparts; cheeks Cinnamon; postauricular patches black; distal third +to half of tail white. Skull: Small, weak; zygomatic arches weak, not +widely spreading, widest posteriorly; tympanic bullae large; +interpterygoid space V-shaped; nasals short, usually simple distally, +but with some denticulations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> in some specimens; palatal pits deep; +palate narrow; paroccipital processes small; incisors, both upper and +lower, narrow; molariform teeth small.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Topotypes of <i>tivius</i> differ from those of <i>Thomomys +bottae albicaudatus</i> as follows: Size markedly smaller in every +measurement taken. Color: Lighter, Mummy Brown as opposed to near +(13''''<i>n</i>) Black. Skull: Smaller, slenderer and weaker; zygomatic +arches weak and not widely spreading as opposed to massive and wide +spreading; nasals and rostrum narrower and shorter; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals shorter; tympanic bullae smaller; +molariform teeth smaller.</p> + +<p>For comparisons with <i>Thomomys bottae stansburyi</i> and <i>T. b. +contractus</i> see accounts of those forms.</p> + +<p>The four subspecies <i>tivius</i>, <i>albicaudatus</i>, <i>stansburyi</i>, and +<i>contractus</i> are the darkest in color of all the <i>Thomomys bottae</i> +occurring within the state.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—This small, dark subspecies is limited to the Cañon +Mountains in eastern Millard County. Apparently it is a mountain +derivative of <i>Thomomys bottae contractus</i> which occurs in the valleys +to the east and west of these mountains. Intergradation is noted with +animals from the valleys on either side. For further comments on +distributional problems of this type see remarks under <i>Thomomys bottae +stansburyi</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 12, from the type locality.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae contractus</b> <span class="fwn">new subspecies</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys perpallidus albicaudatus</i> Hall, Univ. California +Publ. Zoöl., 37:3, April 10, 1931.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae albicaudatus</i> Durrant. Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 +(No. 4):4, August 18, 1937.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1851, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah; Scipio, 5,315 ft., Millard County, Utah; September +17, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1125.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Extreme eastern Millard and Beaver counties, Utah.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, mixed with black giving a color of Dresden Brown; sides +between Cinnamon Buff and Pinkish Buff; underparts Pinkish Buff, purest +on inguinal and pectoral regions; postauricular patches medium in size +and black; ears covered with black hairs; nose, chin, cheeks and top of +head dusky; front feet, hind feet and distal third to half of tail +white; proximal part of tail covered all around with buff-colored +hairs. Skull: Long, slender, moderately ridged and convex transversally +at proximal ends of nasals; nasals long; rostrum long and narrow; +posterior ends of nasals truncate or shallowly emarginate; ascending +processes of premaxillae slender; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals long; zygomatic arches neither robust nor widely spreading;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> +interparietal subquadrangular; supraoccipital extending horizontally +well behind lambdoidal suture instead of dropping off abruptly to the +foramen magnum; interpterygoid space moderately V-shaped in some +specimens, but somewhat lyre-shaped in others; tympanic bullae large +and truncate anteriorly; upper incisors long and narrow; molariform +teeth small and light.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus</i>, <i>contractus</i> differs as follows: Tail longer. Color: +Lighter throughout. Skull: Slenderer, less ridged and angular; rostrum +narrower; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths less; ascending processes of +premaxillae narrower; posterior tongues of premaxillae narrower; +posterior ends of nasals less truncate; zygomatic arches weaker, less +angular, and less widely spreading posteriorly; interparietal larger; +paroccipital processes weaker; interpterygoid space not as widely +V-shaped; upper incisors longer and narrower; molariform teeth smaller.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>contractus</i> can be distinguished from those of <i>Thomomys +bottae convexus</i> by the following: Size larger, tail longer; hind foot +larger. Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Longer, narrower, and not as +massive; top of skull moderately, as opposed to strongly, convex; +nasals arched rather than straight; zygomatic arches neither as widely +spreading, angular nor massive; space enclosed within zygomatic arches +longer; interparietal larger; interpterygoid space more narrowly +V-shaped; upper incisors longer and narrower; molariform teeth much +lighter.</p> + +<p>Comparisons of topotypes of <i>contractus</i> with near topotypes of +<i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i> show them to be approximately the same +size, but to differ as follows: Color: Darker throughout. Skull: +Shorter and slenderer; rostrum narrower; region between posterior +tongues of premaxillae narrower and more convex transversally; nasals +more truncate; zygomatic breadth less, but arches relatively more +widely spreading posteriorly; interparietal larger; interpterygoid +space generally narrower; upper incisors longer and narrower; +molariform teeth smaller.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>contractus</i> differ from those of <i>Thomomys bottae +aureiventris</i> as follows: Size smaller; tail longer; hind foot shorter. +Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Shorter but slenderer; rostrum +narrower; nasals shorter but slenderer, and more truncate posteriorly; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals longer; zygomatic arches +weaker and less angular; zygomatic processes of maxillae weaker and +with no marked thickenings at union of maxilla and jugals; +interparietal larger; interpterygoid space more generally<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> V-shaped; +upper incisors longer and narrower; molariform teeth smaller.</p> + +<p>Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae planirostris</i>, <i>contractus</i> +differs in: Size smaller throughout. Color: Darker, more black and less +Cinnamon in pelage. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; rostrum +narrower; nasals arched instead of flat; zygomatic arches neither +angular, massive nor widely spreading; upper incisors narrower; +molariform teeth markedly smaller and weaker.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>contractus</i> differ from those of <i>Thomomys bottae +levidensis</i> in larger size, darker color and longer, slenderer skulls.</p> + +<p>Among named races of <i>T. bottae</i>, <i>contractus</i> is closest +morphologically to <i>tivius</i>. It differs from it as follows: Size larger +throughout. Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: The same general shape +and proportions, but larger in every measurement taken; rostrum longer +and narrower; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals longer; +posterior tongues of premaxillae narrower.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Fifteen animals from Oak City are intergrades between +<i>contractus</i> and <i>tivius</i>. Intergradation with <i>lenis</i> is also shown in +some specimens by the widely spreading zygomatic arches. In the +majority of characters including the diagnostic long, slender, narrow +rostrum they are more like <i>contractus</i> to which they are here +referred.</p> + +<p>Nine animals from Beaver were considered by Hall (1931:3) and Durrant +(1937:4) to be intergrades between <i>Thomomys bottae albicaudatus</i> and +<i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i>. Restudy of these specimens in the light of +additional material now shows them to be intergrades between <i>T. b. +centralis</i>, <i>T. b. planirostris</i> and <i>T. b. contractus</i>. The majority +of these animals are intermediate in color between <i>centralis</i> and +<i>contractus</i>, but a few have the reddish cast of <i>planirostris</i>. The +shape of the nasals is characteristic of <i>planirostris</i>, while the +zygomatic arches are as in <i>centralis</i>. In the remainder of the +diagnostic characters they are like <i>contractus</i> to which they are here +referred.</p> + +<p>Strong affinities exist between <i>albicaudatus</i>, <i>tivius</i> and +<i>contractus</i>. All three of these races probably stemmed from a dark +form which formerly inhabited the eastern mainland of the Pleistocene +Lake Bonneville. At present, <i>tivius</i> is isolated on the Cañon +Mountains in eastern Millard County, while the range of <i>albicaudatus</i> +and <i>contractus</i> have been separated by that of <i>lenis</i>. <i>T. b. lenis</i> +has the majority of its affinities with <i>aureiventris</i> which is an +inhabitant of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> the western mainland of this ancient lake. An +understanding of the history of the Sevier River Valley will probably +clarify this distribution of pocket gophers.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 39, distributed as follows: +<i>Millard County</i>: Oak City, 5,000 ft., 15; Scipio, 5,315 +ft., 15. <i>Beaver County</i>: Beaver, 6,000 ft., 9 (M. V. Z.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae lenis</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys townsendii lenis</i> Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 55:75, June 25, 1942.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys perpallidus aureus</i> Moore, Journ. Mamm., 10:259; +November 11, 1931.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 264805, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Richfield, 5,308 ft., Sevier County, +Utah; March 11, 1928; collected by A. W. Moore; X-catalogue number +28835 (after Goldman, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Sevier River Valley from Piute County north to southwestern +Juab and northeastern Millard counties, Utah.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size large (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff mixed with black in middorsal region; sides, flanks, +forearms, thighs and underparts Pinkish Buff; inguinal region, front +feet, hind feet, underpart of tail and end of tail white; postauricular +patches small and dusky; chin, cheeks, nose and top of head dusky. +Skull: Largest of Utah gophers, massive and angular; nasals long and +denticulate distally; rostrum long and relatively narrow; zygomatic +arches widely spreading and heavy throughout; jugals nearly vertical; +zygomatic processes of maxillae heavy and flaring out abruptly from +base of rostrum; union of zygomatic process of maxilla and jugal +greatly thickened; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals long; +posterior tongues of premaxillae relatively narrow; lacrimal processes +small; pterygoid hamulae long; interpterygoid space moderately +V-shaped, tending to be somewhat lyre-shaped in some specimens; +tympanic bullae somewhat flattened, only moderately inflated ventrally; +upper incisors long and narrow; molariform teeth actually large, but +relatively small.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Topotypes of <i>lenis</i> can be distinguished from those of +<i>Thomomys bottae tivius</i>, <i>convexus</i>, <i>contractus</i>, <i>albicaudatus</i>, +<i>levidensis</i>, <i>centralis</i> and <i>aureiventris</i> by the following markedly +greater average measurements of males: Total length, 250 mm.; length of +nasals, 15.5; zygomatic breadth, 28.3; mastoid breadth, 22.5; and +length of rostrum, 18.3. Other distinguishing characters are: Zygomatic +arches more widely spreading; length of zygomatic processes of maxillae +greater; and relatively longer, narrower rostrum.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Twenty-one animals obtained from Lynndyl, Millard County, +are all intergrades between <i>lenis</i> and <i>aureiventris</i>. They are like +<i>aureiventris</i> in the shape of the zygomatic arches, and in the bowing +of the parietal crests. Slight intergradation with <i>centralis</i> is +indicated by color and the shape of the nasals. The transverse<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> arching +of the posterior part of the rostrum is indicative of some relationship +with <i>contractus</i>. In six other characters studied they most closely +approach <i>lenis</i> to which they are here referred.</p> + +<p>Large size is the distinctive feature of <i>Thomomys bottae lenis</i>. The +skulls are the largest of any species or subspecies of <i>Thomomys</i> found +in Utah. In total length, however, these animals are no longer than the +extremes found in other named races. When Goldman (1942:75) described +this race as new, he referred it to the species <i>Thomomys townsendii</i>, +but remarked that the animal from Richfield was different enough from +any other form then named to merit probably full specific status. I +know of no character other than size to separate <i>Thomomys townsendii</i> +from <i>Thomomys bottae</i>, and since intergradation has been shown to +exist between these alleged <i>townsendii</i> from Richfield and animals +from extreme western Utah known to belong to the species <i>bottae</i>, +<i>lenis</i> is here arranged as a subspecies of <i>Thomomys bottae</i> which +name has priority over <i>Geomys townsendii</i>.</p> + +<p>The range here ascribed to this race is the Sevier River Valley from +Piute County as far downstream as the town of Lynndyl which is near the +eastern mainland of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville. The Sevier River +continues farther out into Delta Valley ultimately to empty into Sevier +Lake, which at present is adjacent to the area that formerly +constituted the western mainland of the aforementioned ancient lake. +This watercourse may have provided a migration route in ancient times, +during the fluctuations of Lake Bonneville, whereby the animals +formerly of the western mainland were able to come far eastward. The +animals from Lynndyl which are intergrades between <i>lenis</i>, an eastern +mainland form, and <i>centralis</i> and <i>aureiventris</i> which are western +mainland forms of Lake Bonneville lend support to this hypothesis.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 26, distributed as follows: +<i>Millard County</i>: Lynndyl, 4,796 ft., 21. <i>Juab County</i>: U. +B. (= Yuba) Dam, 5,000 ft., 1. <i>Sevier County</i>: Salina, +4,575 ft., 1; Richfield, 5,308 ft., 3. (U. S. N. M.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae levidensis</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys bottae levidensis</i> Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 55:76, June 25, 1942.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys perpallidus aureus</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, +November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, +April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 191962, U. S. National Museum +(Merriam Collection); Manti, 5,500 ft., Sanpete County, Utah; December +6, 1888; collected by Vernon Bailey; original number 427 (after +Goldman, type not seen).</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—San Pitch River Valley, Sanpete County, Utah.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts and +sides Cinnamon Buff, finely mixed with black along median line of back; +underparts Pinkish Buff; nose, cheeks and chin grayish black; +postauricular patches fairly large and grayish black; front and hind +feet white (examples from type series badly stained); tail light buff +but apparently white distally (the color of these specimens has +apparently changed with age). Skull: Small, fairly robust; basilar +length short; zygomatic arches weak, but widely spreading; tympanic +bullae small; nasals short and simple distally; ventral margin of +jugals convex dorsally; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +relatively as well as actually long; posterior tongues of premaxillae +relatively wide.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Topotypes of <i>levidensis</i> differ from those of +<i>Thomomys bottae absonus</i> as follows: Size smaller. Color: Lighter +throughout. Skull: Shorter, weaker and less ridged and angular, but +relatively wider.</p> + +<p>Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae albicaudatus</i>, <i>levidensis</i> +differs as follows: Size smaller in every measurement taken. Color: +Markedly lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; +width relatively greater; skull smooth, weak and nonangular as opposed +to ridged, robust and angular.</p> + +<p>For comparisons with <i>Thomomys bottae lenis</i> and <i>contractus</i> see +accounts of those forms.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—The range here ascribed to <i>levidensis</i> is the San Pitch +River Valley, which gradually merges southward into the Sevier River +Valley. The latter valley in this area is inhabited by pocket gophers +that belong to another subspecies, <i>lenis</i>. Nephi Valley to the west of +San Pitch River Valley is inhabited by animals belonging to the +subspecies <i>albicaudatus</i>. No known specimens show intergradation +between <i>lenis</i> and <i>levidensis</i>, but intergradation between <i>lenis</i> +and <i>albicaudatus</i> is noted in the Nephi Valley animals (see account of +<i>albicaudatus</i>). Superficially <i>levidensis</i> resembles <i>absonus</i> in size +and color, but the skulls closely resemble those of <i>albicaudatus</i>, +except for size in which they are smaller in all measurements. <i>T. b. +albicaudatus</i> is the most variable subspecies of <i>T. bottae</i> occurring +in Utah, and additional material from the Sevier River Valley between +San Pitch River Valley and Nephi Valley may show <i>levidensis</i> to be +only a local variant of the highly variable subspecies, <i>albicaudatus</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 6, from the type locality.</p></div><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span></p> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae osgoodi</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys perpallidus osgoodi</i> Goldman, Journ. Washington +Acad. Sci., 21:424, October 19, 1931.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae osgoodi</i> Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 48:156; October 31, 1935.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys perpallidus aureus</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, +November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, +April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 158530, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Hanksville, Wayne County, Utah; +October 20, 1908; collected by W. H. Osgood; original number 3701 +(after Goldman, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Eastern Utah in the valleys of the drainage of the San +Rafael, Dirty Devil and Price rivers.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts near +(<i>e</i>) Pale Ochraceous Buff, definitely yellow in appearance; sides Pale +Ochraceous Buff; entire underparts white, with a wash of Light Buff in +the pectoral and inguinal regions; top of head, nose, cheeks, and chin +dusky; postauricular patches grayish black; front feet, hind feet and +distal part of tail white. Skull: Fairly robust but narrow; zygomatic +arches concave medially in mid-jugal region; skull moderately convex +dorsally, due to swelling in region of base of rostrum; lambdoidal +suture situated well ahead of posterior margin of skull, with +supraoccipital forming a side shelf at posterior part of skull; +interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; tympanic bullae well inflated +ventrally; basioccipital short; nasals rounded posteriorly; molariform +teeth large.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Topotypes of <i>osgoodi</i> differ from those of <i>Thomomys +bottae absonus</i> as follows: Size generally smaller. Color: Lighter +throughout, more yellowish in appearance as opposed to buffy. Skull: +Smaller in all measurements, except length of nasals, mastoid breadth, +and alveolar length of upper molar series which are larger; rostrum +shorter but relatively wider; zygomatic arches more robust and concave +medially; palate wider; supraoccipital more bulging posteriorly; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger.</p> + +<p>For comparisons with <i>Thomomys bottae aureus</i> and <i>T. b. dissimilis</i> +see accounts of those forms.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—The animals here referred to <i>osgoodi</i> are remarkably +uniform in color, but vary widely in cranial details. Specimens from +Carbon County are not typical and when more material becomes available +it may prove that these animals from the northern part of the range of +<i>osgoodi</i> will merit separation and naming. The specimens from Emery +County are not typical but resemble <i>osgoodi</i> more than do the animals +from Carbon County.</p> + +<p>The range here ascribed to <i>osgoodi</i> is in that part of the eastern +Utah desert that is bounded on the east by the Green and Colorado<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> +rivers, on the west by the high mountains of central Utah, on the north +by the Book Cliffs and on the south by the Dirty Devil River. This area +is an uninviting wasteland in which there are relatively few roads and +little water. In addition, it is greatly cut up by washes and gullies +which contain water only during a few weeks of the year. The +continuation of this area of wasteland southward beyond the Dirty Devil +River is inhabited by pocket gophers belonging to the subspecies +<i>absonus</i>. If specimens were available they would undoubtedly show +intergradation to exist between <i>osgoodi</i> and <i>absonus</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 14, distributed as follows: +<i>Carbon County</i>: 1-2 mi. N Spring Glen, 6,150 ft., 2; Spring +Glen, 6,200 ft., 2; 2 mi. E Spring Glen, 6,200 ft., 1. +<i>Emery County</i>: Price River, 2 mi. SE Woodside, 4,600 ft., 2 +(C. M.); Green River, 4,080 ft., 5 (M. V. Z.). <i>Wayne +County</i>: Hanksville, 2 (U. S. N. M.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae howelli</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys bottae howelli</i> Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. +Sci., 26:116, March 15, 1936.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 25684, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); Grand Junction, 4,600 ft., Mesa +County, Colorado; November 7, 1895; collected by A. H. Howell; original +number 493 (after Goldman, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—In the valleys of eastern Utah, east of the Green River and +north of the Colorado River.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis and Comparisons.</i>—Inasmuch as there is but one specimen, +the holotype known, and as it was impossible to study it, the following +diagnoses and comparisons are from Goldman, (1936:116).</p> + +<p>"<i>General characters.</i>—A rather large, pallid subspecies with a broad, +flattened cranium. Similar to the palest specimens of <i>Thomomys bottae +aureus</i> of the San Juan River Valley, southeastern Utah, in color, but +underparts more thinly overlaid with buffy white, and cranial +characters, especially the broad, flat braincase, distinctive. +Approaching <i>Thomomys bottae osgoodi</i> of the Fremont River Valley, +Utah, in color, but much larger and skull widely different.</p> + +<p>"<i>Color.</i>—Type (winter pelage): Upper parts in general between tilleul +buff and pale olive buff (Ridgway 1912), somewhat darkened on head by a +mixture of cinnamon buff and brown; a few inconspicuous dusky-tipped +hairs along median line of back; muzzle dusky; ears and postauricular +spots deep, contrasting black; underparts thinly overlaid with buffy +white, the hairs becoming pure white to roots on inguinal region; +thighs pure white to roots all around; feet white; tail buffy whitish, +slightly paler below than above.</p> + +<p>"<i>Skull.</i>—Similar in general to that of <i>T. b. aureus</i>, but braincase +conspicuously broader and flatter; zygomata more widely spreading; +nasals shorter; premaxillae more attenuate posteriorly; interparietal +larger; audital bullae more rounded and fully inflated anteriorly; +incisors short, as in <i>aureus</i>, but less strongly recurved. Compared +with that of <i>T. b. osgoodi</i> the skull is much larger, with flatter +braincase, shorter nasals, and posteriorly narrower premaxillae."</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Six specimens, in the Carnegie Museum from 10 miles north +of Moab, Grand County, Utah, were available for this study. They are +not typical of <i>howelli</i> as it is diagnosed by Goldman (<i>loc. cit.</i>). +They appear to be intergrades between <i>howelli</i> and <i>osgoodi</i> in +cranial characters, but more closely resemble <i>howelli</i>, particularly +in the flat, widened, low braincase. In color, some specimens seem to +intergrade toward <i>aureus</i>.</p> + +<p>The range ascribed to this form in Utah appears to be one of the most +natural ones within the state since it is bounded by the Green and +Colorado rivers which have formed deep rocky gorges in this region.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 6, as follows: <i>Grand County</i>: +10 mi. N Moab, 6 (C. M.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae wahwahensis</b> <span class="fwn">Durrant</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys bottae wahwahensis</i> Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 +(No. 4):4, August 18, 1937.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1750, Museum of Zoölogy, +University of Utah, Wah Wah Springs, 30 mi. W Milford, 6,500 ft., +Beaver County, Utah; July 22, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; +original number 989.</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Westcentral Utah, in Wah Wah Mountains, and Pine Valley to +the west of these mountains.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Pinkish Buff; underparts Pale Pinkish Buff with considerable admixture +of gray; inguinal and pectoral regions Pale Pinkish Buff; nose and +cheeks grayish black; postauricular patches small and black; front +feet, hind feet and distal one-third to one-half of tail white. Skull: +Flat dorsoventrally; rostrum short and wide; premaxillae broad and +heavy; nasals short and straight, with no arching as viewed laterally; +tympanic bullae small; space enclosed within zygomatic arches short +antero-posteriorly; alveolar length of upper molar series short; +molariform teeth small.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i>, +<i>wahwahensis</i> differs as follows: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Lighter, Pinkish Buff as opposed to Cinnamon Buff. Skull: +Rostrum wider, shorter and more nearly flat; nasals straight as opposed +to moderately convex; tympanic bullae smaller and less inflated +ventrally; zygomatic arches more widely spreading and angular; +molariform teeth smaller; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +less.</p> + +<p>From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae albicaudatus</i>, <i>wahwahensis</i> differs +as follows: Hind foot shorter. Color: Lighter throughout, Pinkish Buff +as opposed to (13''''<i>n</i>) Black. Skull: Smaller and more nearly flat; +rostrum shorter, wider and more nearly flat; nasals straight as opposed +to convex; zygomatic breadth less but mastoid breadth greater; tympanic +bullae smaller, and less inflated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> ventrally; extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals less; molariform teeth smaller.</p> + +<p>From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae aureiventris</i>, <i>wahwahensis</i> differs +in the following features: Size smaller; hind foot shorter. Color: +Lighter throughout, no "gold" on underparts. Skull: Smaller in nearly +every measurement taken; rostrum shorter and relatively wider; +zygomatic arches more angular and relatively more widely spreading; +nasals shorter and more nearly flat; thickening at union of jugal and +zygomatic process of maxilla less; interpterygoid space V-shaped as +opposed to lyre-shaped; tympanic bullae much smaller, and less inflated +ventrally; molariform teeth much smaller.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>wahwahensis</i> can be easily distinguished from those of +<i>Thomomys bottae tivius</i> by their markedly larger size in every +measurement taken, lighter color, and larger, more robust and more +nearly flat skull.</p> + +<p>For comparisons of <i>wahwahensis</i> with <i>Thomomys bottae sevieri</i>, +<i>robustus</i>, <i>bonnevillei</i> and <i>convexus</i> see comparisons under those +forms.</p> + +<p>Among the named races of <i>Thomomys bottae</i>, <i>wahwahensis</i> definitely +has its affinities with <i>planirostris</i> from Zion National Park. Both +possess flat skulls with wide, short rostra. It differs from the latter +in: Size smaller in every measurement taken. Color: Lighter throughout. +Skulls: Nasals and rostrum shorter and more nearly flat; tympanic +bullae markedly smaller; alveolar length of upper molar series shorter; +molariform teeth markedly smaller and weaker.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Wah Wah Springs, the type locality of <i>wahwahensis</i>, are on +the summit of a low pass in the Wah Wah Mountains in the desert of west +central Utah. The surrounding valleys, for many miles, as far as my +investigations show, are not inhabited by pocket gophers, except the +Desert Range Experiment Station of the United States Forest Service in +Pine Valley to the west of these mountains. There, pocket gophers were +obtained which are intergrades between <i>centralis</i> and <i>wahwahensis</i>. +In five out of seven characters investigated these gophers resemble +<i>wahwahensis</i>, to which they are here referred. Study of the topography +reveals the probable means by which the animals reached this valley. +The long axis of the Wah Wah Mountains is north and south, but a +westward arm forms the northern boundary of Pine Valley. Around springs +in this westward projecting arm workings of pocket gophers were found. +With<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> the development of water at the Desert Range Experiment Station, +and subsequent improvement of forage, these animals probably came down +into the valley from the springs to the north.</p> + +<p>The terrain between the Desert Range Experiment Station in Pine Valley +and Snake Creek (where <i>centralis</i> occurs) to the west is not inhabited +by pocket gophers at present. This area, however, forms part of the +southwest mainland of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville, which mainland in +times past was probably suitable for pocket gophers. Since the close of +the Pleistocene, aridity has rendered most of it unfit for pocket +gophers, and they remain only in isolated areas where suitable +environments still persist.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 18, distributed as follows: +<i>Millard County</i>: Desert Range Experiment Station, United +States Forest Service, Sec. 9, T. 25 S, R. 17 W, Salt Lake +Base Meridian, 6. <i>Beaver County</i>: Wah Wah Springs, Wah Wah +Mountains, 30 mi. W Milford, 6,500 ft., 12 (2, M. V. Z.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae dissimilis</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys perpallidus dissimilis</i> Goldman, Journ. Washington +Acad. Sci., 21:425, October 19, 1931.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae dissimilis</i> Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys perpallidus aureus</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna 39:75, +November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, +April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 158526, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); E slope Mount Ellen, Henry +Mountains, 8,000 ft., Garfield County, Utah; October 15, 1908; +collected by W. H. Osgood; original number 3677 (after Goldman, type +not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Known only from the type locality.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Light +Buff, grading over sides to nearly white on underparts; underparts +lightly washed with Pale Buff, more marked in inguinal and pectoral +regions; postauricular patches grayish black; nose, chin, cheeks and +top of head dusky; front feet, hind feet and distal half of tail white. +Skull: Small and weak; zygomatic arches long, but lying close to skull, +giving it a slender appearance; supraoccipital markedly projecting +posteriorly from lambdoidal suture; rostrum relatively long and narrow; +nasals long; tympanic bullae well inflated ventrally, with a median +ventral ridge; pterygoid hamulae weak; interpterygoid space narrowly +V-shaped; upper incisors short and light in color; molariform teeth +relatively large.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Comparison of one topotype of <i>dissimilis</i> with +topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae aureus</i> shows it to differ as follows: +Size smaller throughout. Color: Lighter dorsally and on sides, pale +buff as contrasted with rich ochraceous; underparts more buffy. Skull: +Smaller in every measurement taken; zygomatic arches markedly less +widely spreading; braincase narrower and more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> vaulted; tympanic bullae +with a median ventral ridge as opposed to smooth; pterygoid hamulae +slenderer; interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped as opposed to +U-shaped; upper incisors smaller and lighter in color.</p> + +<p>Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae absonus</i>, <i>dissimilis</i> +differs in the following features: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller in every measurement +taken, except alveolar length of upper molar series which is greater; +skull narrower and weaker; zygomatic arches weaker and less widely +spreading; tympanic bullae more ridged on ventral surface and shorter +(more rounded) in antero-posterior measurement; upper incisors shorter +and narrower; molariform teeth larger.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae dissimilis</i> resembles <i>T. b. osgoodi</i> more than any +other subspecies but differs in: Size smaller throughout. Color: +Slightly darker dorsally. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken, +and slenderer; rostrum relatively longer; zygomatic arches weaker, and +less widely spreading, more converging anteriorly; tympanic bullae less +rounded, more ridged medioventrally; upper incisors shorter but +narrower; molariform teeth smaller.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—The Henry Mountains, in eastern Garfield County, are in the +Colorado River drainage. The surrounding country is desertlike and cut +by gullies and washes with sheer escarpments and precipitous draws. The +type locality of <i>dissimilis</i> is possibly in an isolated area. Only +three specimens were available to Goldman when he named <i>dissimilis</i>. +He commented on the close resemblance to <i>osgoodi</i> which inhabits the +country to the north. I have examined only one of the three specimens +available to Goldman. Although I can see the characters that he +mentioned, I am not fully convinced that <i>dissimilis</i> is separable from +<i>osgoodi</i>. Two specimens from Escalante, Garfield County, are referred +to <i>absonus</i>, but they show intergradation with <i>dissimilis</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—One (U. S. N. M.) from E slope Mount +Ellen, Henry Mountains, 8,000 ft., Garfield County.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae aureus</b> <span class="fwn">Allen</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys aureus</i> Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 5:49, +April 28, 1893.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae aureus</i> Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Benson, Univ. +California Publ. Zoöl., 40:450, December 31, 1935.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys fulvus aureus</i> Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. +Sci., 21:417, October 19, 1931; Journ. Washington Acad. +Sci., 23:464, October 15, 1933.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Thomomys perpallidus aureus</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:74, +November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, +April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—No. 5243/4123. American Museum of Natural History; Bluff City, +San Juan County, Utah; May 12, 1892; collected by Charles P. Rowley +(after Allen, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—All of San Juan County (except extreme southwestern part) and +Grand County east of the Colorado River.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size large (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, lighter on sides; underparts generally white, or if +colored at all with only a faint wash of Light Buff; nose and chin +blackish gray; top of head blackish due to admixture of black hairs; +postauricular patches small and dusky; front feet and hind feet white. +Skull: Long, narrow but massive; zygomatic arches not widely spreading, +but heavy; jugals thick, union of jugals and zygomatic processes of +maxillae thickened; rostrum long but wide; top of rostrum convex in +lateral view; ascending processes of premaxillae wide and heavy; nasals +thin proximally; braincase long and narrow; tympanic bullae well +inflated ventrally; alveolar length of upper molar series long; molars +large; pterygoid hamulae heavy; interpterygoid space U-shaped; palate +arched; upper incisors long and wide.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae osgoodi</i>, +<i>aureus</i> differs as follows: Size larger in every measurement taken, +except tail which is shorter. Color: Darker throughout except on +ventral surface which is lighter. Skull: Larger, longer and wider; +nasals longer; rostrum wider and longer; zygomatic arches more nearly +straight and heavier; ascending processes of premaxillae wider; +basioccipital longer; interpterygoid space U-shaped as opposed to +V-shaped; tympanic bullae larger; upper incisors longer, wider; molars +larger.</p> + +<p>Topotypical specimens of <i>aureus</i> can be distinguished from those of +<i>Thomomys bottae dissimilis</i> by: Size larger throughout. Color: A +trifle darker on dorsal surface. Skull: Larger in every measurement +taken; zygomatic arches heavier and more nearly straight; tympanic +bullae larger and more inflated ventrally; interpterygoid space +U-shaped as opposed to V-shaped; alveolar length of upper molar series +longer; molars larger; upper incisors longer and wider.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>aureus</i> differ from those of <i>Thomomys bottae absonus</i> as +follows: Size larger in every measurement taken. Color: Darker +dorsally, Light Ochraceous as opposed to Cinnamon Buff; due to +admixture of gray, <i>absonus</i> has more of a grayish cast. Skull: Larger +in every measurement taken, longer, narrower and more compact; +zygomatic arches heavier; ascending processes of premaxillae wider; +jugals heavier; tympanic bullae larger; interpterygoid<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> space U-shaped +rather than V-shaped; upper incisors longer and wider; molars larger.</p> + +<p>From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae planirostris</i>, <i>aureus</i> can be +distinguished as follows: Size larger; tail shorter. Color: Lighter +throughout. Skull: Larger in every measurement taken except zygomatic +breadth, extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals, and length of +upper molariform series which are less; rostrum longer, wider and more +convex; nasals slightly arched rather than straight; depression absent +rather than present in posterior region of nasals; zygomatic arches not +so widely spreading, but equally heavy.</p> + +<p>For comparisons with <i>Thomomys bottae alexandrae</i>, see accounts under +that form.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Topotypes of <i>aureus</i> are among the largest pocket gophers +in the state. They are exceeded in total length only by <i>T. b. lenis</i> +and are approached by <i>T. b. aureiventris</i> and <i>T. b. planirostris</i>. On +the average they have the longest hind foot, body and ear. The length +of the skull is second only to that of <i>lenis</i> as also is the length +and breadth of the rostrum relative to the basilar length.</p> + +<p>From the time of the original description of <i>aureus</i> in 1893 until +1930, all light colored gophers from Utah were referred to that form. +Barnes (1927:100) gives the range of <i>aureus</i> as extending completely +across southern Utah and on the west and east sides as far north as +central Utah. Since 1930, forms named by E. R. Hall, W. H. Burt, E. A. +Goldman and the writer have restricted the range of <i>aureus</i> in Utah to +that part of the state east of the Colorado River.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 22, as follows: <i>San Juan +County</i>: Bluff, 3,300 ft., 22 (15, M. V. Z.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae birdseyei</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys bottae birdseyei</i> Goldman. Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 50:134, September 10, 1937.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys perpallidus aureus</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, +November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, +April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult skin and skull, No. 161654. U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Pine Valley Mountains, 5 mi. E Pine +Valley, 8,300 ft., Washington County, Utah; April 10, 1909; collected +by Clarence Birdseye; original number 861 (after Goldman, type not +seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—High mountains and plateaus of southwestern Utah.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +between Cinnamon and Sayal Brown, finely mixed with black in median +dorsal region, grading over sides and flanks to Cinnamon on underparts; +front feet, hind feet, and distal part of tail white; postauricular +patches, chin, cheeks and top<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> of head grayish black. Skull: Depressed +along median line of frontals and posterior ends of nasals; region of +nasofrontal suture concave ventrally; zygomatic arches heavy and widely +spreading, widest posteriorly; posterior ends of nasals straight, +tending to be somewhat rounded in some specimens; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals moderate; tympanic bullae moderately +inflated ventrally; basioccipital wide; interpterygoid space widely +V-shaped.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Topotypes of <i>birdseyei</i> differ from near topotypes of +<i>Thomomys bottae virgineus</i>, from Beaverdam Wash as follows: Size +larger; tail and hind foot longer. Color: Darker throughout, between +Cinnamon and Sayal Brown as opposed to Cinnamon Buff. Skull: Larger in +every measurement taken except extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals, and length and width of rostrum which are less; skull more +depressed in nasofrontal region; zygomatic arches more widely +spreading; zygomatic processes of squamosals shorter; pterygoid hamulae +longer; tympanic bullae smaller and less inflated ventrally.</p> + +<p>Among named races of <i>T. bottae</i>, <i>birdseyei</i> most closely resembles +<i>trumbullensis</i> in size, but differs as follows: Hind foot and tail +longer. Color: Lighter throughout; postauricular patches smaller and +lighter. Skull: Larger; mastoid breadth less; zygomatic arches wider +and more widely spreading posteriorly; median frontal depression more +marked; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; tympanic +bullae less inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger.</p> + +<p>For comparisons with <i>Thomomys bottae planirostris</i> see account of that +form.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—<i>T. b. birdseyei</i> is apparently endemic to the mountainous +area of southwestern Utah in Washington and Iron counties. It +intergrades with <i>virgineus</i> and with <i>planirostris</i> as described in +the account of the latter.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 8, distributed as follows: +<i>Washington County</i>: Pine Valley, 1 (U. S. N. M.); Pine +Valley Mountains, 5 mi. E Pine Valley, 8,300 ft., 3 (U. S. +N. M.); Pine Valley campground, 6,800 ft., 1 (R. H.); 3/4 +mi. E town of Pine Valley, 6,500 ft., 3 (R. H.).</p> + +<p><i>Additional records.</i>—<i>Washington County</i>: Hebron, 1; +Mountain Meadows, 2 (Bailey 1915:75).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae virgineus</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys bottae virgineus</i> Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 50:133, September 10, 1937.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 262016, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Beaverdam Creek, near confluence with +Virgin River, Littlefield, 1,500 ft., Mohave County, Arizona; October +16, 1936;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> collected by Luther C. Goldman; original number 67 (after +Goldman, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Extreme southwestern Utah, in Beaverdam Wash, Washington +County, Utah.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, finely mixed with black; sides and flanks Pinkish Buff; +underparts Pale Pinkish Buff; front feet, hind feet, and distal part of +tail white; nose, cheeks, chin and top of head grayish black. Skull: +Robust, with moderately wide zygomatic arches; zygomatic processes of +maxillae wide; zygomatic processes of squamosals long; jugals concave +laterally, giving the zygomatic arches the appearance of double bowing; +nasals long; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals long; +tympanic bullae well inflated ventrally; pterygoid hamulae heavy; +interpterygoid space widely V-shaped; molariform teeth large.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—For comparisons of <i>virgineus</i> with <i>Thomomys bottae +planirostris</i> and <i>T. b. birdseyei</i> see accounts under those forms.</p> + +<p>Topotypical specimens of <i>virgineus</i> can be distinguished from those of +<i>Thomomys bottae trumbullensis</i> as follows: Size smaller. Color: +Lighter throughout. Skull: Zygomatic arches less widely spreading; +jugals more bowed medially; zygomatic processes of squamosals longer; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; tympanic bullae +larger and more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger.</p> + +<p>Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i>, <i>virgineus</i> +differs in: Size smaller; tail shorter; hind foot smaller. Color: +Deeper Cinnamon Buff, thus darker in overall appearance. Skull: +Smaller, but relatively wider; zygomatic processes of maxillae heavier; +region of maxillo-jugal sutures thicker; jugals more concave laterally; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—This pocket gopher occupies practically the same range in +Utah as the large kangaroo rat <i>Dipodomys deserti deserti</i> Stephens. +Both are found in the Beaverdam Wash. The type locality of <i>virgineus</i> +is but a short distance down the Beaverdam Creek at Littlefield, +Arizona. It intergrades with <i>birdseyei</i>, the mountain form to the +north and east (see remarks under <i>birdseyei</i>). There are evidences of +intergradation with <i>planirostris</i> of the Virgin River Valley above the +narrows of the Virgin River where it cuts through the Beaverdam +Mountains (see the discussion under <i>planirostris</i>). There are +intergradational tendencies exhibited towards<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> <i>centralis</i> in some +specimens. Some of the animals are practically indistinguishable in +color and there are intergrading cranial characters in the nasals, +zygomatic arches and tympanic bullae.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 20, distributed as follows: +<i>Washington County</i>: Beaverdam Wash, 8 mi. N Utah-Arizona +border, 7; Beaverdam Wash, 5 mi. N Utah-Arizona border, +2,600 ft., 13.</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae planirostris</b> <span class="fwn">Burt</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys perpallidus planirostris</i> Burt, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 44:38, May 8, 1931.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae planirostris</i> Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. +Soc. Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934; Goldman, Proc. +Biol. Soc. Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Presnall, +Zion-Bryce Mus. Bull., 2:14, January, 1938; Long, Journ. +Mamm., 21:176, May 14, 1940.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys perpallidus aureus</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, +November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, +April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927; +Woodbury, Ecological Monographs, 3:193, April, 1933.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae centralis</i> Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934; Presnall, Zion-Bryce +Mus. Bull., 2:14, January, 1938.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys perpallidus centralis</i> Hall, Univ. California +Publ. Zoöl., 23:445, July 8, 1930.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae nicholi</i> Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. +Sci., 28:337, July 15, 1938, type from Shivwits Plateau, 20 +mi. S Wolf Hole (road to Parashonts), 5,000 ft., Mohave +County, Arizona; Hardy, Ecological Monographs, 15:98, +January, 1945.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae trumbullensis</i> Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. +Soc. Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 8395, Collection of Donald R. +Dickey; Zion National Park, Washington County, Utah; May 4, 1920; +collected by A. Brazier Howell; original number 2184 (after Burt, type +not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Valley of the Virgin River from Zion National Park west to +the Beaverdam Mountains.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size large (see measurements); tail long. Color: Upper +parts Sayal Brown; underparts between Vinaceous Cinnamon and Cinnamon, +grading to Pinkish Cinnamon in some specimens; nose, chin, cheeks, +postauricular patches, and top of head grayish black; front feet and +hind feet white; tail Pinkish Buff, with distal third white. Skull: +Massive and ridged; nasals straight and flat, simple distally; dorsal +surface of rostrum slightly concave at proximal end of nasals; +zygomatic arches widely spreading, widest posteriorly; zygomatic +processes of maxillae heavy; premaxillae broad and extending far beyond +posterior end of nasals; rostrum wide and heavy; palate slightly +arched; pterygoid hamulae heavy; interpterygoid space V-shaped; +tympanic bullae moderately inflated ventrally, somewhat compressed +laterally; upper incisors long and heavy; molariform teeth large.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae birdseyei</i>, +<i>planirostris</i> differs as follows: Size larger, except total length +which averages slightly less in females. Color: Lighter throughout. +Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span> massive; rostrum wider, +longer and more nearly flat; nasals straight and not inflated dorsally +on distal end; premaxillae wider at posterior ends; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; zygomatic arches heavier, +especially the zygomatic processes of the maxillae; posterior ends of +nasals more nearly truncate as opposed to generally rounded; tympanic +bullae more nearly flat and relatively smaller; upper incisors longer +and heavier; interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; molariform +teeth much heavier.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>planirostris</i> differ from near topotypes of <i>Thomomys +bottae virgineus</i> as follows: Size larger; tail and hind foot longer. +Color: Slightly darker dorsally, but markedly darker ventrally; +postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Larger in every +measurement taken; skull more massive; nasals flat, neither arched nor +swollen distally; rostrum wider; nasofrontal region flattened or +concave as opposed to convex; premaxillae relatively narrower; +zygomatic arches heavier, especially in the processes of the maxillae; +tympanic bullae smaller and less inflated ventrally; interpterygoid +space generally more narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors longer and +heavier; molariform teeth larger.</p> + +<p>From topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae trumbullensis</i>, <i>planirostris</i> +differs in: Size larger throughout; tail longer. Color: Much lighter +throughout. Skull: More convex dorsally; rostrum wider and more +depressed distally; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +greater; zygomatic arches shorter, and not as widely spreading +posteriorly; interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; tympanic +bullae smaller; upper incisors wider and longer; molariform teeth +larger.</p> + +<p>Topotypes of <i>planirostris</i> can be easily distinguished from those of +<i>Thomomys bottae absonus</i> by darker color throughout and markedly +larger size.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—From the synonomy at the beginning of this account one may +note that the animals here ascribed to this subspecies have had nearly +as many subspecific names applied to them as there have been +investigators who have written about them. Although each of the +previous writers had but a small amount of material upon which to base +his opinion, the diversity of opinion as to subspecific status bespeaks +the instability of these animals. The present study is based upon +eighty animals including additional comparative material.</p> + +<p>All animals from Zion National Park have the characters pointed out by +Burt (1931:38) in his description of this form. Farther<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> down the +Virgin River Valley towards St. George, however, some very perplexing +problems of intergradation are encountered. St. George and environs may +correctly be thought of as a "melting pot." Each of the fifty-seven +animals studied from this region is an intergrade; some specimens +combine the characters of three subspecies.</p> + +<p>As may be seen on the distribution map, three different subspecies of +<i>Thomomys bottae</i> occur in Washington County. Down the river, below St. +George, the race <i>virgineus</i> inhabits the Virgin River Valley below the +narrows of the Beaverdam Mountains. Because these narrows are filled +with water from wall to wall during periods of high runoff, they form +an effective barrier at present to migration of pocket gophers. The +mountains to the north of St. George are inhabited by the dark form, +<i>birdseyei</i>. The type locality of <i>planirostris</i> is on the middle +reaches of the Virgin River, in Zion National Park. In addition Mount +Trumbull to the south, in northern Arizona, is the locality of another +subspecies, <i>trumbullensis</i>.</p> + +<p>Unquestionably the easiest route of migration into the St. George area +is down the Virgin River from Zion National Park; no barrier to gophers +occurs between the Park and St. George. Although the animals from St. +George are all intergrades, the majority of their affinities as would +be expected are with <i>planirostris</i> from Zion National Park. The river +itself is not an impassable barrier for gophers to the north and south +of it, since this stream frequently changes its course, and often +nearly dries up. The Virgin River Valley in Zion National Park is in +the bottom of a relatively deep, narrow canyon which has sheer rock +escarpments. The upper reaches of the river are inhabited by pocket +gophers of another species, <i>Thomomys talpoides</i>.</p> + +<p>Two specimens from St. George, north of the Virgin River, were +identified as <i>centralis</i> by Hall and Davis (1934:52), but were stated +to be intergrades between <i>centralis</i>, <i>trumbullensis</i> and +<i>planirostris</i>. Goldman (1938:338) referred twelve specimens from St. +George to <i>nicholi</i>, but stated that they intergraded with +<i>planirostris</i>. Twenty-six other specimens from three miles southwest +of St. George on the west side of Santa Clara Creek, about one-half +mile above its confluence with the Virgin River and on its north side, +like the topotypes of <i>planirostris</i> were taken in May and have +complete, fresh summer pelage. With the exception of two specimens +which show the ventral color of <i>virgineus</i>, these animals are +indistinguishable in color from the topotypes of <i>planirostris</i>. A +study<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> of eleven measurements of the males of this series yield the +following data: Like <i>planirostris</i> in four measurements, <i>birdseyei</i> +in one, <i>virgineus</i> in one; intergrade between <i>planirostris</i> and +<i>birdseyei</i> in two, <i>planirostris</i> and <i>virgineus</i> in two and +<i>birdseyei</i> and <i>virgineus</i> in one. Corresponding measurements of the +females show the animals to be: Like <i>planirostris</i> in four +measurements, <i>birdseyei</i> in one, <i>virgineus</i> in two; intergrade +between <i>planirostris</i> and <i>birdseyei</i> in two, <i>planirostris</i> and +<i>virgineus</i> in one and <i>birdseyei</i> and <i>virgineus</i> in one. In eight of +eleven measurements the males either are like <i>planirostris</i> or +intergrade towards it, and the females are similarly allied to +<i>planirostris</i> in seven out of eleven measurements. In none of the +measurements was either sex referable to <i>trumbullensis</i>.</p> + +<p>Intergradation was noted in still other cranial details. In the heavy, +relatively straight zygomatic arches, a majority of the skulls resemble +those of <i>planirostris</i>, although some show the elongated zygomatic +processes of the squamosals that are characteristic of <i>virgineus</i>. +Some skulls show a tendency toward <i>birdseyei</i> in the widely spreading +posterior regions of the zygomatic arches. The nasals for the most part +are as in <i>planirostris</i>. Intergradation between all three subspecies +is shown in the extension of the premaxillae posterior to the nasals. +Some skulls show the lateral concavity of the jugals which is +characteristic of <i>virgineus</i>. The tympanic bullae are variable but on +the average are intermediate between those of <i>planirostris</i> and +<i>birdseyei</i>, but more as in the latter. The size of the pterygoid +hamulae is like that of <i>planirostris</i>, but the shape of the +interpterygoid space is more like that of <i>birdseyei</i>. The size of the +molariform teeth is as in <i>birdseyei</i>. The incisors are intermediate +between those of <i>planirostris</i> and <i>birdseyei</i>, but more like those of +<i>birdseyei</i>.</p> + +<p>Eighteen specimens from St. George and its environs, on the north side +of the Virgin River, agree with the twenty-six specimens just +described, except that they show more evidence of intergradation with +<i>birdseyei</i> in slightly darker color, length of hind foot, length of +nasals and alveolar length of the upper molar series.</p> + +<p>One specimen from three miles south, two from two miles southwest, +another from four miles southeast of St. George, and four immature +animals from Short Creek Road south of the town of Virgin, all on the +south side of the Virgin River, are darker than topotypes of +<i>planirostris</i> and show intergradation with <i>trumbullensis</i> to the +south. In size they are likewise closer to the latter<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> race. They +intergrade with <i>trumbullensis</i> in the size and shape of the zygomatic +arches and tympanic bullae. In the majority of cranial details, +however, they are like <i>planirostris</i> to which they are here referred.</p> + +<p>One specimen, a skin only, from Danish Ranch, 5 miles northwest of +Leeds, north of the Virgin River is an intergrade in size and color +between <i>birdseyei</i> and <i>planirostris</i>, but referable to the latter.</p> + +<p>Three specimens from the East Entrance, and three from near the east +entrance to Zion National Park are much darker than topotypes of +<i>planirostris</i>. All of these animals are in worn pelage, thus allowing +a great amount of the black underfur to show, which gives a markedly +darker color. The unworn hair is only slightly darker than that of the +topotypes. The cranial details prove these animals to be intergrades +between <i>planirostris</i> and <i>trumbullensis</i>. They resemble +<i>trumbullensis</i> in size of tympanic bullae, extension of the +premaxillae posterior to the nasals and shape of the nasals. The +majority of the cranial details are as in <i>planirostris</i> to which they +are here referred.</p> + +<p>When Goldman (1938:337) named <i>Thomomys bottae nicholi</i> from northern +Arizona he referred twelve specimens from St. George, Washington +County, Utah, to his newly named race. He noted that the animals from +this region intergrade with <i>planirostris</i>. I have had occasion to +study one-fourth of the material available to Goldman for his original +description of <i>nicholi</i>. For his specimens listed as from St. George, +the exact locality of capture, which is so essential in this +distributional study, was not given. All of the specimens that I have +seen from the Biological Surveys Collection are from the south side of +the Virgin River, while St. George itself is on the north side. As +noted earlier in this account there are differences between the gophers +from the two sides of the Virgin River in this area. Those from the +north side are intergrades between <i>birdseyei</i>, <i>planirostris</i> and +<i>virgineus</i>, while those from the south side are intergrades between +<i>planirostris</i> and <i>trumbullensis</i>.</p> + +<p>Goldman (<i>loc. cit.</i>) mentioned several times that the skulls of +nicholi were nearly indistinguishable from, or closely resembled those +of, <i>trumbullensis</i>. Color was the only truly diagnostic character +mentioned by Goldman. My study reveals the same differences and +likenesses found by Goldman, but I consider color alone insufficient +basis in this instance for establishing a new subspecies, and regard +<i>Thomomys bottae nicholi</i> as a synonym of the earlier proposed name, +<i>Thomomys bottae trumbullensis</i>.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span></p> + +<p>The animals from the south side of the Virgin River, labelled as from +St. George, Washington County, heretofore referred by Goldman to +<i>nicholi</i>, are intergrades between <i>trumbullensis</i> and <i>planirostris</i> +and along with other specimens from the same place are referable to the +latter race.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 68, distributed as follows: +<i>Washington County</i>: Danish Ranch, 5 mi. NW Leeds, 1; Zion +National Park, 2 (M. V. Z.); Grotto Camp, Zion National +Park, 4,300 ft., 6 (N. H. M. S. D.); Springdale, 3,400 ft., +4 (K. U.); near Short Creek Road, S town of Virgin, 4 (R. +H.); St. George, N Virgin River, 2,950 ft., 21 (4, M. V. Z.; +8, R. H.; 9, N. H. M. S. D.); Santa Clara Creek, 3 mi. SW +St. George, 2,800 ft., 26; St. George, S Virgin River, 5 (2, +M. V. Z.; 3, U. S. N. M.); 2 mi. SE St. George, 2,950 ft., 2 +(N. H. M. S. D.); 3 mi. S St. George, 1 (C. M.); 4 mi. SE +St. George, S Virgin River, 1 (R. H.); 6 mi. S St. George, +2,700 ft., 6 (K. U.). <i>Kane County</i>: East Entrance Zion +National Park, 5,725 ft., 3 (N. H. M. S. D.); near East +Entrance Zion National Park, 5,500 ft., 3 (N. H. M. S. D.).</p> + +<p><i>Additional records.</i>—<i>Washington County</i>: Zion National +Park, 22; Washington, 7 (Burt, 1931:39); St. George, 5; +Santa Clara, 2 (Bailey, 1915:75).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae absonus</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys perpallidus absonus</i> Goldman, Journ. Washington +Acad. Sci., 21:425, October 19, 1931.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae absonus</i> Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934; Goldman, Proc. Biol. +Soc. Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys perpallidus aureus</i> Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, +November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, +April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 250016, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Jacobs Pools, Houserock Valley, 4,000 +ft., Coconino County, Arizona; June 7, 1931; collected by E. A. +Goldman; original number 23569 (after Goldman, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—Southern Utah in Kane and Garfield counties, in the drainages +of Kanab Creek, Johnson Creek, Paria River and Escalante River.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Ochraceous Buff mixed with dusky; sides and underparts Light Ochraceous +Buff; chin, nose, cheeks and top of head grayish black; postauricular +patches black mixed with buff; front feet, hind feet, inguinal region +and distal third of tail white. Skull: Nasals relatively long; rostrum +narrow; ascending processes of premaxillae narrow; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals short; lambdoidal and sagittal crests +poorly developed; zygomatic arches light; jugals nearly straight; +palate narrow; molariform teeth small.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared with topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae +trumbullensis</i>, <i>absonus</i> differs in: Size smaller. Color: Markedly +lighter throughout. Skull: Smoother, less angular; zygomatic arches +weak as opposed to robust; nasals more convex as viewed laterally; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals less; ascending processes +of premaxillae narrower; palate narrower; palatal pits shallower; +rostrum narrower; molariform teeth smaller.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span></p> + +<p>For comparisons of <i>absonus</i> with <i>Thomomys bottae aureus</i> see account +under that form.</p> + +<p>Among named races of <i>Thomomys bottae</i>, <i>absonus</i> most closely +resembles <i>planirostris</i>, but can be distinguished from the topotypes +as follows: Size markedly smaller. Color: Lighter, more buffy +throughout. Skull: Smaller, less ridged and more nearly flat; nasals +convex as opposed to flat; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +less; width of ascending processes of premaxillae less; zygomatic +arches weaker; palate narrower; alveolar length of upper molar series +shorter; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth +smaller and lighter.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—One specimen from Kanab is an intergrade between +<i>trumbullensis</i> and <i>absonus</i>. The majority of its characters are with +<i>absonus</i> to which it is referred (see Hall and Davis, 1934:52). Two +specimens from Escalante are intergrades between <i>absonus</i> and +<i>dissimilis</i>, but are referable to <i>absonus</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—Total, 3, distributed as follows: +<i>Garfield County</i>: Escalante, 5,258 ft., 2 (B. Y. U.), <i>Kane +County</i>: Kanab, 4,925 ft., 1 (M. V. Z.).</p></div> + + +<h3><b>Thomomys bottae alexandrae</b> <span class="fwn">Goldman</span></h3> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Thomomys alexandrae</i> Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., +23:464, October 15, 1933.</p> + +<p><i>Thomomys bottae alexandrae</i> Benson, Univ. California Publ. +Zoöl., 40:449, December 31, 1935.</p></div> + +<p><i>Type.</i>—Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 250969, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); 5 mi. SE Rainbow Lodge, near Navajo +Mountain, Coconino County, Arizona; June 16, 1933; collected by E. A. +Goldman; original number 23613 (after Goldman, type not seen).</p> + +<p><i>Range.</i>—In extreme southwestern San Juan County, Utah. Known only +from Navajo Mountain, probably limited to the area enclosed on the +north by the Colorado and San Juan rivers, on the east and west by +Navajo and Piute canyons, respectively.</p> + +<p><i>Diagnosis.</i>—Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, grading over the sides to Pinkish Buff on underparts; +nose and top of head grayish black; hind feet and tail white; +postauricular patches large and dark. Skull: Small and not heavily +ridged; zygomatic arches widely spreading but weak; zygomatic arches +nearly parallel; tympanic bullae moderately inflated ventrally; palate +not arched; interpterygoid space U-shaped; dentition light.</p> + +<p><i>Comparisons.</i>—Compared to topotypes of <i>Thomomys bottae absonus</i>, +<i>alexandrae</i> differs as follows: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Upper parts Cinnamon Buff as contrasted with Light +Ochraceous Buff. Skull: Smaller in every measurement<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> taken except +interorbital breadth and alveolar length of upper molar series which +are larger; molariform teeth larger.</p> + +<p>Among named races of <i>Thomomys bottae</i> occurring in Utah, <i>alexandrae</i> +most resembles <i>T. b. aureus</i> to the northeast. It can be distinguished +from topotypes of the latter by: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Smaller, slenderer and more +nearly flat; palate nearly flat as opposed to arched; zygomatic arches +weaker and not so widely spreading; interparietal narrower; tympanic +bullae smaller; dentition weaker.</p> + +<p><i>Remarks.</i>—Goldman (1933:464) accorded <i>alexandrae</i> full specific +status, because he found no intergradation with other races, from which +he thought <i>alexandrae</i> had been isolated perhaps for thousands of +years by the barriers of the surrounding terrain. Benson (1935:450) +noted resemblances between <i>alexandrae</i> and specimens of <i>latirostris</i> +from Keams Canyon, Zuni Well, and Winslow in Navajo County, Arizona (= +<i>aureus</i>), and also between <i>alexandrae</i> and <i>absonus</i> from Houserock +Valley, Arizona. He thought that <i>alexandrae</i> is no more differentiated +or isolated than each of several other kinds of desert pocket gophers, +and, therefore, accorded <i>alexandrae</i> only subspecific status, as I, +also, am inclined to do.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Specimens examined.</i>—One (M. V. Z.) from Soldier Spring, +Navajo Mountain, 8,600 ft., San Juan County. Fourteen +topotypes from Arizona also were examined.</p> +</div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span></p> + + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><b>Measurements of Adult Males of Thomomys</b></span><br /><br /> + +(In millimeters)</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="maletb1"> +<tr><th align="left"> </th> +<th align="center">Total<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of tail</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> hind<br /> foot</th> +<th align="center">Basilar<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Zygomatic<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Mastoid<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Interorbital<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Alveolar<br /> length<br /> of<br /> upper<br /> molar<br /> series</th> +<th align="center">Extension<br /> of<br /> premax<br /> post. to<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th> +<th align="center">Breadth<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. aureiventris</i>, 4; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 243</td><td align="right"> 67</td><td align="right"> 32</td><td align="right"> 36.4</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 26.5</td><td align="right"> 21.5</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td><td align="right"> 2.4</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 232</td><td align="right"> 59</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 35.3</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 25.5</td><td align="right"> 20.9</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 1.8</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 253</td><td align="right"> 72</td><td align="right"> 33</td><td align="right"> 37.1</td><td align="right"> 15.3</td><td align="right"> 27.3</td><td align="right"> 22.3</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 3.4</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. centralis</i>, 9; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 237</td><td align="right"> 75</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 36.3</td><td align="right"> 14.6</td><td align="right"> 25.2</td><td align="right"> 20.7</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 3.2</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 215</td><td align="right"> 61</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 34.5</td><td align="right"> 13.9</td><td align="right"> 24.6</td><td align="right"> 19.7</td><td align="right"> 5.8</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td><td align="right"> 2.2</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 250</td><td align="right"> 83</td><td align="right"> 32</td><td align="right"> 38.0</td><td align="right"> 15.9</td><td align="right"> 26.1</td><td align="right"> 21.9</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 8.7</td><td align="right"> 4.5</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. albicaudatus</i>, 7; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 228</td><td align="right"> 65</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 35.4</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 26.1</td><td align="right"> 20.5</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td><td align="right"> 3.2</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 223</td><td align="right"> 59</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 34.9</td><td align="right"> 13.4</td><td align="right"> 24.9</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 235</td><td align="right"> 72</td><td align="right"> 32</td><td align="right"> 36.1</td><td align="right"> 15.1</td><td align="right"> 27.8</td><td align="right"> 21.1</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td><td align="right"> 8.4</td><td align="right"> 3.8</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. robustus</i>, 9; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 222</td><td align="right"> 65</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 34.1</td><td align="right"> 13.6</td><td align="right"> 26.0</td><td align="right"> 20.8</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 2.7</td><td align="right"> 15.7</td><td align="right"> 8.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 214</td><td align="right"> 59</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 32.6</td><td align="right"> 13.0</td><td align="right"> 25.2</td><td align="right"> 20.0</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 2.0</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 236</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 35.7</td><td align="right"> 14.4</td><td align="right"> 26.7</td><td align="right"> 21.5</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> 17.0</td><td align="right"> 8.8</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. stansburyi</i>, 5; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 206</td><td align="right"> 60</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 32.3</td><td align="right"> 12.4</td><td align="right"> 22.4</td><td align="right"> 19.1</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 2.8</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 198</td><td align="right"> 58</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 30.6</td><td align="right"> 12.0</td><td align="right"> 21.5</td><td align="right"> 18.2</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 2.5</td><td align="right"> 14.1</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 215</td><td align="right"> 68</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 33.4</td><td align="right"> 13.0</td><td align="right"> 23.1</td><td align="right"> 20.1</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> 15.4</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. nesophilus</i>, 4; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 230</td><td align="right"> 69</td><td align="right"> 32</td><td align="right"> 35.3</td><td align="right"> 14.4</td><td align="right"> 25.5</td><td align="right"> 20.4</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 8.4</td><td align="right"> 2.5</td><td align="right"> 17.1</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 220</td><td align="right"> 60</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 33.6</td><td align="right"> 14.1</td><td align="right"> 24.9</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td><td align="right"> 2.1</td><td align="right"> 16.4</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 242</td><td align="right"> 75</td><td align="right"> 33</td><td align="right"> 36.5</td><td align="right"> 14.8</td><td align="right"> 26.2</td><td align="right"> 21.1</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td><td align="right"> 8.7</td><td align="right"> 2.9</td><td align="right"> 18.4</td><td align="right"> 8.6</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. minimus</i>, 2; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 184</td><td align="right"> 60</td><td align="right"> 25</td><td align="right"> 30.7</td><td align="right"> 11.3</td><td align="right"> 21.3</td><td align="right"> 18.7</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td><td align="right"> 2.5</td><td align="right"> 13.9</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 179</td><td align="right"> 55</td><td align="right"> 24</td><td align="right"> 28.7</td><td align="right"> 10.2</td><td align="right"> 20.2</td><td align="right"> 17.8</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 2.5</td><td align="right"> 12.9</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 189</td><td align="right"> 64</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 32.8</td><td align="right"> 12.5</td><td align="right"> 22.4</td><td align="right"> 19.6</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 2.5</td><td align="right"> 15.0</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. lenis</i>, 2; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 251</td><td align="right"> 80</td><td align="right"> 32</td><td align="right"> 39.7</td><td align="right"> 16.0</td><td align="right"> 28.6</td><td align="right"> 22.6</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 8.3</td><td align="right"> 3.4</td><td align="right"> 18.4</td><td align="right"> 8.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 248</td><td align="right"> 74</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 39.4</td><td align="right"> 15.8</td><td align="right"> 28.4</td><td align="right"> 22.4</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> 17.9</td><td align="right"> 8.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 255</td><td align="right"> 86</td><td align="right"> 32</td><td align="right"> 29.9</td><td align="right"> 16.2</td><td align="right"> 28.7</td><td align="right"> 22.7</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td><td align="right"> 8.5</td><td align="right"> 3.7</td><td align="right"> 18.8</td><td align="right"> 8.9</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. contractus</i>, 8; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 229</td><td align="right"> 74</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 33.3</td><td align="right"> 12.5</td><td align="right"> 23.7</td><td align="right"> 19.1</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> 15.4</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 209</td><td align="right"> 63</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 30.0</td><td align="right"> 10.9</td><td align="right"> 21.4</td><td align="right"> 17.7</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 2.4</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 255</td><td align="right"> 85</td><td align="right"> 33</td><td align="right"> 37.4</td><td align="right"> 14.5</td><td align="right"> 26.4</td><td align="right"> 20.9</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 3.5</td><td align="right"> 18.2</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td></tr> +</table></div> +<hr class="r5" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span></p> + + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><b>Measurements of Adult Males of Thomomys</b></span>—<i>Continued</i></p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="maletb2"> +<tr><th align="left"> </th> +<th align="center">Total<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of tail</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> hind<br /> foot</th> +<th align="center">Basilar<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Zygomatic<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Mastoid<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Interorbital<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Alveolar<br /> length<br /> of<br /> upper<br /> molar<br /> series</th> +<th align="center">Extension<br /> of<br /> premax<br /> post. to<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th> +<th align="center">Breadth<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13">No. 191959 (U. S. N. M.) <i>T. b. levidensis</i>, 1; topotype</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right">222</td><td align="right"> 65</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 33.3</td><td align="right"> 12.7</td><td align="right"> 24.5</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 3.3</td><td align="right"> 15.1</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. convexus</i>, 6; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 213</td><td align="right"> 59</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 33.1</td><td align="right"> 14.3</td><td align="right"> 24.9</td><td align="right"> 21.7</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 2.6</td><td align="right"> 16.2</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 206</td><td align="right"> 57</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 31.3</td><td align="right"> 13.9</td><td align="right"> 23.8</td><td align="right"> 21.0</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td><td align="right"> 2.1</td><td align="right"> 15.2</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 233</td><td align="right"> 68</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 35.0</td><td align="right"> 14.6</td><td align="right"> 26.7</td><td align="right"> 22.3</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td><td align="right"> 2.8</td><td align="right"> 17.2</td><td align="right"> 8.6</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. tivius</i>, 7; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 208</td><td align="right"> 69</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 31.5</td><td align="right"> 12.2</td><td align="right"> 22.4</td><td align="right"> 18.4</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 2.4</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 199</td><td align="right"> 67</td><td align="right"> 25</td><td align="right"> 29.3</td><td align="right"> 11.9</td><td align="right"> 20.6</td><td align="right"> 17.1</td><td align="right"> 6.0</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 2.1</td><td align="right"> 13.2</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 227</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 34.1</td><td align="right"> 12.8</td><td align="right"> 25.0</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> 15.0</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. bonnevillei</i>, 3; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 228</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 35.4</td><td align="right"> 13.9</td><td align="right"> 26.4</td><td align="right"> 21.8</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td><td align="right"> 3.7</td><td align="right"> 17.6</td><td align="right"> 8.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 221</td><td align="right"> 62</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 33.6</td><td align="right"> 13.2</td><td align="right"> 25.4</td><td align="right"> 20.5</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td><td align="right"> 3.4</td><td align="right"> 16.1</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 236</td><td align="right"> 79</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 37.4</td><td align="right"> 14.9</td><td align="right"> 28.0</td><td align="right"> 22.5</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td><td align="right"> 4.3</td><td align="right"> 18.1</td><td align="right"> 8.7</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. sevieri</i>, 3; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 216</td><td align="right"> 67</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 32.7</td><td align="right"> 12.9</td><td align="right"> 22.9</td><td align="right"> 18.7</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 2.5</td><td align="right"> 15.3</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 210</td><td align="right"> 66</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 31.7</td><td align="right"> 11.8</td><td align="right"> 22.2</td><td align="right"> 18.0</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 1.8</td><td align="right"> 14.5</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 222</td><td align="right"> 68</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 33.5</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 23.4</td><td align="right"> 19.3</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> 16.4</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. wahwahensis</i>, 4; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 228</td><td align="right"> 66</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 34.7</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 25.5</td><td align="right"> 20.7</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 2.3</td><td align="right"> 15.7</td><td align="right"> 8.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 210</td><td align="right"> 60</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 33.0</td><td align="right"> 13.1</td><td align="right"> 24.6</td><td align="right"> 20.1</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 2.2</td><td align="right"> 14.9</td><td align="right"> 8.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 250</td><td align="right"> 78</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 37.6</td><td align="right"> 14.6</td><td align="right"> 27.0</td><td align="right"> 21.4</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 2.5</td><td align="right"> 17.1</td><td align="right"> 9.0</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. planirostris</i>, 8; topotypes (Burt, 1931:39)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 238</td><td align="right"> 76</td><td align="right"> 32</td><td align="right"> 35.6</td><td align="right"> 13.8</td><td align="right"> 25.9</td><td align="right"> 20.4</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 8.5</td><td align="right"> 3.7</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> 8.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 222</td><td align="right"> 66</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 33.3</td><td align="right"> 12.5</td><td align="right"> 24.4</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> 8.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 261</td><td align="right"> 83</td><td align="right"> 34</td><td align="right"> 38.7</td><td align="right"> 15.3</td><td align="right"> 27.6</td><td align="right"> 21.3</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 8.9</td><td align="right"> 4.5</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> 9.4</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. birdseyei</i>, 3; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 227</td><td align="right"> 64</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 34.9</td><td align="right"> 13.8</td><td align="right"> 26.2</td><td align="right"> 20.9</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 8.4</td><td align="right"> 2.6</td><td align="right"> 16.3</td><td align="right"> 8.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 214</td><td align="right"> 52</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 34.5</td><td align="right"> 13.1</td><td align="right"> 26.0</td><td align="right"> 20.1</td><td align="right"> 6.0</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td><td align="right"> 2.2</td><td align="right"> 16.0</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 243</td><td align="right"> 81</td><td align="right"> 32</td><td align="right"> 35.2</td><td align="right"> 14.1</td><td align="right"> 27.4</td><td align="right"> 21.5</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 8.8</td><td align="right"> 2.8</td><td align="right"> 16.9</td><td align="right"> 8.4</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. virgineus</i>, 5; Beaverdam Wash, 5 mi. N Utah-Arizona Line</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 226</td><td align="right"> 68</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 34.6</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 25.6</td><td align="right"> 20.7</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> 16.5</td><td align="right"> 8.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 216</td><td align="right"> 62</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 33.5</td><td align="right"> 12.8</td><td align="right"> 25.0</td><td align="right"> 20.0</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 2.4</td><td align="right"> 15.3</td><td align="right"> 8.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 235</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 34.9</td><td align="right"> 14.4</td><td align="right"> 26.0</td><td align="right"> 21.1</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 8.4</td><td align="right"> 3.5</td><td align="right"> 17.4</td><td align="right"> 8.7</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. aureus</i>, 3; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 242</td><td align="right"> 68</td><td align="right"> 34</td><td align="right"> 36.6</td><td align="right"> 14.3</td><td align="right"> 25.3</td><td align="right"> 21.4</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 8.3</td><td align="right"> 2.4</td><td align="right"> 17.2</td><td align="right"> 8.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 233</td><td align="right"> 65</td><td align="right"> 32</td><td align="right"> 35.3</td><td align="right"> 13.8</td><td align="right"> 24.6</td><td align="right"> 20.6</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td><td align="right"> 2.0</td><td align="right"> 16.7</td><td align="right"> 8.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 251</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 36</td><td align="right"> 37.8</td><td align="right"> 14.9</td><td align="right"> 25.8</td><td align="right"> 22.0</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 8.7</td><td align="right"> 2.5</td><td align="right"> 17.9</td><td align="right"> 9.0</td></tr> +</table></div> +<hr class="r5" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"> +<span class="smcap"><b>Measurements of Adult Males of Thomomys</b></span>—<i>Concluded</i></p> + +<div class="center"> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="maletb3"> +<tr><th align="left"> </th> +<th align="center">Total<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of tail</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> hind<br /> foot</th> +<th align="center">Basilar<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Zygomatic<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Mastoid<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Interorbital<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Alveolar<br /> length<br /> of<br /> upper<br /> molar<br /> series</th> +<th align="center">Extension<br /> of<br /> premax<br /> post. to<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th> +<th align="center">Breadth<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. howelli</i>, 5; 10 mi. N Moab</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 213</td><td align="right"> 67</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 33.1</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 23.2</td><td align="right"> 20.1</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 8.3</td><td align="right"> 2.5</td><td align="right"> 16.1</td><td align="right"> 8.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 205</td><td align="right"> 64</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 31.8</td><td align="right"> 12.8</td><td align="right"> 22.8</td><td align="right"> 18.9</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 2.3</td><td align="right"> 15.1</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 225</td><td align="right"> 68</td><td align="right"> 32</td><td align="right"> 35.3</td><td align="right"> 14.3</td><td align="right"> 24.1</td><td align="right"> 20.7</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 8.8</td><td align="right"> 2.8</td><td align="right"> 17.5</td><td align="right"> 9.4</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13">No. 3094 (U. U.) <i>T. b. absonus</i>, 1; topotype</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right"> 220</td><td align="right"> 71</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 32.0</td><td align="right"> 13.9</td><td align="right"> 22.6</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 1.0</td><td align="right"> 15.1</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13">No. 158529 (U. S. N. M.) <i>T. b. osgoodi</i>, 1; topotype</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right"> 225</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 33.8</td><td align="right"> 13.3</td><td align="right"> 22.7</td><td align="right"> 19.6</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 8.4</td><td align="right"> 3.2</td><td align="right"> 16.5</td><td align="right"> 8.3</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. alexandrae</i>, 1; topotype (Benson, 1935:450)</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right"> 205</td><td align="right"> 59</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 33.9</td><td align="right"> 13.7</td><td align="right"> 24.3</td><td align="right"> 19.7</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> ...</td><td align="right"> 15.8</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td></tr> +</table></div> +<hr class="tb" /> + + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span></p> + + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><b>Measurements of Adult Females of Thomomys</b></span><br /> +<br /> +(In millimeters)</p> + +<div class="center"> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="femaletb1"> +<tr><th align="left"> </th> +<th align="center">Total<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of tail</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> hind<br /> foot</th> +<th align="center">Basilar<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Zygomatic<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Mastoid<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Interorbital<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Alveolar<br /> length<br /> of<br /> upper<br /> molar<br /> series</th> +<th align="center">Extension<br /> of<br /> premax<br /> post. to<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th> +<th align="center">Breadth<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. aureiventris</i>, 2; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 212</td><td align="right"> 62</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 32.4</td><td align="right"> 12.9</td><td align="right"> 22.9</td><td align="right"> 19.4</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td><td align="right"> 2.8</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 208</td><td align="right"> 58</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 31.8</td><td align="right"> 12.6</td><td align="right"> 22.5</td><td align="right"> 18.9</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 2.7</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 215</td><td align="right"> 65</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 33.0</td><td align="right"> 13.1</td><td align="right"> 23.3</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 3.1</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. centralis</i>, 17; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 214</td><td align="right"> 67</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 31.8</td><td align="right"> 12.6</td><td align="right"> 22.1</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 2.7</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 195</td><td align="right"> 55</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 30.5</td><td align="right"> 11.9</td><td align="right"> 21.3</td><td align="right"> 18.2</td><td align="right"> 5.9</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 2.0</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 229</td><td align="right"> 75</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 33.0</td><td align="right"> 13.8</td><td align="right"> 23.1</td><td align="right"> 20.1</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 3.4</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. albicaudatus</i>, 4; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 211</td><td align="right"> 64</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 32.5</td><td align="right"> 12.9</td><td align="right"> 22.9</td><td align="right"> 18.8</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td><td align="right"> 2.7</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 199</td><td align="right"> 55</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 31.7</td><td align="right"> 11.9</td><td align="right"> 21.9</td><td align="right"> 18.2</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td><td align="right"> 2.6</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 219</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 32</td><td align="right"> 33.8</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 24.0</td><td align="right"> 19.5</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> ...</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. robustus</i>, 11; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 199</td><td align="right"> 61</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 30.6</td><td align="right"> 11.7</td><td align="right"> 22.6</td><td align="right"> 18.8</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 2.6</td><td align="right"> 13.9</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 191</td><td align="right"> 56</td><td align="right"> 22</td><td align="right"> 29.0</td><td align="right"> 10.6</td><td align="right"> 21.0</td><td align="right"> 18.1</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td><td align="right"> 2.0</td><td align="right"> 12.0</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 207</td><td align="right"> 66</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 31.6</td><td align="right"> 12.2</td><td align="right"> 23.6</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 2.9</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. stansburyi</i>, 5; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 202</td><td align="right"> 57</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 31.1</td><td align="right"> 12.1</td><td align="right"> 21.9</td><td align="right"> 18.7</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td><td align="right"> 2.6</td><td align="right"> 14.5</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 195</td><td align="right"> 56</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 29.9</td><td align="right"> 10.6</td><td align="right"> 21.0</td><td align="right"> 17.8</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 2.3</td><td align="right"> 13.4</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 210</td><td align="right"> 63</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 32.7</td><td align="right"> 12.8</td><td align="right"> 22.4</td><td align="right"> 19.5</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> 15.2</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13">No. 900 (U. U.) <i>T. b. nesophilus</i>, 1; topotype</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right"> 210</td><td align="right"> 65</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 31.2</td><td align="right"> 12.3</td><td align="right"> 23.2</td><td align="right"> 19.3</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td><td align="right"> 2.2</td><td align="right"> 15.2</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. minimus</i>, 2; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 178</td><td align="right"> 56</td><td align="right"> 25</td><td align="right"> 28.2</td><td align="right"> 10.6</td><td align="right"> 19.7</td><td align="right"> 17.4</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 2.3</td><td align="right"> 13.1</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 175</td><td align="right"> 54</td><td align="right"> 24</td><td align="right"> 28.1</td><td align="right"> 10.4</td><td align="right"> 19.6</td><td align="right"> 17.1</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 2.3</td><td align="right"> 13.0</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 181</td><td align="right"> 58</td><td align="right"> 25</td><td align="right"> 28.2</td><td align="right"> 10.8</td><td align="right"> 19.7</td><td align="right"> 17.7</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 2.3</td><td align="right"> 13.2</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. contractus</i>, 6; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 219</td><td align="right"> 68</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 33.1</td><td align="right"> 12.6</td><td align="right"> 23.3</td><td align="right"> 19.5</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 2.6</td><td align="right"> 15.5</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 208</td><td align="right"> 58</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 32.2</td><td align="right"> 12.0</td><td align="right"> 22.2</td><td align="right"> 18.9</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 2.3</td><td align="right"> 14.2</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 225</td><td align="right"> 73</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 34.7</td><td align="right"> 13.3</td><td align="right"> 25.2</td><td align="right"> 20.6</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td><td align="right"> 3.2</td><td align="right"> 17.0</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. levidensis</i>, 4; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 205</td><td align="right"> 69</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 30.5</td><td align="right"> 11.1</td><td align="right"> 21.7</td><td align="right"> 17.5</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td><td align="right"> 2.9</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 194</td><td align="right"> 61</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 29.3</td><td align="right"> 10.6</td><td align="right"> 21.5</td><td align="right"> 17.3</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 2.8</td><td align="right"> 13.0</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 223</td><td align="right"> 73</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 30.8</td><td align="right"> 11.5</td><td align="right"> 21.9</td><td align="right"> 17.9</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 3.2</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td></tr> +</table></div> +<hr class="r5" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><b>Measurements of Adult Females of Thomomys</b></span>—<i>Continued</i></p> + +<div class="center"> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="femaletb2"> +<tr><th align="left"> </th> +<th align="center">Total<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of tail</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> hind<br /> foot</th> +<th align="center">Basilar<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Zygomatic<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Mastoid<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Interorbital<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Alveolar<br /> length<br /> of<br /> upper<br /> molar<br /> series</th> +<th align="center">Extension<br /> of<br /> premax<br /> post. to<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th> +<th align="center">Breadth<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. convexus</i>, 11; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 197</td><td align="right"> 57</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 29.9</td><td align="right"> 12.5</td><td align="right"> 21.7</td><td align="right"> 19.3</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td><td align="right"> 2.6</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 182</td><td align="right"> 43</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 27.9</td><td align="right"> 11.2</td><td align="right"> 21.0</td><td align="right"> 18.8</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td><td align="right"> 2.1</td><td align="right"> 13.3</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 204</td><td align="right"> 63</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 30.9</td><td align="right"> 13.4</td><td align="right"> 22.3</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td><td align="right"> 3.1</td><td align="right"> 15.2</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. tivius</i>, 5; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 203</td><td align="right"> 68</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 29.5</td><td align="right"> 11.1</td><td align="right"> 21.1</td><td align="right"> 17.8</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td><td align="right"> 2.4</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 192</td><td align="right"> 63</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 28.0</td><td align="right"> 10.5</td><td align="right"> 20.1</td><td align="right"> 17.3</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td><td align="right"> 2.0</td><td align="right"> 12.7</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 215</td><td align="right"> 74</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 31.3</td><td align="right"> 11.4</td><td align="right"> 22.9</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> 14.2</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. bonnevillei</i>, 7; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 199</td><td align="right"> 57</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 31.7</td><td align="right"> 11.8</td><td align="right"> 22.2</td><td align="right"> 19.3</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td><td align="right"> 3.2</td><td align="right"> 14.9</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 184</td><td align="right"> 50</td><td align="right"> 24</td><td align="right"> 29.4</td><td align="right"> 10.1</td><td align="right"> 20.3</td><td align="right"> 18.1</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td><td align="right"> 2.6</td><td align="right"> 13.5</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 216</td><td align="right"> 66</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 34.3</td><td align="right"> 13.6</td><td align="right"> 24.3</td><td align="right"> 20.3</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 8.5</td><td align="right"> 4.1</td><td align="right"> 16.6</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. sevieri</i>, 7; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 205</td><td align="right"> 62</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 30.2</td><td align="right"> 11.8</td><td align="right"> 21.6</td><td align="right"> 18.0</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.0</td><td align="right"> 2.7</td><td align="right"> 14.2</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 199</td><td align="right"> 54</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 29.4</td><td align="right"> 11.3</td><td align="right"> 20.6</td><td align="right"> 17.7</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td><td align="right"> 2.1</td><td align="right"> 13.9</td><td align="right"> 6.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 212</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 30.7</td><td align="right"> 12.6</td><td align="right"> 22.1</td><td align="right"> 18.6</td><td align="right"> 6.8</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. wahwahensis</i>, 8; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 185</td><td align="right"> 56</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 28.7</td><td align="right"> 11.3</td><td align="right"> 20.6</td><td align="right"> 17.6</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td><td align="right"> 2.1</td><td align="right"> 12.6</td><td align="right"> 7.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 180</td><td align="right"> 50</td><td align="right"> 26</td><td align="right"> 26.3</td><td align="right"> 10.2</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 16.5</td><td align="right"> 5.8</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td><td align="right"> 1.1</td><td align="right"> 10.8</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 197</td><td align="right"> 62</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 30.7</td><td align="right"> 12.6</td><td align="right"> 22.0</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 2.9</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. planirostris</i>, 8; topotypes (Burt, 1931:39)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 215</td><td align="right"> 71</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 32.2</td><td align="right"> 12.4</td><td align="right"> 23.2</td><td align="right"> 18.7</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td><td align="right"> 3.6</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 205</td><td align="right"> 61</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 31.5</td><td align="right"> 11.8</td><td align="right"> 22.3</td><td align="right"> 18.1</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td><td align="right"> 2.8</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 228</td><td align="right"> 78</td><td align="right"> 33</td><td align="right"> 33.0</td><td align="right"> 12.9</td><td align="right"> 24.1</td><td align="right"> 19.5</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 8.6</td><td align="right"> 4.5</td><td align="right"> ....</td><td align="right"> 8.1</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. birdseyei</i>, 3; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 220</td><td align="right"> 71</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 31.6</td><td align="right"> 11.8</td><td align="right"> 22.7</td><td align="right"> 18.6</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td><td align="right"> 2.4</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 217</td><td align="right"> 68</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 31.4</td><td align="right"> 11.0</td><td align="right"> 22.4</td><td align="right"> 18.3</td><td align="right"> 6.0</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 1.6</td><td align="right"> 13.3</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 223</td><td align="right"> 75</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 32.0</td><td align="right"> 12.8</td><td align="right"> 23.0</td><td align="right"> 19.1</td><td align="right"> 6.2</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td><td align="right"> 3.0</td><td align="right"> 15.3</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. virgineus</i>, 4; Beaverdam Wash, 5 mi. N Utah-Arizona Line</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 211</td><td align="right"> 64</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 31.6</td><td align="right"> 12.2</td><td align="right"> 22.6</td><td align="right"> 19.4</td><td align="right"> 5.9</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td><td align="right"> 3.1</td><td align="right"> 15.1</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 202</td><td align="right"> 60</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 31.3</td><td align="right"> 11.3</td><td align="right"> 22.4</td><td align="right"> 18.8</td><td align="right"> 5.8</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td><td align="right"> 2.4</td><td align="right"> 14.4</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 218</td><td align="right"> 68</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 32.1</td><td align="right"> 12.8</td><td align="right"> 22.7</td><td align="right"> 20.0</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 7.8</td><td align="right"> 3.7</td><td align="right"> 15.5</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. aureus</i>, 3; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 226</td><td align="right"> 57</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 33.2</td><td align="right"> 13.3</td><td align="right"> 23.8</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 6.7</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td><td align="right"> 1.9</td><td align="right"> 15.3</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 217</td><td align="right"> 54</td><td align="right"> 30</td><td align="right"> 32.8</td><td align="right"> 12.5</td><td align="right"> 23.3</td><td align="right"> 19.6</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 8.0</td><td align="right"> 1.6</td><td align="right"> 14.5</td><td align="right"> 8.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 233</td><td align="right"> 64</td><td align="right"> 31</td><td align="right"> 34.0</td><td align="right"> 14.2</td><td align="right"> 24.4</td><td align="right"> 19.8</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td><td align="right"> 8.4</td><td align="right"> 2.0</td><td align="right"> 16.4</td><td align="right"> 8.3</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13">No. 20300 (C. M.) <i>T. b. howelli</i>, 1; 10 mi. N Moab</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right"> 202</td><td align="right"> 59</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 32.4</td><td align="right"> 12.3</td><td align="right"> 21.1</td><td align="right"> 19.2</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.9</td><td align="right"> 2.4</td><td align="right"> 15.8</td><td align="right"> 8.3</td></tr> +</table></div> +<hr class="r5" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><b>Measurements of Adult Females of Thomomys</b></span>—<i>Concluded</i></p> + +<div class="center"> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="femaletb3"> +<tr><th align="left"> </th> +<th align="center">Total<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of tail</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> hind<br /> foot</th> +<th align="center">Basilar<br /> length</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Zygomatic<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Mastoid<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Interorbital<br /> breadth</th> +<th align="center">Alveolar<br /> length<br /> of<br /> upper<br /> molar<br /> series</th> +<th align="center">Extension<br /> of<br /> premax<br /> post. to<br /> nasals</th> +<th align="center">Length<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th> +<th align="center">Breadth<br /> of<br /> rostrum</th></tr> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13">No. 158524 (U. S. N. M.) <i>T. b. dissimilis</i>, 1; topotype</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right"> 188</td><td align="right"> 61</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 28.2</td><td align="right"> 10.1</td><td align="right"> 19.0</td><td align="right"> 16.7</td><td align="right"> 6.1</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td><td align="right"> 2.1</td><td align="right"> 12.8</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13">No. 158528 (U. S. N. M.) <i>T. b. osgoodi</i>, 1; topotype</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right"> 203</td><td align="right"> 61</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 29.6</td><td align="right"> 11.5</td><td align="right"> .... </td><td align="right"> 18.3</td><td align="right"> 6.9</td><td align="right"> 7.4</td><td align="right"> 2.0</td><td align="right"> 14.0</td><td align="right"> 7.3</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center" colspan="13"><i>T. b. alexandrae</i>, 3; topotypes</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Av.</td><td align="right"> 205</td><td align="right"> 63</td><td align="right"> 28</td><td align="right"> 30.9</td><td align="right"> 11.8</td><td align="right"> 20.8</td><td align="right"> 17.9</td><td align="right"> 6.4</td><td align="right"> 7.6</td><td align="right"> 1.8</td><td align="right"> 14.1</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Min.</td><td align="right"> 195</td><td align="right"> 57</td><td align="right"> 27</td><td align="right"> 28.7</td><td align="right"> 11.5</td><td align="right"> 20.5</td><td align="right"> 17.2</td><td align="right"> 6.3</td><td align="right"> 7.5</td><td align="right"> 1.5</td><td align="right"> 13.6</td><td align="right"> 7.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Max.</td><td align="right"> 215</td><td align="right"> 70</td><td align="right"> 29</td><td align="right"> 31.5</td><td align="right"> 12.1</td><td align="right"> 22.2</td><td align="right"> 18.6</td><td align="right"> 6.5</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td><td align="right"> 2.0</td><td align="right"> 14.7</td><td align="right"> 7.7</td></tr> +</table></div> + + + +<hr class="chap" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="LITERATURE_CITED" id="LITERATURE_CITED"></a>LITERATURE CITED</h2> + + +<p><span class="smcap">Allen, J. A.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1874. Notes on the mammals of portions of Kansas, Colorado, +Wyoming and Utah, Part IV. On the mammals of the Great Salt +Lake Valley, Utah. Bull. Essex Inst., 6:61-66, 1874.</p> + +<p class="i4">1893. Descriptions of four new species of <i>Thomomys</i> with +remarks on other species of the genus. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. +Hist., 5:47-68, April 28, 1893.</p> + +<p class="i4">1893. List of mammals collected by Mr. Charles P. Rowley in +the San Juan region of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, with +descriptions of new species. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., +5:69-84, April 28, 1893.</p> + +<p class="i4">1896. List of mammals collected by Mr. Walter W. Granger in +New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Nebraska, 1895-1896, with +field notes by the collector. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., +8:241-258, November 25, 1896.</p> + +<p class="i4">1905. Mammals from Beaver County, Utah, collected by the +Museum expedition of 1904. Brooklyn Inst. Mus. Sci. Bull., +1:117-122, March 31, 1905.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bailey, Vernon.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1915. Revision of the pocket gophers of the genus +<i>Thomomys</i>. N. Amer. Fauna, 39:1-136, pls. 8, 10 figs., +November 15, 1915.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Barnes, Claude T.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1922. Mammals of Utah. Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):1-176, +30 figs., April, 1922.</p> + +<p class="i4">1927. Utah mammals. Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):1-183, 32 +figs., June, 1927.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Benson, Seth B.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1935. A biological reconnaissance of Navajo Mountain, Utah. +Univ. California Publ. Zoöl., 40:439-455, December 31, 1935.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Burt, William H.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1931. A new pocket gopher of the genus <i>Thomomys</i> from Utah. +Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 44:37-40, May 8, 1931.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Coues, E.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1875. Abstract of results of a study of the genera <i>Geomys</i> +and <i>Thomomys</i>. Part III. Zoölogy, in explorations of the +Colorado River of the West and its tributaries, explored in +1869, 1870, 1871 and 1872 under the direction of the +Smithsonian Institution, reported by J. W. Powell, Gov't +Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1875.</p> + +<p class="i4">1877. Monographs of North American Rodents, No. X, +Geomyidae, pp. 601-629, U. S. Geol. Surv. of the +territories, Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1877.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Coues, E.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Yarrow, H. C.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1875. Report upon the collection of mammals made in portions +of Nevada, Utah, California, New Mexico and Arizona during +the years 1871-74. Wheeler's Rept. Expl. W of 100th Mer. +vol. 5, pp. 35-129, 1875.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Davis, William B.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1939. The Recent mammals of Idaho. The Caxton Printers, +Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho, pp. 1-400, pls. 2, 33 figs., April 5, +1939.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Durrant, Stephen D.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1937. Two new gophers from Utah. Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 (No. +4):1-7, August 18, 1937.</p> + +<p class="i4">1939. A new pocket gopher of the <i>Thomomys quadratus</i> group +from the northern Great Basin region. Bull. Univ. Utah, 39 +(No. 6):1-6, February 28, 1939.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Goldman, E. A.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1933. New mammals from Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. +Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., 23:463-473, October 15, 1933.</p> + +<p class="i4">1936. New pocket gophers of the genus <i>Thomomys</i>. Journ. +Washington Acad. Sci., 26:111-120, March 15, 1936.</p> + +<p class="i4">1938. New pocket gophers of the genus <i>Thomomys</i> from +Arizona and Utah. Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., 28:333-343, +July 15, 1938.</p> + +<p class="i4">1939. Remarks on pocket gophers, with special reference to +<i>Thomomys talpoides</i>. Journ. Mamm., 20:231-244, May 14, +1939.</p> + +<p class="i4">1942. Three new rodents from southern Utah. Proc. Biol. Soc. +Washington, 55:75-78, July 25, 1942.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Hall, E. Raymond.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1931. Critical comments on mammals from Utah, with +descriptions of new forms from Utah, Nevada and Washington. +Univ. California Publ. Zoöl., 37:1-13, April 10, 1931.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Hall, E. Raymond</span>, and <span class="smcap">Davis, William B.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1934. Notes on Arizona rodents. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, +47:51-56, February 9, 1934.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Hayward, C. Lynn.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1936. A bibliography of Utah mammalogy; including references +to names and type localities applied to Utah mammals. Utah +Acad. Sci. Arts and Letters, 13:122-146, 1936.</p> + +<p class="i4">1941. A bibliography of Utah mammalogy; including references +to names and type localities (first supplement). Great Basin +Nat., 2:125-136, December 31, 1941.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Marshall, William H.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1940. A survey of the mammals of the islands in Great Salt +Lake, Utah. Journ. Mamm., 21:149-159, 2 pls., 1 map, May 14, +1940.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Merriam, C. Hart.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1901. Descriptions of twenty-three new pocket gophers of the +genus <i>Thomomys</i>. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 14:107-117, +July 19, 1901.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Miller, Gerritt S., Jr.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1924. List of North American Recent mammals, 1923. U. S. +Nat. Mus. Bull., 128, pp. I-XVI, + 1-673, Govt. Printing +Office, Washington, D. C., March 18, 1924.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Svihla, Ruth Dowell.</span></p> + +<p class="i4">1931. Mammals of the Uinta Mountains region. Journ. Mamm., +12:256-266, pls. 1, 1 fig., August 24, 1931.</p> + +<p class="center"><small>21-2786</small></p> +<hr class="full" /> + + + +<p class="transnote">Transcriber's Notes<br /><br /> + +The <a href="#CONTENTS">Contents</a> are for the entire Vol. 1, not the contents of this +individual publication.<br /><br /> + +Made minor punctuation corrections, and the following changes:<br /><br /> + +Page <a href="#Page_11">11</a>: Changed Oquirrah Mountains to Oquirrh Mountains.<br /><br /> + +Page <a href="#Page_15">15</a>: Changed interptergoid to interpterygoid.<br /><br /> + +Page <a href="#Page_25">25</a>: Changed acccounts to accounts.<br /><br /> + +Page <a href="#Page_30">30</a>: Changed distiguished to distinguished.<br /><br /> + +Page <a href="#Page_54">54</a>: Changed hpyothesis to hypothesis.<br /><br /> + +Page <a href="#Page_57">57</a>: Changed under parts to underparts.<br /> +</p> + + + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of +Utah, Vol. 1 No. 1, by Stephen D. Durrant + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE POCKET GOPHERS (GENUS *** + +***** This file should be named 39164-h.htm or 39164-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/9/1/6/39164/ + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Diane Monico, and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net. Some images courtesy of The Internet +Archive. + + +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/license + +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. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/39164-h/images/i_001.jpg b/39164-h/images/i_001.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..55b7642 --- /dev/null +++ b/39164-h/images/i_001.jpg diff --git a/39164-h/images/i_001t.jpg b/39164-h/images/i_001t.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e067cfd --- /dev/null +++ b/39164-h/images/i_001t.jpg diff --git a/39164.txt b/39164.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c9ed02c --- /dev/null +++ b/39164.txt @@ -0,0 +1,4802 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of +Utah, Vol. 1 No. 1, by Stephen D. Durrant + +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/license + + +Title: The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of Utah, Vol. 1 No. 1 + Kansas University Publications. + +Author: Stephen D. Durrant + +Editor: E. Raymond Hall + Donald S. Farner + Donald F. Hoffmeister + +Release Date: March 17, 2012 [EBook #39164] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE POCKET GOPHERS (GENUS *** + + + + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Diane Monico, and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net. Some images courtesy of The Internet +Archive. + + + + + + + + + + + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS +MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + +VOLUME 1 +1946-1950 + +EDITORS + +E. RAYMOND HALL +DONALD S. FARNER +DONALD F. HOFFMEISTER +H. H. LANE +A. BYRON LEONARD +EDWARD H. TAYLOR +ROBERT W. WILSON + +MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +LAWRENCE, KANSAS +1950 + + + + +MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +LAWRENCE, KANSAS + +PRINTED BY +FERD VOILAND, JR., STATE PRINTER +TOPEKA, KANSAS +1950 + +23-2413 + + + + +CONTENTS + + + 1. The pocket gophers (genus Thomomys) of Utah. By Stephen + D. Durrant. Pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text. August 15, 1946. + + 2. The systematic status of Eumeces pluvialis Cope, and + noteworthy records of other amphibians and reptiles from + Kansas and Oklahoma. By Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 85-89. August + 15, 1946. + + 3. The tadpoles of Bufo cognatus Say. By Hobart M. Smith. + Pp. 93-96, 1 figure in text. August 15, 1946. + + 4. Hybridization between two species of garter snakes. By + Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 97-100. August 15, 1946. + + 5. Selected records of reptiles and amphibians from Kansas. + By John Breukelman and Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 101-112. August + 15, 1946. + + 6. Kyphosis and other variations in soft-shelled turtles. By + Hobart M. Smith. Pp. 117-124, 3 figures. July 7, 1947. + + 7. Natural history of the prairie vole (Mammalian genus + Microtus). By E. W. Jameson, Jr. Pp. 125-151, 4 figures in + text. October 6, 1947. + + 8. The postnatal development of two broods of great horned + owls (Bubo virginianus). By Donald F. Hoffmeister and Henry + W. Setzer. Pp. 157-173, 5 figures in text. October 6, 1947. + + 9. Additions to the list of the birds of Louisiana. By + George H. Lowery, Jr. Pp. 177-192. November 7, 1947. + + 10. A check-list of the birds of Idaho. By M. Dale Arvey. + Pp. 193-216. November 29, 1947. + + 11. Subspeciation in pocket gophers of Kansas. By Bernardo + Villa R. and E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 217-236, 2 figures in + text. November 29, 1947. + + 12. A new bat (Genus Myotis) from Mexico. By Walter W. + Dalquest and E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 237-244, 6 figures in + text. December 10, 1947. + + 13. Tadarida femorosacca (Merriam) in Tamaulipas, Mexico. By + Walter W. Dalquest and E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 245-248, 1 + figure in text. December 10, 1947. + + 14. A new pocket gopher (Thomomys) and a new spiny pocket + mouse (Liomys) from Michoacan, Mexico. By E. Raymond Hall + and Bernardo Villa-R. Pp. 249-256, 6 figures in text. July + 26, 1948. + + 15. A new hylid frog from eastern Mexico. By Edward H. + Taylor. Pp. 257-264, 1 figure in text. August 16, 1948. + + 16. A new extinct emydid turtle from the Lower Pliocene of + Oklahoma. By Edwin C. Galbreath. Pp. 265-280, 1 plate. + August 16, 1948. + + 17. Pliocene and Pleistocene records of fossil turtles from + western Kansas and Oklahoma. By Edwin C. Galbreath. Pp. + 281-284, 1 figure in text. August 16, 1948. + + 18. A new species of heteromyid rodent from the Middle + Oligocene of northeast Colorado with remarks on the skull. + By Edwin C. Galbreath. Pp. 285-300, 2 plates. August 16, + 1948. + + 19. Speciation in the Brazilian spiny rats (Genus + Proechimys, Family Echimyidae). By Joao Moojen. Pp. 301-406, + 140 figures in text. December 10, 1948. + + 20. Three new beavers from Utah. By Stephen D. Durrant and + Harold S. Crane. Pp. 407-417, 7 figures in text. December + 24, 1948. + + 21. Two new meadow mice from Michoacan, Mexico. By E. + Raymond Hall. Pp. 423-427, 6 figures in text. December 24, + 1948. + + 22. An annotated check list of the mammals of Michoacan, + Mexico. By E. Raymond Hall and Bernardo Villa-R. Pp. + 431-472, 2 plates, 1 figure in text. December 27, 1949. + + 23. Subspeciation in the kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ordii. By + Henry W. Setzer. Pp. 423-573, 27 figures in text, 7 tables. + December 27, 1949. + + 24. Geographic range of hooded skunk, Mephitis macroura, + with description of a new subspecies from Mexico. By E. + Raymond Hall and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. 575-580, 1 figure + in text. January 20, 1950. + + 25. Pipistrellus cinnamomeus Miller 1902 referred to the + genus Myotis. By E. Raymond Hall and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. + 581-590, 5 figures in text. January 20, 1950. + + 26. A synopsis of the American bats of the genus + Pipistrellus. By E. Raymond Hall and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. + 591-602, 1 figure in text. January 20, 1950. + + Index pp. 605-638. + + + + +The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) +of Utah + +BY + +STEPHEN D. DURRANT + + +University of Kansas Publications +Museum of Natural History + +Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text +August 15, 1946 + + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +LAWRENCE +1946 + + + + +The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) +of Utah + +BY + +STEPHEN D. DURRANT + + +University of Kansas Publications +Museum of Natural History + +Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text +August 15, 1946 + + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +LAWRENCE +1946 + + + + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS, MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + +Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, Donald S. Farner, +Donald F. Hoffmeister + +Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 1-82, 1 figure in text. + +Published AUGUST 15, 1946 + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS +Lawrence, Kansas + +PRINTED BY +FERD VOILAND, JR., STATE PRINTER +TOPEKA, KANSAS +1946 + +21-2786 + + + + +The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of Utah + +By + +STEPHEN D. DURRANT + +Contribution from the Department of Biology, University of Utah, +and the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. + + + + +INTRODUCTION + + +The history of pocket gophers of Utah begins with J. A. Allen's mention +in 1874 of mounds of these animals. For them he employed the name +"_Thomomys rufescens?_" (1874:65). Actual specimens were reported upon +a year later by Elliot Coues (1875:251, 256), who used the name +_Thomomys talpoides_ for specimens from "Utah" but later in the same +paper listed specimens from Provo as _Thomomys talpoides bulbivorus_. +Even as the great variation in Utah pocket gophers has been perplexing +to modern workers, so it was also to Coues seventy years ago who left +the problem with the statement that animals from Provo "exhibit among +themselves such variations that their labelling becomes a matter of +indifference"! In the same year in another report, Coues and Yarrow +(1875:112) used the name _Thomomys talpoides umbrinus_ for animals from +Provo. In 1877, Coues again referred these same animals to _Thomomys +talpoides bulbivorus_, using the name _umbrinus_ for the animals of +only southern Utah (Coues, 1877:627, 628). The two names _Thomomys +bottae_ and _Thomomys talpoides_, now applicable to gophers in Utah, +were synonomized under the name _Thomomys talpoides bulbivorus_ by +Coues (1875:256; 1877:627). After this beginning only three other +papers, all by J. A. Allen, appeared in the next twenty years. They +were reports on collections of mammals made by Walter W. Granger and +Charles P. Rowley. One of these contained the description of _Thomomys +aureus_. Likewise, in the ensuing twenty years there were only three +papers, one in 1901 by C. Hart Merriam in which he described _Thomomys +uinta_, one by Allen (1905:119), and Vernon Bailey's (1915) "Revision +of the pocket gophers of the genus _Thomomys_" in which he summarized +the information then available on these animals within the state. +Barnes (1922 and 1927) reprinted the information summarized by Bailey. +Since 1927 approximately twenty-five papers, mostly taxonomic, have +been published in which reference is made to Utah gophers, and +especially since 1930 much information has been accumulated about the +distribution and speciation of this genus within the state. + +Specimens to the number of 1,045 have been available for this study. +Whereas Bailey (_loc. cit._) listed only four kinds belonging to four +different species, thirty-five kinds are now known from Utah. Seven of +these are herein described as new. The thirty-five kinds are found to +belong to only two instead of four full species. + +Inasmuch as the literature is scattered and since names have been +applied in different ways at different times, I have attempted to give +a synonomy as complete as possible for each form found within the +state. + +The bibliographies of Hayward (1936 and 1941) and Miller's (1924) "List +of North American mammals" have been of great use. + +Capitalized color terms in the accounts are after Ridgway, Color +Standards and Color Nomenclature, Washington, D. C., 1912. + +In the lists of specimens examined, the localities are listed by +counties from west to east, beginning at the northwestern corner of the +state, and within each county from north to south. When two localities +are on the same latitude, the westernmost is listed first. + + I am deeply indebted to Professor R. V. Chamberlin, of the + University of Utah, for encouragement and support in my + investigation. I also acknowledge critical assistance in the + preparation of this paper from Professor E. Raymond Hall of + the University of Kansas. For the loan of specimens I am + grateful to the following: Clinton G. Abbott and Lawrence M. + Huey, Natural History Museum of San Diego, San Diego, + California; Harold E. Anthony and J. Eric Hill, American + Museum of Natural History, New York City, New York; Seth B. + Benson, Museum of Vertebrate Zooelogy, University of + California, Berkeley, California; William H. Burt, Museum of + Zooelogy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; J. + Kenneth Doutt, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; + Ross Hardy, Dixie Junior College, St. George, Utah; C. Lynn + Hayward and Vasco M. Tanner, Brigham Young University, + Provo, Utah; H. H. T. Jackson and Viola S. Schantz, United + States Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. National Museum, + Washington, D. C.; Remington Kellogg and Alexander Wetmore, + U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C.; J. S. Stanford, + Utah State Agricultural College, Logan, Utah. + + Unless otherwise indicated, specimens are in the Museum of + Zooelogy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. In lists + of specimens examined, abbreviations are employed as + follows: + +(A. M. N. H.) American Museum of Natural History. +(N. H. M. S. D.) Natural History Museum of San Diego. +(M. V. Z.) Museum of Vertebrate Zooelogy, University of California. +(U. M.) Museum of Zooelogy, University of Michigan. +(C. M.) Carnegie Museum. +(R. H.) Collection of Ross Hardy. +(B. Y. U.) Brigham Young University. +(U. S. N. M.) United States National Museum. +(U. S. A. C.) Utah State Agricultural College. +(K. U.) Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. + +[Illustration: FIG. 1. Map showing the distribution of species and +subspecies of pocket gophers in Utah.] + +Guide to subspecies: + + 1. _T. t. gracilis_ + 2. _T. t. wasatchensis_ + 3. _T. t. oquirrhensis_ + 4. _T. t. uinta_ + 5. _T. t. pygmaeus_ + 6. _T. t. ravus_ + 7. _T. t. ocius_ + 8. _T. t. moorei_ + 9. _T. t. fossor_ + 10. _T. t. parowanensis_ + 11. _T. t. levis_ + 12. _T. b. aureiventris_ + 13. _T. b. robustus_ + 14. _T. b. minimus_ + 15. _T. b. nesophilus_ + 16. _T. b. stansburyi_ + 17. _T. b. albicaudatus_ + 18. _T. b. bonnevillei_ + 19. _T. b. centralis_ + 20. _T. b. sevieri_ + 21. _T. b. convexus_ + 22. _T. b. tivius_ + 23. _T. b. contractus_ + 24. _T. b. lenis_ + 25. _T. b. levidensis_ + 26. _T. b. osgoodi_ + 27. _T. b. howelli_ + 28. _T. b. wahwahensis_ + 29. _T. b. dissimilis_ + 30. _T. b. aureus_ + 31. _T. b. birdseyei_ + 32. _T. b. virgineus_ + 33. _T. b. planirostris_ + 34. _T. b. absonus_ + 35. _T. b. alexandrae_ + + + + +GENUS =Thomomys= Wied + + +All pocket gophers of Utah belong to the genus _Thomomys_. There are +only two species within the state, _Thomomys bottae_ with twenty-four +subspecies and _Thomomys talpoides_ with eleven subspecies. + +Due to marked mutational capacities and ready response to environmental +pressures and sedentary habits, pocket gophers differentiate readily +into numerous subspecies. It is well known that Utah by its highly +varied topography and climate possesses widely different types of +habitats. The aforementioned plasticity of these animals and possibly +the fact that both species are at the extreme limits of their ranges in +Utah account for the numerous forms found within the state. + +The genus may be characterized as follows: Highly specialized fossorial +rodents, with heavy, thick bodies; all four legs of approximately equal +length, but front legs more muscular for digging, and feet provided +with long claws; external fur-lined cheek pouches; small eyes, short +ears and tail; upper incisors long and projecting external to lips. +Skull: Stout and flattened; zygomatic arches well developed and usually +widely spreading; all teeth with permanent pulp cavities; incisors +superficially smooth, but fine median groove present on anterior face +of each upper incisor; dental formula, i. 1/1, c. 0/0, p. 1/1, m. 3/3; +external auditory canal long; stapedial artery small and enclosed +within an osseous canal. + + +=Thomomys talpoides= (Richardson) + +_Thomomys talpoides_ is a northern species that in Utah approaches the +southern limits of its range. The animals of this species inhabit the +mountains and high valleys. In the southward extension of their range, +as in Utah, they are found at higher elevations which zonally represent +lower elevations at more northern latitudes. The specific characters +are: Sphenorbital fissure absent; incisive foramina anterior to +infraorbital canal; anterior prism of P4 triangular; interparietal +relatively large; lambdoidal suture concave posteriorly in region of +interparietal, in Utah specimens. + + +=Thomomys talpoides gracilis= Durrant + + _Thomomys quadratus gracilis_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 39 + (No. 6):3, February 28, 1939. + + _Thomomys talpoides gracilis_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 30 + (No. 5):6, August 24, 1939; Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 25:414, + December 12, 1944. + + _Thomomys quadratus fisheri_ Hall, Univ. California Publ. + Zooel., 37:4, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys uinta_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:114, November + 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, April, + 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):104, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male adult, skin and skull; No. 44866, Museum of Vertebrate +Zooelogy, University of California; Pine Canyon, 6,600 ft., 17 mi. NW +Kelton, Box Elder County, Utah; July 12, 1930; collected by Annie M. +Alexander; original number 676. + +_Range._--Mountainous regions of extreme northwestern Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Buckthorn Brown grading over the sides and flanks to Light Buff on the +underparts; chin white; nose and postauricular patches grayish black. +Claws on front feet long and slender. Skull: Long and slender; rostrum +long and narrow; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths slight; palatal pits +deep; upper incisors narrow; basioccipital wide. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides +fisheri_, _gracilis_ is of approximately the same size. Upper parts +darker and underparts lighter; postauricular patches larger and darker; +claws on front feet longer and slenderer. Skull: Generally longer and +narrower; nasals and rostrum longer; basioccipital wider. + +As compared with _T. t. uinta_, _gracilis_ is of approximately the same +size but differs as follows: Color: Lighter throughout; postauricular +patches markedly smaller and lighter; inguinal and pectoral regions +much lighter. One characteristic difference is in the ear. In _uinta_ +the external opening of the ear is much larger; the pinna of the ear is +larger, more rounded at the tip, and lacks most of the pigmentation on +the inner margin. Skull: Generally narrower and longer; nasals longer; +zygomatic arches weaker and less angular; upper incisors narrower. + +This form is easily distinguished from _bridgeri_ by smaller size, and +by the skull being longer, narrower and less angular. + +From _Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis_ to the southeast, _T. t. +gracilis_ can be distinguished by: Total length and ear shorter. Color: +Generally lighter, except the underparts which are about the same; +postauricular patches larger and more deeply pigmented. Skull: +Braincase less inflated; nasals truncated posteriorly as opposed to +rounded; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths less; rostrum shorter but +narrower; upper incisors narrower and shorter. + +For comparisons with _wasatchensis_ see comparisons under that form. + +In general, this mountain form can be distinguished from all other +_talpoides_ in Utah by lighter color, narrow, slender, "graceful" skull +whence the name _gracilis_ is derived. + +_Remarks._--In Utah, _gracilis_ is limited to the extreme northwestern +corner of the state. This part of the state is in the Snake River +drainage. The main part of the range of this race lies in south-central +and southwestern Idaho and northeastern Nevada. The center of its range +might be considered to be in the Jarbidge Mountains area of Nevada. The +south slopes of these mountains are in the Humboldt River drainage, +while the north slopes are in the Snake River drainage, and this +subspecies occurs as far north as the Snake River and south and west +almost to central Nevada. No specimens are available from the area in +Utah between the Raft River Mountains inhabited by _gracilis_ and the +Wasatch Mountains in central Utah inhabited by _wasatchensis_. Judging +from the nature of the terrain, the range of _gracilis_ does not extend +eastward much beyond the Raft River Mountains. The type locality for a +gopher of a different species, _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, is in +the first valley east of these mountains. Furthermore, all valleys to +the east and south, as far as known, are inhabited by gophers of the +_bottae_ group. Also, all mountain ranges in this area, as far east as +the Wasatch Mountains are inhabited by members of the _bottae_ group. + +No specimens from Utah indicate intergradation between _gracilis_ and +_wasatchensis_, the form to the east, but specimens from farther north +at Albion, Cassia County, Idaho, do show intergradation. Bailey +(1915:116), Hall (1931:4), and Durrant (1939:6) have reported on these +specimens which at the present time seem best referred to _T. t. +gracilis_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 24, distributed as follows: + _Box Elder County_: Yost, 4 (U. S. A. C.); Pine Canyon, + 6,600 ft., 17 mi. NW Kelton, 7 (M. V. Z.): Lynn Canyon, Raft + River, 4; Park Valley, 3 (U. S. A. C.); Etna, 4 (U. S. A. + C.); Raft River Mountains, Clear Creek Camp of Minnedoka + National Forest, 1 (R. H.); Raft River Mountains, 1,500 feet + above Clear Creek Camp of Minnedoka National Forest, 1 (R. H.). + + +=Thomomys talpoides wasatchensis= new subspecies + + _Thomomys quadratus uinta_ Hall, Univ. California Publ. + Zooel., 37:4, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys talpoides uinta_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234. + May 14, 1939. + + _Thomomys uinta_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:114, November + 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, April, + 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):104, June, 1927; + Stanford, Journ. Mamm., 12:360, November 11, 1931. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1604, Museum of Zooelogy, +University of Utah; Midway, 5,500 ft., Wasatch County, Utah; September +1, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1049. + +_Range._--Wasatch Mountains and neighboring high valleys as far south +as Spanish Fork Canyon, Utah County. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Snuff +Brown, finely mixed with black; sides and flanks Sayal Brown; +underparts overlaid with Cinnamon Buff, with suffusion of black on +underfur; postauricular patches black, extending around ear; ears +pointed and covered with black hairs; nose, cheeks, chin and top of +head dusky; front feet, hind feet and distal part of tail white; tail +covered proximally with light brown hairs. Skull: Moderately heavy and +ridged; nasals long, wide posteriorly and not markedly dilated +distally; posterior ends of nasals emarginate; zygomatic arches fairly +widely spreading and angular, being nearly straight in adults, but +tending to bow out slightly at posterior ends in young; zygomatic +processes of maxillae heavy; interparietal small and variously shaped, +but always wider than long; interorbital region fairly wide; well +marked dorsal depression in frontals posterior to ends of nasals; +interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; tympanic bullae large; +occipital condyles large and widely separated; foramen magnum large and +higher than wide; basioccipital wide; dentition light. + +_Comparisons._--From topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides moorei_, +_wasatchensis_ differs as follows: Size slightly larger; ears longer +and more pointed. Color: Generally darker throughout; postauricular +patches smaller. Skull: Zygomatic arches not as widely spreading; +zygomatic processes of squamosals dip farther ventrally; premaxillae +less extended posterior to nasals; nasals wider posteriorly and less +dilated distally; median dorsal depression of frontals present; +tympanic bullae generally larger, but less inflated ventrally; foramen +magnum larger especially in dorsoventral dimension; occipital condyles +farther apart; basioccipital wider; alveolar length of upper molar +series less; molariform teeth smaller; upper incisors wider and +shorter. + +Topotypes of _wasatchensis_ differ from topotypes and near topotypes of +_Thomomys talpoides uinta_ as follows: Size larger in every measurement +taken. Color: Darker throughout; ears longer and more pigmented; +opening of external ear smaller; postauricular patches larger. Skull: +In females larger throughout, more massive and angular; nasals longer, +wider and not so dilated distally; rostrum longer but wider; zygomatic +arches wider, more angular and less widely spreading posteriorly; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals less; tympanic bullae +larger, but less inflated ventrally; foramen magnum larger and more +ovoid; width across occipital condyles greater; basioccipital wider; +molariform teeth smaller; upper incisors shorter and wider. + +Topotypes of _wasatchensis_ can be distinguished from those of +_Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis_ as follows: Size larger; tail longer; +ears longer. Color: Slightly darker on sides and underparts. Skull: +Heavier, more ridged and angular; nasals more dilated distally; +posterior ends of nasals more deeply emarginate; zygomatic arches +heavier and more widely spreading, but more nearly parallel and less +divergent posteriorly; zygomatic processes of maxillae much heavier; +braincase and tympanic bullae larger; pterygoid hamulae shorter; +interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; wider across occipital +condyles; foramen magnum larger and more ovoid. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides gracilis_, _wasatchensis_ differs +as follows: Size larger; hind foot longer; ears longer and more +pointed. Color: Darker throughout; postauricular patches relatively +smaller. Skull: Larger, heavier and more angular; nasals emarginate +posteriorly as opposed to truncate; rostrum heavier; zygomatic arches +heavier and more widely spreading; zygomatic processes of maxillae much +heavier and more angular; mastoid breadth greater; interparietal +relatively smaller; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +actually as well as relatively less; palatal pits deeper; tympanic +bullae larger; interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; foramen +magnum more ovoid; upper incisors wider. + +Topotypes of _wasatchensis_ can be readily distinguished from those of +_Thomomys talpoides levis_ and _parowanensis_ by larger size; more +massive, ridged, angular skulls; larger tympanic bullae; large, ovoid +foramen magnum; and relatively smaller interparietal. + +_Remarks._--Specimens from Mount Timpanogos and environs are +intergrades between _moorei_ and _wasatchensis_. They resemble _moorei_ +in the shape and size of the tympanic bullae, and are intermediate in +the size and shape of the foramen magnum. In the majority of characters +they resemble _wasatchensis_ to which they are here referred. The +animals from east of Salt Lake City in Salt Lake County are intergrades +between _oquirrhensis_ and _wasatchensis_ and show some characters of +_uinta_, but are referable to _wasatchensis_. Animals from Morgan +County and western Summit County are intergrades between _wasatchensis_ +and _uinta_. They resemble _uinta_ in size, shape of nasals and size of +tympanic bullae. The remainder of the cranial details place them with +_wasatchensis_. Morphologically the animals from Wellsville, Cache +County, were the closest to the topotypes of any obtained and are +nearly indistinguishable from them. Like the topotypes of +_wasatchensis_ this population inhabits a high valley. The remaining +specimens from Cache County resemble those from Morgan and Summit +counties. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 119, distributed as follows: + _Cache County_: Logan Canyon, Beaver Basin, Utah-Idaho Line, + 2 (U. S. A. C); Logan Canyon, Tony Grove Camp, 6 (U. S. A. + C); Logan Canyon, Green Camp, 3 (U. S. A. C); Logan Canyon, + 3 (U. S. A. C); Logan Mountains, 20 mi. E Logan, 3 (U. S. A. + C); Logan Peak area, 13 (U. S. A. C); near Providence Peak, + Logan Mountains, 1 (U. S. A. C.); Wellsville, 10 (U. S. A. + C); Hardware Ranch, Blacksmith Fork, 1 (U. S. A. C); Avon, 1 + (U. S. A. C); 1 mi. E Avon, 1 (U. S. A. C); 7-8 mi. E Avon, + 1 (U. S. A. C). _Weber County_: South Fork, Ogden River, 18 + mi. E Ogden, 4 (M. V. Z.). _Morgan County_: East Canyon, 18 + mi. NW Park City, 6,000 ft., 1. _Davis County_: 8 mi. NE + Salt Lake City, 1. _Salt Lake County_: Mouth of Dry Canyon, + 1 mi. NE Salt Lake City, 1; 4 mi. above mouth City Creek + Canyon, 5,000 ft., 1; mouth of Emigration Canyon, 1; mouth + of Millcreek Canyon, 1; Lambs Canyon, 13 mi. SE Salt Lake + City, 2 (C. M.); mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon, 1. _Summit + County_: Park City, 1 (U. S. N. M.). _Wasatch County_: + Midway, 5,500 ft., 29. _Utah County_: Mt. Timpanogos, 1 mi. + N Aspen Grove, 7,500 ft., 20; Aspen Grove, Mt. Timpanogos, 5 + (1, U. S. A. C.; 4, B. Y. U.); Head of Grove Creek, Mt. + Timpanogos, 4 (B. Y. U.). + + _Additional Records_: _Weber County_: Ogden, 6. _Salt Lake + County_: Parleys Canyon, 1 (Bailey, 1915:114). + + +=Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis= Durrant + + _Thomomys talpoides oquirrhensis_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, + 30 (No. 5):3, October 24, 1939. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull; No. 2605, Museum of Zooelogy, +University of Utah; Settlement Creek, Oquirrh Mountains, 6,500 ft., +Tooele County, Utah; June 11, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; +original number 1461. + +_Range._--Known only from the Oquirrh Mountains, which are in Salt +Lake, Tooele and Utah counties, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); ear long; tail short, +claws of front feet long and slender. Color: Upper parts Buckthorn +Brown, mixed with black, grading over the sides and flanks to Pinkish +Buff on the ventral surface; feet white; nose grayish black; +postauricular patches medium in size and black; chin and throat with +varying amounts of white; proximal two-thirds of tail dark brown, +distal third white. Skull: Long and slender, but relatively wide across +mastoidal region; nasals long and rounded posteriorly; rostrum long and +narrow; zygomatic arches weak and not widely spreading, tending to be +slightly bowed out posteriorly, but in the main roughly parallel to the +sides of the skull; outer margin of zygomatic arch slightly concave, +and zygomatic arch dips deeply ventrad; dorsal surface of skull smooth, +with weakly defined parietal crests; parietal crest nearly parallel, +but bowed medially, in parietal region, and flaring widely posteriorly +to pass lateral to interparietal; tympanic bullae large, truncate +anteriorly and markedly inflated ventrally; upper incisors short and +fairly robust. + +_Comparisons._--From _Thomomys talpoides uinta_, _oquirrhensis_ may be +differentiated as follows: Color: Darker throughout; postauricular +patches larger and darker; ears longer and more pointed; inner margin +of pinna heavily pigmented; external opening of ear smaller. Skull: +Nasals rounded posteriorly rather than deeply emarginate, and less +flaring distally; zygomatic arches weaker and markedly less widely +spreading; pterygoid hamulae weaker; basisphenoid narrower; upper +incisors shorter and wider. + +For comparisons between _oquirrhensis_ and _Thomomys talpoides +gracilis_, and _oquirrhensis_ and _wasatchensis_, see comparisons under +those forms. + +Topotypical specimens of _oquirrhensis_ can be distinguished from those +of _Thomomys talpoides moorei_ as follows: Color generally darker, due +to greater admixture of black; terminal bands of hair actually lighter; +postauricular patches larger and darker; ears longer, more pointed and +with more heavily pigmented pinnae; tail shorter. Skull: About the same +size; smoother; zygomatic arches weaker and less widely spreading; +nasals rounded posteriorly as opposed to emarginate; mastoid breadth +less; pterygoid hamulae weaker; upper incisors wider. + +_Remarks._--This race is limited to the Oquirrh Mountains, a high +mountain range that lies parallel to, and just west of the Wasatch +Mountains, in Utah, Salt Lake and Tooele counties. These mountains were +connected in past times to the Wasatch Mountains by the Transverse +Range, and by a sand and gravel bar deposited by Pleistocene Lake +Bonneville. The Jordan River in its course from Utah Lake to the Great +Salt Lake has cut a channel through the aforementioned bar. This +channel has been cut to the level of the surrounding valleys as is +indicated by the meandering nature of the stream through this part of +its course. As a result the Oquirrh Mountains are relatively isolated. +Although separated from the Wasatch Mountains by the Jordan River +Valley only a few miles wide, the pocket gophers are distinct on each +mountain. A population of _T. bottae_ is interposed between the two +mountain ranges as is indicated by specimens from Riverton, six miles +north of the Transverse Range. The populations of _bottae_ are +subspecifically the same on the two sides of the Jordan River. + +On the east side of the Oquirrh Mountains, pocket gophers collected +from the Jordan Valley up Rose Canyon to about 5,000 feet elevation +were all of the species _T. bottae_. Between 5,000 and 6,000 feet there +is an area in which the ranges of _bottae_ and _talpoides_ overlap. +When trapping, it is possible to predict what species will be taken by +the types of burrows and soil. Gophers of the _bottae_ group have their +burrows in the areas of the deepest soil and heaviest vegetation, +whereas the areas of shallow, rocky soil covered with sparse vegetation +are the habitat of _talpoides_. Above 6,000 feet the only gopher +encountered is _talpoides_. Along Settlement Creek on the west side of +the Oquirrh Mountains, which is the type locality of _oquirrhensis_, +_bottae_ and _talpoides_ have essentially the same vertical +distribution as in Rose Canyon. On this mountain the two species appear +to be in competition. + +The available information, based on collections, indicates that the +Oquirrh Mountains are the only mountains west of the Wasatch Range upon +which _talpoides_ occurs. In Utah, all other mountains to the west, as +far as known, are inhabited by subspecies of of _Thomomys bottae_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 41, as follows: _Tooele + County_: Settlement Creek, Oquirrh Mountains, 6,500 ft., 14. + _Salt Lake County_: Rose Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, 5,650 + ft., 27. + + +=Thomomys talpoides uinta= Merriam + + _Thomomys uinta_ Merriam, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, + 14:112, July 19, 1901; Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:113, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):104, June, 1927; + Stanford, Journ. Mamm., 12:360; November 11, 1931; Goldman, + Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., 28:333, July 15, 1938; Davis, + The Recent mammals of Idaho, pp. 239, 259, The Caxton + Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho, April 5, 1939. + + _Thomomys talpoides uinta_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, + May 14, 1939. + + _Thomomys quadratus uinta Hall_, Univ. California Publ. + Zooel., 37:4, April 10, 1931. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 22501/30051, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); north base Gilbert Peak, Uinta +Mountains, 10,000 ft., Summit County, Utah; June 6, 1890; collected by +Vernon Bailey; original number 1262 (after Merriam, type not seen). + +_Range._--Uinta Mountains in Duchesne County, eastern Wasatch and +Summit counties, and western Uintah County south to the Roan, Brown and +Book cliffs in Carbon County. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Snuff +Brown finely mixed with black, paling over sides and flanks to near +Pinkish Buff on underparts; postauricular patches relatively small and +dusky; external opening of ear large; pinnae usually lightly pigmented; +hind feet white; front feet usually white only at base of toes; distal +third to half of tail white; tail usually light below, with proximal +dorsal half covered with darker hairs; nose, chin, cheeks and top of +head dusky; usually considerable white on throat. Skull: Small, +slender, and not heavily ridged; nasals short and dilated distally; +posterior margins of nasals emarginate; zygomatic arches moderately +widely spreading, widest posteriorly; interparietal pentagonal or +subquadrangular; interpterygoid space V-shaped; tympanic bullae well +inflated ventrally; upper incisors long and narrow. + +_Comparisons._--For comparisons with other subspecies of _Thomomys +talpoides_, see accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--The range formerly ascribed to _uinta_ (Bailey, 1915:114; +Barnes, 1922:83, 1927:104) is now known to be inhabited by animals +belonging to three distinct subspecies. The range of _uinta_ as now +understood is restricted to the southern and western parts of the +Uinta Mountains and their environs. Three specimens from the Book +Cliffs, Sunnyside, Carbon County, are not typical, but in a majority of +their characters agree with _uinta_ to which they are here referred. + +I have seen only one specimen from the type locality. It is one of the +series on which Merriam (1901:112) based his original description. In +addition, I have studied several large series of near topotypes. From +the material at hand, and from Merriam's description (_loc. cit._), I +regard the animals on which the name _uinta_ was based as intergrades +between _Thomomys talpoides ravus_, the race to the northeast, on the +one hand and the animals of the western and southern parts of the Uinta +Mountains on the other hand. The affinities of the type series are with +the animals from the latter area which are here all referred to +_uinta_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 41, distributed as follows: + _Summit County_: 2 mi. S junction Bear River and Haydens + Fork, 2 (C. M.); N base, Gilbert Peak, 10,000 ft., 1 (U. S. + N. M.); Smith and Moorehouse Creek, 2; Bald Peak, 25 mi. NE + Kamas, 15 (8, M. V. Z.; 6, C. M.). _Duchesne County_: Petty + Mountain, 15 mi. N Mountain Home, 9,500 ft., 6 (C. M.). + _Wasatch County_: Wolf Creek Pass, 18 mi. NW Hanna, 1 (U. S. + A. C.); Lost Lake, Uinta Mountains, 10 (B. Y. U.); Current + Creek, Uinta Mountains, 1 (U. S. N. M.). _Carbon County_: + Forks, Sunnyside, 9,000 ft., 3. + + _Additional records._--_Summit County_: Uinta Mountains, 6 + (see Bailey, 1915:114). + + +=Thomomys talpoides pygmaeus= Merriam + + _Thomomys pygmaeus_ Merriam, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, + 14:115. July 19, 1901. + + _Thomomys talpoides pygmaeus_ Davis, The Recent mammals of + Idaho, p. 252, The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho, + April 5, 1939. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 55251, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); 10 mi. NE Montpelier, in open +sagebrush of Transition Zone, 6,600 ft., Bear County, Idaho; July 29, +1893; collected by Vernon Bailey: original number 4150 (after Merriam, +type not seen: see, also, Bailey, 1915:109). + +_Range._--Limited to Daggett County. + +_Diagnosis._--Size: Small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts near +Bister slightly mixed with black, grading over sides and flanks to +Ochraceous Buff on underparts; postauricular patches small and dusky; +hind feet white; front feet dusky, being white only at base of claws; +chin and nose dusky; tail brown, lighter below and tipped with white. +Skull: Very small, slender and smooth; nasals short and slender; +zygomatic arches weak and not widely spreading; rostrum narrow; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals short; parietal ridges +hardly noticeable; interparietal large; extension of supraoccipital +posterior to lambdoidal suture long; tympanic bullae actually small, +but relatively large; basioccipital narrow; interpterygoid space narrow +and acutely angled; upper incisors markedly recurved; molariform teeth +relatively large. + +_Comparisons._--This small pocket gopher can be distinguished from all +other members of _Thomomys talpoides_ occurring in Utah by remarkably +small size, and slender, weak, small skull with strongly recurved upper +incisors. + +_Remarks._--The specimens used in this study were those recorded by +Svihla (1931:261). She reports that they were obtained in the +flood-plain banks of the streamsides, and preferred the pine belt. This +shows probably an extension of range with reference to life zones, as +heretofore the main reported localities of capture have been in +sagebrush in the Transition Life-zone. + +Insofar as I am aware, Mrs. Svihla's specimens are the only ones of +this subspecies ever obtained in Utah. Additional work is necessary in +southwestern Wyoming to outline accurately the geographic distribution +of this subspecies. In comparison with topotypes, the specimens from +Utah are lighter in color and some specimens have slightly larger +skulls, suggesting slight intergradation with _Thomomys talpoides +uinta_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 18 (all in Museum of Zooelogy, + University of Michigan), distributed as follows: _Daggett + County_: Sheep Creek, 4; 1 mi. W Summit Springs, 4; Beaver + Creek, 22 mi. S Manila, 9; Granite Park, 24 mi. S Manila, 1. + + +=Thomomys talpoides ravus= new subspecies + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 13690, Carnegie Museum; +Vernal-Manila Highway, 19 mi. N Vernal, 8,000 ft., Uintah County, Utah; +August 22, 1937; collected by J. K. and M. T. Doutt; original number +4718. + +_Range._--Uinta Mountains in Daggett, northern Uintah and northern +Summit counties. + +_Diagnosis._--Size large (see measurements); ears relatively narrow; +hind foot relatively small. Color: Upper parts between Drab and Light +Drab, darkest along middorsal line due to mixture of hairs tipped with +light brown; sides and flanks Light Drab; entire underparts creamy +white; front and hind feet, ventral surface of tail and end of tail +white; proximal two-thirds of tail covered dorsally with light brown +hairs; nose and cheeks dusky; postauricular patches black. Skull: +Large, heavy and ridged; rostrum long and narrow; nasals long, +moderately dilated distally and with a distal hump; posterior ends of +nasals emarginate; parietal and lambdoidal crests well developed; +zygomatic arches moderately heavy and widely spreading, widest +posteriorly; zygomatic processes of maxillae moderately heavy and +flaring abruptly from base of rostrum; marked middorsal depression in +frontals present; interparietal pentagonal; extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals long; posterior tongues of premaxillae long, +slender and rounded proximally; braincase high, vaulted and relatively +narrow; tympanic bullae well inflated ventrally, and ridged in old +animals; pterygoid hamulae long; interpterygoid space narrowly +V-shaped; upper incisors long and narrow; molariform teeth medium. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides +bridgeri_, _ravus_ differs as follows: Size larger; hind foot smaller; +ears narrower. Color: Lighter throughout, grayish as opposed to brown. +Skull: Smaller, narrower, less angular and less massive; nasals, +rostrum, zygomatic processes of maxillae, ascending branches of +premaxillae and posterior tongues of premaxillae all narrower; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals longer; interparietal +wider; braincase higher and narrower; tympanic bullae approximately the +same size, but more inflated ventrally; interpterygoid space more +narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors narrower; molariform teeth weaker. + +Compared with topotypes and near topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides +uinta_, _ravus_ differs as follows: Size larger in every measurement +taken. Color: Lighter throughout, being grayish as opposed to brown. +Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; rostrum and nasals actually +as well as relatively longer; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals longer; upper incisors longer and wider; molariform teeth +larger. + +There is only one other gray subspecies of _Thomomys talpoides_ in +Utah, _Thomomys talpoides ocius_. Topotypes of _ravus_ differ from it +as follows: Size markedly larger in every measurement taken. Color: +Darker, more brown hairs. Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; +premaxillae extended farther posteriorly to nasals; extension of +supraoccipital posterior to lambdoidal suture markedly less; tympanic +bullae actually as well as relatively smaller; upper incisors longer +and more procumbent. + +This new subspecies can be readily distinguished from all other +subspecies of _Thomomys talpoides_ occurring in Utah by markedly +greater size and paler, more grayish color. + +_Remarks._--The range of this form appears to be limited to the north +slopes of the Uinta Mountains, except in Daggett County where it occurs +also on the south slopes. Intergradation in color and in cranial +details with _bridgeri_ is shown by animals from the East Fork of +Blacks Fork, thirty-one miles SSW Fort Bridger, and by those from +Henrys Fork, 8,300 ft., both in Summit County. Due to the grayish color +and the narrower, weaker skull they are referred to _ravus_. +Intergradation with _uinta_ is shown by specimens from the type +locality of the latter race. The type series of _uinta_ consists of +intergrades between _ravus_ and the animals to the west and south (see +remarks under _uinta_). + +It is doubtful whether _bridgeri_ occurs in Utah. Material from Rich +County and extreme northern Cache County would settle the question. +Perhaps _bridgeri_ is restricted to the lower valleys in southwestern +Wyoming. Two specimens from northern Cache County, from Logan Canyon, +Beaver Basin, Utah-Idaho Line appear to be intergrades between +_bridgeri_ and _wasatchensis_, but are referable to the latter race. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 38, distributed as follows: + _Summit County_: Henrys Fork, 8,300 ft., 8; E Fork, Blacks + Fork, 31 mi. SSW Fort Bridger, 4 (C. M.). _Daggett County_: + Vernal-Manila Road, 4 mi. W Green's Lake, 7,500 ft., 6 (C. + M.); Elk Park, Uinta Mountains, 5 (B. Y. U.). _Uintah + County_: Trout Creek, SE Trout Peak, 22 mi. NW Vernal, 9,300 + ft., 5 (C. M.); Vernal-Manila Highway, 19 mi. N Vernal, + 8,000 ft., 6 (C. M.); Taylor Peak, 17 mi. N Vernal, 4 (C. + M.). + + +=Thomomys talpoides ocius= Merriam + + _Thomomys clusius ocius_ Merriam, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 14:114, July 19, 1901. + + _Thomomys clusius_ Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., + 13:246, November 25, 1896. + + _Thomomys ocius_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:107, November + 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):83, April, + 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 18852/25586, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); dry sagebrush mesas at Harveys +Ranch, Smiths Fork, 6 mi. SW Fort Bridger, 6,657 ft., Uinta County, +Wyoming; May 24, 1890; collected by Vernon Bailey; original number 1194 +(after Bailey, type not seen). + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Tilleul +Buff overlaid with Avellaneous, grading over sides and flanks to nearly +white on underparts; underparts with faint wash of creamy white; +postauricular patches small and dusky and completely circling the ear; +nose and cheeks dusky; front feet, hind feet, throat, ventral surface +of tail and distal half of tail white. Skull: Small, slender but +compact; nasals rounded posteriorly; extension of premaxillae posterior +to nasals very short; zygomatic arches robust, but not widely +spreading, widest posteriorly; interparietal large and pentagonal in +shape; extension of supraoccipital posterior to lambdoidal suture long; +tympanic bullae actually as well as relatively large; basioccipital +narrow; pterygoid hamulae long and ridged; upper incisors short and +strongly recurved. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with one topotype and seven near topotypes of +_Thomomys talpoides pygmaeus_, _ocius_ differs as follows: Size larger +in every measurement taken. Color: Lighter throughout, grayish as +opposed to brown; distal half of tail white as opposed to only a few +white hairs at tip of tail. Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; +skull more compact; zygomatic arches heavier and more widely spreading +posteriorly; tympanic bullae larger; upper incisors larger, but equally +strongly recurved; molariform teeth larger. + +Topotypes of ocius can be distinguished from those of _Thomomys +talpoides uinta_ as follows: Color: Lighter throughout, grayish as +opposed to brown. Skull: Nasals rounded posteriorly as opposed to +emarginate; zygomatic arches more robust; interparietal pentagonal as +opposed to subquadrangular; extension of supraoccipital posterior to +lambdoidal suture markedly greater; tympanic bullae actually as well as +relatively much larger; upper incisors short and strongly recurved as +opposed to long and procumbent. + +Specimens of this subspecies can be distinguished from all other +members of the species _Thomomys talpoides_ occurring in Utah by their +grayish color, and by small, compact skulls with very large tympanic +bullae and short strongly recurved upper incisors. + +_Remarks._--Two specimens from Vernal, Uintah County, are intergrades +between _ocius_ and _uinta_. They resemble _uinta_ in size and dorsal +color, but are slightly lighter tending toward the color of _ocius_. +Ventrally they are intermediate in color but more like _ocius_. The +skulls are more like those of _ocius_ in general appearance, extension +of supraoccipital posterior to the lambdoidal suture, shape and +thickness of the zygomatic arches, posterior tongues of premaxillae, +size of tympanic bullae and recurved upper incisors. They more closely +resemble _uinta_ in shape of posterior ends of nasals, basioccipital +and shape of the zygomatic processes of the squamosals. In all of the +above mentioned characters, they are intermediate between the two named +forms, but tend towards one or the other as listed. The majority of +characters are more as in _ocius_ to which they are here referred. + +When Goldman (1939:233, 234) listed the named subspecies of _Thomomys +talpoides_, he hesitated to include _ocius_ and merely mentioned that +_ocius_, _pygmaeus_ and _idahoensis_ might also belong to _talpoides_. +Davis (1939:240, 241) found intergradation between _idahoensis_ and +_fuscus_ and also between _idahoensis_ and _pygmaeus_, and, therefore, +arranged the last two mentioned forms as subspecies of _talpoides_. +This present study reveals intergradation between _ocius_ and _uinta_, +and also between _ocius_ and _fossor_ (see account of _fossor_). +Therefore, _ocius_ is properly to be treated as a subspecies of the +series of intergrading forms of which _talpoides_ is the earliest +named. + +All specimens of _ocius_ known from Utah are from the extreme eastern +part of the northeastern corner of the state. The type locality of +_ocius_ is near Fort Bridger, Wyoming, which is north of Utah. I have +seen one specimen from 12 miles west of Linwood, Daggett County, Utah, +on Henrys Fork in Wyoming. Additional collecting in northern Utah +probably will reveal _ocius_ to inhabit also parts of northern Utah. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 4, distributed as follows: + _Uintah County_: Vernal, 2 (C. M.); Uncompahgre Indian + Reservation, 2 (A. M. N. H.). + + +=Thomomys talpoides moorei= Goldman + + _Thomomys fossor moorei_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 28:335, July 15, 1938. + + _Thomomys talpoides moorei_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, + May 14, 1939. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 248222, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); 1 mi. S Fairview, 6,000 ft., Sanpete +County, Utah; February 19, 1928; collected by A. W. Moore; X-catalogue +number 24799 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--Wasatch Plateau in Sanpete, Utah, Carbon and Emery counties, +and in Wasatch Mountains south of Spanish Fork Canyon. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +between Cinnamon and Sayal Brown, with mixture of black hairs, grading +through Cinnamon on sides and flanks to Pale Pinkish Buff on +underparts, clearest on inguinal and pectoral regions; nose and cheeks +dusky; postauricular patches medium in size and black; ears black; chin +buffy white; front and hind feet white; tail mostly white with brownish +hairs on dorsal surface. Skull: Large, robust; nasals long and deeply +emarginate on posterior ends, and dilated distally; zygomatic arches +robust and widely spreading; zygomatic processes of maxillae heavy; +interparietal comparatively small, but always wider than long; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals short; tympanic bullae +moderate in size, but markedly inflated ventrally; pterygoid hamulae +long; interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors long and +moderately recurved; molariform teeth light. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _moorei_ differ from topotypes and near +topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides uinta_ as follows: Size slightly +larger. Color: Upper parts and sides lighter; tail lighter; +postauricular patches larger and darker; ears more pointed, smaller and +darker. Skull: Larger, heavier and more massive; nasals longer, but +deeply emarginate posteriorly as in _uinta_; rostrum wider and longer; +zygomatic arches heavier and more angular; zygomatic processes of +maxillae heavier; interparietal generally smaller and shorter; +braincase wider; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; +interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors longer, but +not as procumbent; molariform teeth smaller. + +Topotypes of _moorei_ can be distinguished from those of _Thomomys +talpoides oquirrhensis_ as follows: Size slightly larger; tail longer; +ears larger, less pointed. Color: Lighter throughout; postauricular +patches larger. Skull: More ridged and angular; nasals narrower +posteriorly, but more dilated distally; posterior ends of nasals more +deeply emarginate (while shallowly emarginate in _oquirrhensis_, they +tend to be somewhat rounded); rostrum narrower; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; least interorbital breadth +less; zygomatic arches more angular and widely spreading; zygomatic +processes of maxillae heavier; interparietal smaller; tympanic bullae +larger and more inflated ventrally; upper incisors generally longer. + +The characters that distinguish _moorei_ from _Thomomys talpoides +parowanensis_ are: Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: Broader, more +angular and more nearly flat; zygomatic arches more widely spreading; +zygomatic processes of maxillae heavier; posterior ends of nasals +emarginate rather than rounded; upper incisors longer. + +For comparisons of _moorei_ with _Thomomys talpoides levis_ and +_wasatchensis_ see accounts of these forms. + +_Remarks._--Specimens from Colton, show intergradation between +_moorei_, _uinta_ and _wasatchensis_, but are referable to _moorei_ in +the majority of characters. Specimens from Mount Nebo, and the mouth of +Reddicks Canyon, in the Wasatch and San Pitch mountains, respectively, +are intergrades between _moorei_ and _wasatchensis_, but are referable +to _moorei_. + +That part of the Wasatch Mountains south of Spanish Fork Canyon is +inhabited by pocket gophers that are intergrades between _moorei_ and +_wasatchensis_, but the cranial details show them to be referable to +_moorei_. The range here ascribed to _moorei_ consists of the Wasatch +Plateau to the east of Sanpete Valley, the San Pitch Mountains and the +southern part of the Wasatch Mountains. The type locality of _moorei_ +is situated in the southern end of a high valley that separates the +Wasatch Plateau from the San Pitch and Wasatch mountains. Topotypical +animals are larger and have more ridged, angular skulls than those from +the mountains. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 48, distributed as follows: + _Utah County_: Near Payson Lake, 1 (R. H.); Mt. Nebo, 25 mi. + SE Payson, 10,000 ft., 20; Colton, 8 (B. Y. U.). _Sanpete + County_: 1 mi. S Fairview, 6,000 ft., 12 (U. S. N. M.). + _Juab County_: Mouth of Reddicks Canyon, Wales Mountain (= + San Pitch Mountains), 7,500 ft., 5. _Emery County_: Lake + Creek, 11 mi. E Mt. Pleasant, 2 (C. M.). + + _Additional records._--_Sanpete County_: Ephraim, 5 (see + Goldman, 1938:336). + + +=Thomomys talpoides fossor= Allen + + _Thomomys fossor_ Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 5:51, + April 28, 1893; Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:111, November 15, + 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, April, 1922; + Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927; Hall, Univ. + California Publ. Zooel., 37:4, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys talpoides fossor_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, + May 14, 1939. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 5240/4120, American Museum of +Natural History; Florida, 7,200 ft., La Plata County, Colorado; June +25, 1892; collected by Charles P. Rowley (after Allen, type not seen). + +_Range._--In the mountains of San Juan and Grand counties, east of the +Colorado and Green rivers. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Dresden Brown, grading over sides to Pale Buff on underparts; chin +white; ears small, pointed, with deeply pigmented pinnae; postauricular +patches grayish black; nose dusky. Skull: Long and narrow; nasals long, +rounded proximally and usually simple distally; rostrum long; +interparietal triangular; tympanic bullae large, and well inflated +ventrally; basioccipital narrow; palate narrow; palatal pits shallow; +dentition light. + +_Comparisons._--Near topotypes of _fossor_ can be distinguished from +topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides ocius_ as follows: Size larger +throughout. Color: Darker throughout, being dark brown as opposed to +grayish. Skull: Longer and narrower; nasals and rostrum longer; +extension of supraoccipital posterior to lambdoidal suture markedly +less; tympanic bullae markedly smaller; upper incisors longer and not +as strongly recurved. + +Among the races of _Thomomys talpoides_ occurring in Utah, _fossor_ +most closely resembles _Thomomys talpoides uinta_ in color and size, +but differs from it as follows: Ears smaller, more pointed and with +more darkly pigmented pinnae. Skull: Longer, narrower and weaker; +rostrum longer; nasals longer, and rounded proximally as opposed to +markedly emarginate; interparietal triangular instead of roughly +pentagonal; tympanic bullae larger and more inflated ventrally; +basioccipital narrower; palate narrower, palatal pits shallower; +dentition lighter. + +_Remarks._--Bailey (1915:111) remarked that _fossor_ was one form that +held its distinctive characters over a wide range. At that time, its +range was understood to include practically all of the mountainous +parts of Colorado, Utah as far west as the central part of the state, +and parts of New Mexico, Arizona and Wyoming. Subsequently three new +forms have been named from central Utah, (Goldman 1938:334-337) thereby +showing variation to be much more prevalent than formerly supposed. +The range of _fossor_ in Utah, as now understood, is limited to the +mountainous parts of the state south and east of the Colorado and Green +rivers in Grand and San Juan counties. + +The Utah specimens are not typical. At first glance some differences +are noted in the premaxillae and nasals. Four specimens in the +collections of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, +three from 3 miles east of Creede, Mineral County, and one from 10 +miles east of Lake City, Hinsdale County, Colorado, both of which lie +north and east of the type locality of _fossor_ show the same +characters as the Utah specimens. + +Eight specimens from Oak Spring are intergrades between _fossor_ and +_ocius_. In size and color they are like _fossor_, but the skulls are +intermediate. Because the animals are more like _fossor_ in the +majority of characters, they are here referred to that race. + +As a result of these studies and due to the paucity of specimens from +Utah, it is advisable, for the present, to refer all these Utah animals +to _fossor_. Additional specimens may reveal characters that will merit +the separation of the Utah animals from typical _fossor_; a desertlike +area unfavorable to _Thomomys_ exists between the type locality and +eastern Utah. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 21, distributed as follows: + _Grand County_: Oak Spring, Middle Fork Willow Creek, 15 mi. + N Thompson, 8 (C. M.); La Sal Mountains, 1 (U. S. N. M.); + Warner Ranger Station, La Sal Mountains, 3 (B. Y. U.). _San + Juan County_: Geyser Pass, 18 mi. SE Moab, La Sal Mountains, + 3 (1, B. Y. U.; 2, C. M.); 5 mi. W Monticello, 1 (C. M.); + Cooley Pass, 8 mi. W Monticello, 2 (C. M.); Joshua Flat, Elk + Ridge, 8,300 ft., 3 (M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys talpoides parowanensis= Goldman + + _Thomomys fossor parowanensis_ Goldman, Journ. Washington + Acad. Sci., 28:334, July 15, 1938. + + _Thomomys talpoides parowanensis_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., + 20:234, May 14, 1939; Long, Journ. Mamm., 21:176, May 14, + 1940. + + _Thomomys fossor_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:112, November + 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, April, + 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927; Hall, + Univ. California Publ. Zooel., 37:4, April 10, 1931; + Presnall, Zion-Bryce Mus. Bull., 2:14, January, 1938; + Tanner, Great Basin Nat., 1:111, 1940. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 158072, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Brian Head, Parowan Mountains, 11,000 +ft., Iron County, Utah; September 8, 1908; collected by W. H. Osgood; +original number 3483 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--High mountains of eastern Iron and Beaver counties, and +western Kane and Garfield counties. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Sayal +Brown moderately mixed with black, lightest on head; sides lightly +washed with Buff; underparts Pinkish Buff, clearest on inguinal and +pectoral regions; nose and cheeks dusky; postauricular patches large +and black; front feet, hind feet and distal half of tail white. Skull: +Long and fairly slender; zygomatic arches not widely spreading; nasals +long; rostrum long and slender; posterior ends of nasals truncate or +moderately emarginate; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +usually short; tympanic bullae relatively small; upper incisors long +and narrow; molariform teeth large. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with _Thomomys talpoides kaibabensis_, +_parowanensis_ differs as follows: Size smaller. Skull: Shorter; nasals +shorter; zygomatic breadth less; nasals truncate or shallowly +emarginate posteriorly as opposed to rounded; upper incisors narrower. + +Topotypes of _parowanensis_ differ from topotypes and near topotypes of +_Thomomys talpoides uinta_ as follows: Size larger. Color: Usually +lighter; postauricular patches larger and darker; ears small with +pinnae deeply pigmented as opposed to large and lightly pigmented. +Skull: Larger; zygomatic arches more widely spreading; nasals longer; +rostrum longer; posterior ends of nasals truncate or shallowly +emarginate as opposed to deeply emarginate; sides of zygomatic arches +nearly parallel and not so divergent posteriorly; interparietal larger +and less quadrangular; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +less; upper incisors less procumbent; molariform teeth larger. + +Among named races of _Thomomys talpoides_, _parowanensis_ most closely +resembles _levis_, the race nearest geographically to the east, but +differs from _levis_ as follows: Size larger. Skull: Longer and wider; +rostrum and nasals longer; interparietal quadrangular as opposed to +roughly elliptical; upper incisors longer. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys talpoides moorei_ and _wasatchensis_ see +accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--The mountains of south central Utah are inhabited by pocket +gophers that have been designated as _Thomomys talpoides parowanensis_ +and _T. t. levis_ by Goldman (1938:334, 336). They are nearly +indistinguishable in color and each is variable in cranial details. The +diagnostic characters of each form occasionally appear, in varying +degrees, throughout the range of the other. The Sevier River Valley +separates the ranges ascribed to these two forms. This valley is +inhabited by pocket gophers that belong to a different species, +_Thomomys bottae_. The ranges of these two races of _talpoides_ +converge southward at the headwaters of the Sevier River. Specimens of +_parowanensis_ from the northern limits of its range from the Beaver +Mountains in eastern Beaver County and those of _levis_ from the +northern limits of its range in the Fish Lake Mountains are readily +distinguishable from each other. As the ranges converge to the +southward, there is progressively more intergradation. The type +locality of _parowanensis_ is located in the southern part of its +range, while that of _levis_ is in the extreme northern part of its +range. Therefore, due to the convergence of the two ranges at the +south, the specimens from localities near the type locality of +_parowanensis_ show the greatest amount of intergradation, if we regard +specimens of _parowanensis_ from the type locality as typical of the +race. Four specimens from Webster Flat, sixteen miles east of Cedar +City, Iron County, and three from Duck Creek, Cedar Mountains, Kane +County could equally well be assigned to either _levis_ or +_parowanensis_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 24, distributed as follows: + _Beaver County_: Britts Meadows, Beaver Mountains, 8,500 + ft., 7 (3, M. V. Z.; 2, U. S. N. M.; 2, C. M.); Puffer Lake, + Beaver Mountains, 1 (U. S. N. M.); Kents Lake, Beaver + Mountains, 1 (R. H.). _Iron County_: Lava Beds, 3-1/2 mi. SW + Panquitch Lake, 1 (C. M.); Brian Head, Parowan Mountains, 2 + (1, U. S. N. M.; 1, C. M.); Webster Flat, 16 mi. E Cedar + City, 4; Bear Valley, 2 mi. E B. V. Ranger Station, 1 (R. + H.). _Garfield County_: 1/4 mi. W Sunset Point, Bryce + National Park, 8,000 ft., 1 (M. V. Z.). _Kane County_: + Navajo Lake, 3 (R. H.); Duck Creek, Cedar Mountains, 9,000 + ft., 3 (1, R. H.). + + _Additional records._--_Garfield County_: Panquitch Lake, 1 + (see Goldman 1938:335). _Iron County_: Beaver Mountains, 9 + (see Bailey, 1915:112); Buckskin Valley, 1 (see Goldman, + 1938:335). + + +=Thomomys talpoides levis= Goldman + + _Thomomys fossor levis_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 28:336, July 15, 1938. + + _Thomomys talpoides levis_ Goldman, Journ. Mamm., 20:234, + May 14, 1939. + + _Thomomys fossor_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:112, November + 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, April, + 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):102, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 158079, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); Seven Mile Flat, 5 mi. N Fish +Lake, Fish Lake Plateau, 10,000 ft., Sevier County, Utah; October 1, +1908; collected by W. H. Osgood; original number 3616 (after Goldman, +type not seen). + +_Range._--Fish Lake Mountains in Sevier County south into Garfield +County, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts near +Sayal Brown, moderately mixed with black, darkest on head and middorsal +region, grading to Cinnamon Buff on sides and flanks; underparts +Pinkish Buff, clearest on inguinal and pectoral regions; chin, cheeks +and nose dusky; postauricular patches large and black; front feet, hind +feet and distal half of tail white; ears small and deeply pigmented. +Skull: Slender and weak; zygomatic arches not widely spreading; +posterior ends of nasals rounded; nasals moderately long and narrow; +rostrum long and narrow; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +short; interparietal usually much wider than long; pterygoid hamulae +ridged; interpterygoid space usually narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors +short. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides moorei_, +_levis_ differs as follows: Size smaller; tail shorter. Color: Darker +throughout, especially on dorsal surface due to more black of the +underfur; underparts deeper buff. Skull: Narrower, less massive; +zygomatic processes of maxillae weaker and not as widely spreading; +interparietal generally wider; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals less; posterior ends of nasals rounded rather than emarginate; +upper incisors shorter, less procumbent. + +Topotypes of _levis_ differ from near topotypes of _Thomomys talpoides +uinta_ as follows: Size larger. Color: Upper parts slightly darker; +postauricular patches much darker and larger; ears small and deeply +pigmented as opposed to large and lightly pigmented; tail darker all +around at base, with white part more extensive and with fewer +buff-colored hairs. Skull: More convex dorsally; zygomatic arches more +widely spreading and angular; nasals longer; rostrum longer; +interparietal wider and more elliptical; posterior ends of nasals +rounded as opposed to emarginate; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals less; pterygoid hamulae more ridged; interpterygoid space more +narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors shorter and less procumbent. + +Topotypes of _levis_ can be distinguished from those of _Thomomys +talpoides kaibabensis_ by markedly smaller measurements. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys talpoides parowanensis_ and +_wasatchensis_ see accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--Specimens from the Escalante Mountains and the Aquarius +Plateau are not typical. They are of approximately the same color as +_levis_, but are larger than _levis_ and have cranial details that +indicate intergradation with _kaibabensis_ to the south. They resemble +_kaibabensis_ in large size, long nasals and widely spreading zygomatic +arches, but are like _levis_ in shape of the interparietal, extension +of premaxillae posterior to the nasals, rounded posterior ends of +nasals, ridged pterygoid hamulae and relatively short upper incisors. +Additional material from these regions may prove these animals to merit +separation and naming. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 15, distributed as follows: + _Sevier County_: Seven Mile Flat, 5 mi. N Fish Lake, Fish + Lake Plateau, 10,000 ft., 2 (U. S. N. M.); Fish Lake + Experiment Station, 2 (U. S. A. C). _Garfield County_: Posy + Lake, Aquarius Plateau, 2 (B. Y. U.); 18 mi. N Escalante, + 9,500 ft., 3; Steep Creek, Boulder-Teasdale Road, Boulder + Mountain, 4 (B. Y. U.); Summit Birch Creek, Escalante + Mountains, 2 (B. Y. U.). + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT MALES OF THOMOMYS + +(In millimeters) + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. t. gracilis_, 4; topotypes +Av. 204 53 28 31.5 13.4 21.7 18.3 6.4 7.6 1.3 15.4 7.2 +Min. 194 47 27 30.3 12.9 21.1 17.8 6.3 7.3 1.0 14.7 6.7 +Max. 210 63 28 33.5 14.2 22.0 19.0 6.5 7.9 1.7 16.4 7.5 + +_T. t. oquirrhensis_, 4; topotypes +Av. 209 58 28 32.2 13.9 21.9 19.0 6.9 7.6 0.9 15.8 7.7 +Min. 197 55 28 31.9 13.7 21.4 18.5 6.7 7.2 0.6 15.5 7.5 +Max. 216 60 29 32.8 14.3 22.8 19.5 7.1 7.9 1.0 16.2 7.9 + +_T. t. wasatchensis_, 10; topotypes +Av. 221 67 28 31.3 13.4 21.5 18.9 6.5 7.4 1.1 15.1 7.4 +Min. 204 60 26 27.4 11.6 19.1 17.2 6.0 6.6 0.9 14.0 6.7 +Max. 237 75 31 34.5 15.2 23.7 20.4 7.3 8.0 2.0 16.5 8.2 + +_T. t. uinta_, 5; SW slope Bald Peak, Uinta Mts. +Av. 199 51 27 31.5 13.1 21.7 19.4 6.3 7.6 1.1 15.2 7.4 +Min. 185 47 26 29.6 12.1 20.3 19.0 5.7 7.3 0.7 13.5 7.2 +Max. 208 54 28 32.8 13.8 22.2 20.0 6.5 7.8 1.4 15.6 7.6 + +_T. t. moorei_, 7; topotypes +Av. 216 65 29 32.4 13.9 22.9 19.2 6.5 7.7 1.5 15.9 7.3 +Min. 203 52 27 31.3 13.0 21.5 18.4 6.0 7.3 0.9 14.8 6.7 +Max. 236 72 31 34.7 14.5 23.7 20.0 7.0 8.2 2.0 16.3 7.7 + +_T. t. fossor_, 8; Cascade Creek, La Plata Co., Colo. +Av. 215 61 29 31.7 13.2 21.2 18.7 5.9 7.5 0.6 15.5 7.1 +Min. 202 54 27 30.5 12.0 20.5 18.2 5.5 7.0 0.0 14.5 6.9 +Max. 228 70 30 33.0 14.4 23.5 19.9 6.3 7.9 1.1 16.9 7.4 + +_T. t. ravus_, 3; topotypes +Av. 248 73 30 35.2 14.6 24.8 21.4 6.3 8.3 2.4 17.1 8.2 +Min. 244 70 29 34.5 14.3 23.6 20.5 6.0 8.2 2.2 16.7 8.1 +Max. 253 74 30 35.9 15.1 25.7 22.5 6.7 8.4 2.7 17.5 8.5 + +No. 55270 (U. S. N. M.) _T. t. pygmaeus_, 1; topotype + 165 40 20 24.6 10.2 16.3 15.1 5.4 5.9 0.7 12.0 5.7 + +No. 177506 (U. S. N. M.) _T. t. ocius_, 1; 12 mi. W Linwood, + Henrys Fork, Wyo. + 200 62 26 27.5 11.5 19.9 17.8 6.2 6.8 1.0 13.5 7.0 + +_T. t. parowanensis_, 2; Britts Meadow, Beaver Mountains +Av. 215 59 28 34.3 14.5 22.4 18.6 6.0 8.1 1.4 17.3 7.9 +Min. 202 48 27 34.1 14.1 22.0 18.4 5.8 8.0 1.0 17.2 7.6 +Max. 228 69 29 34.6 14.8 22.7 18.9 6.2 8.2 1.7 17.3 8.2 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT FEMALES OF THOMOMYS + +(In millimeters) + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. t. gracilis_, 2; topotypes +Av. 190 58 27 29.7 12.0 19.7 17.3 6.4 7.3 1.2 14.0 6.5 +Min. 185 54 27 29.5 11.9 19.7 16.9 6.3 7.2 1.1 14.0 6.4 +Max. 194 61 27 29.9 12.0 19.7 17.6 6.5 7.4 1.4 14.0 6.6 + +_T. t. oquirrhensis_, 7; topotypes +Av. 203 56 27 30.2 12.9 20.4 18.2 6.8 7.5 0.8 14.8 7.2 +Min. 193 52 25 28.5 12.2 19.5 17.5 6.6 6.7 0.5 14.2 6.9 +Max. 215 59 28 31.5 13.3 21.0 19.1 7.2 8.0 1.0 15.5 7.5 + +_T. t. wasatchensis_, 19; topotypes +Av. 205 62 27 31.5 12.7 20.5 18.0 6.5 7.4 0.9 14.6 7.2 +Min. 180 52 23 28.1 11.2 19.3 17.2 6.2 6.0 0.6 13.0 6.8 +Max. 222 70 30 32.5 14.5 22.0 19.9 6.7 8.1 1.2 16.2 7.5 + +_T. t. uinta_, 2; SW slope Bald Peak, Uinta Mts. +Av. 181 49 25 28.4 11.6 19.8 17.3 6.6 7.2 1.3 13.5 6.8 +Min. 177 47 25 28.3 11.6 19.8 17.2 6.4 7.0 1.1 13.3 6.8 +Max. 185 50 25 28.4 11.6 19.8 17.4 6.7 7.3 1.5 13.6 6.8 + +_T. t. moorei_, 5; topotypes +Av. 206 62 26 29.9 12.8 21.5 18.4 6.6 7.3 1.3 14.6 6.8 +Min. 198 55 24 29.0 12.3 21.0 18.0 6.4 7.0 1.0 14.0 6.4 +Max. 213 69 28 31.2 14.1 22.5 19.1 6.8 7.5 1.6 15.6 7.0 + +_T. t. fossor_, 4; Cascade Creek, La Plata Co., Colo. +Av. 215 57 29 32.6 14.2 22.0 19.0 6.0 7.5 0.7 16.2 7.3 +Min. 204 51 28 31.3 13.6 21.5 18.0 5.7 7.1 0.5 15.9 7.0 +Max. 223 63 30 34.0 14.8 22.9 19.6 6.3 7.8 1.0 16.3 7.5 + +No. 13684 (C. M.) _T. t. ravus_, 1; topotype + 241 71 28 35.7 14.5 24.4 21.5 6.2 7.8 2.7 17.1 8.1 + +No. 178868 (U. S. N. M.) _T. t. pygmaeus_, 1; Fossil, Wyo. + 167 52 20 24.0 10.2 16.5 14.8 5.2 5.6 0.7 11.1 5.8 + +_T. t. ocius_, 3; topotypes +Av. 201 60 25 30.0 13.5 20.5 17.9 6.2 7.2 0.8 15.0 7.4 +Min 196 57 25 29.9 13.0 19.9 17.5 6.1 7.1 0.5 14.7 7.3 +Max. 205 64 25 30.1 14.0 21.5 18.6 6.3 7.3 1.0 15.3 7.5 + +_T. t. parowanensis_, 4; Britts Meadow, Beaver Mountains +Av. 221 58 29 33.2 14.5 22.8 19.0 6.0 7.8 0.9 15.4 7.3 +Min. 207 50 28 30.5 12.8 22.7 18.6 5.8 7.4 0.5 14.7 7.0 +Max. 240 66 30 34.8 15.5 23.0 19.6 6.2 8.1 1.5 17.8 7.7 + +_T. t. levis_, 2; topotypes +Av. 203 65 27 28.1 11.1 19.2 17.7 6.1 6.9 0.8 13.0 6.8 +Min. 199 61 26 28.0 10.6 18.9 17.5 5.8 6.6 0.6 12.8 6.6 +Max. 206 70 27 28.2 11.6 19.5 17.9 6.4 7.2 1.0 13.2 7.0 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +=Thomomys bottae= (Eydoux and Gervais) + +_Thomomys bottae_ is a southern species that, within the Great Basin, +reaches the most northern limits of its distribution in Utah. The +animals of this species inhabit the lower valleys, and with the +exception of the Oquirrh Mountains, inhabit also the mountains in that +part of the state west of the central mountain ranges. The specific +characters are: Sphenorbital fissure present; incisive foramina +posterior to infraorbital canal; anterior prism of P4 rounded; +interparietal relatively small; lambdoidal suture straight in region of +interparietal, in Utah specimens. + + +=Thomomys bottae aureiventris= Hall + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureiventris_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zooel., 32:444, July 8, 1930; Univ. California Publ. + Zooel., 37:3, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 43980, Museum of Vertebrate +Zooelogy, University of California; Fehlman Ranch, 3 mi. N Kelton, 4,225 +ft., Box Elder County, Utah; September 27, 1929; collected by Louise +Kellogg; original number 451. + +_Range._--Northwestern Utah, and extreme western Utah as far south as +the southern end of the Deep Creek Mountains. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet +small. Color: Near Cinnamon on dorsal and ventral surfaces; inguinal +region, front and hind feet and distal third to half of tail white; +nose, cheeks and postauricular patches grayish black. Skull: Moderately +angular and ridged; zygomatic arches nearly parallel with sides of +skull; jugals vertical; marked thickening at union of jugal and +zygomatic process of maxilla; greatest zygomatic breadth at anterior +part of arches; interpterygoid space lyre-shaped; ventral margin of +jugal concave dorsally; nasals long and denticulate distally; parietal +ridges bowed in at two places, at coronal suture and at middle of +interparietal; paroccipital processes extremely well developed; dorsal +frontomaxillary suture usually straight. + +_Comparisons._--From near topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, +_aureiventris_ differs as follows: Size larger; tail shorter; hind foot +longer; claws on front feet shorter. Color: Slightly darker on upper +parts, but with greater extension of white on ventral surface. Skull: +Zygomatic breadth greater; greatest width across zygomatic arches at +anterior rather than posterior region; zygomatic arches thicker at +union of jugals and zygomatic processes of maxillae; dorsal +frontomaxillary suture less convex medially; mastoid breadth greater; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals less; interpterygoid space +lyre-shaped rather than V-shaped. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_, _aureiventris_ can +be distinguished by: Size larger; hind foot longer. Color: Markedly +lighter throughout, Cinnamon as opposed to near (13''''_n_) Black. +Skull: Larger in all but three measurements taken; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals less; alveolar length of upper molar +series shorter; zygomatic arches widest anteriorly rather than +posteriorly; thickening at union of jugal and zygomatic process of +maxilla markedly greater; interpterygoid space lyre-shaped as opposed +to V-shaped; lacrimal processes more globose at tips. + +_Thomomys bottae aureiventris_ can be readily distinguished from _T. b. +bonnevillei_, _sevieri_, _wahwahensis_, and _convexus_ by larger size +in all measurements taken and darker coloration. The same differences +obtain in comparison with _T. b. tivius_ and _stansburyi_ except that +_aureiventris_ is much lighter colored. See comparisons under those +forms. + +_Remarks._--_T. b. aureiventris_ has one of the most extensive ranges +of any race of _T. bottae_ occurring in Utah. The range extends from +the valleys of the northwest corner of the state south along the +extreme western margin of the state approximately to the southern end +of the Deep Creek Mountains. This ascribed range practically bounds the +northwest and western margins of the great salt desert in Box Elder and +Tooele counties. As far as known, this great waste area harbors no +members of the Geomyidae. Pocket gophers were available from four +localities in addition to the type locality. In these four localities +all of the animals were intergrades. The three specimens from Queen of +Sheba Canyon, Deep Creek Mountains, although smaller than +_aureiventris_ in every measurement taken, resemble it in color and +general configuration of the skull. The animals from Trout Creek and +Ibapah at the southern end of the range, although referred to +_aureiventris_, are intermediate between it and _centralis_. In color +and measurements they more closely resemble _centralis_, but the skulls +closely resemble those of _aureiventris_. The skulls show some slight +characteristics of _bonnevillei_, the form to the east, which indicate +an early relationship between the two. Specimens from the east side of +Tecoma Range, adjacent to Pilot Peak, although referred to +_aureiventris_ are intergrades between it and _centralis_. Although +this locality is nearer the type locality of _aureiventris_ than any of +the other record stations, the animals show the maximum departure from +topotypes in morphological features. In color they approach +_centralis_, and agree with it in one-half of the measured characters. +The general configuration of the skull and a majority of the critical +diagnostic characters, for example, jugal thickening, are more nearly +as in _aureiventris_. From the above remarks it is readily understood +that this subspecies is extremely variable. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 55, distributed as follows: + _Box Elder County_: Fehlman Ranch, 3 mi. N Kelton, 4,255 + ft., 8 (7, M. V. Z.); Utah-Nevada Boundary, E Side Tecoma + Range, 4,300 ft., 12. _Tooele County_: Ibapah, 5,000 ft., + 21. _Juab County_: Queen of Sheba Canyon, W side Deep Creek + Mountains, 5,600 ft., 11. + + +=Thomomys bottae robustus= new subspecies + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 2726, Museum of Zooelogy, +University of Utah; Orr's Ranch, Skull Valley, 4,300 ft., Tooele +County, Utah; June 19, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; original +number 1583. + +_Range._--Skull Valley, Tooele County, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); tail short; hind foot +short. Color: In a series of 24 animals, upper parts vary from Pale +Smoke Gray (4 specimens) through Cinnamon Buff (19 specimens) to Dark +Mouse Gray (1 specimen). The Cinnamon Buff color is considered to be +typical. Color grading to lighter on underparts; postauricular patches +small and grayish black; front and hind feet and distal part of tail +white. Skull: Small, flat and heavily ridged; nasals short; zygomatic +arches heavy and widely spreading, widest posteriorly at union of jugal +and squamosal; union of jugal and zygomatic process of maxilla +thickened, with a ventrally directed spinous process in sixty percent +of the specimens; occasionally there is a second process, also directed +ventrally at union of jugal and zygomatic process of squamosal; +zygomatic arches convex dorsally; deep dorsal depression present in +frontal bones in mature specimens; lacrimal processes prominent, +projecting well above the arch at the anteromedial angle of the orbit; +interpterygoid spaces V-shaped; tympanic bullae well inflated +ventrally; upper incisors short, and pale; when placed on a flat plane +the dorsal surface of the skull is nearly parallel to the substratum; +space enclosed within the zygomatic arches nearly quadrangular. + +_Comparisons._--From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, +_robustus_ can be distinguished as follows: Size smaller; tail and hind +foot shorter. Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller, more heavily +ridged and more nearly flat; nasals shorter; rostrum relatively wider +and shorter; zygomatic arches shorter and relatively more widely +spreading with greatest width posteriorly as opposed to anteriorly; +junction of jugal and zygomatic process of maxilla not as prominent; +_aureiventris_ shows no spinous process at this junction; lacrimal +processes larger and projecting farther dorsally; enclosed space within +zygomatic arches roughly quadrangular as opposed to triangular; +mastoidal part of tympanic bullae less exposed; sphenorbital fissure +smaller; interpterygoid space V-shaped rather than lyre-shaped; palatal +pits smaller and shallower; tympanic bullae smaller, but more inflated +ventrally; basioccipital averaging relatively wider; molars smaller; +upper incisors shorter, smaller and cadmium yellow as opposed to orange +yellow. + +Comparisons of _robustus_ with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_ show the following: Size smaller. Color: Lighter +throughout; postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Smaller, +more compact and more nearly flat; rostrum shorter and more nearly +straight; lacrimal processes larger, projecting higher above the +anteromedial angle of the orbit; parietal ridges uniformly heavier; +mastoid width actually as well as relatively wider; zygomatic arches +heavier and relatively much wider (males 76.2 percent of basilar +length, females 73.8 percent as opposed to males 73.8 percent and +females 73.5 percent); union of jugal and zygomatic process of maxilla +uniformly more thickened; spinous process at jugal-maxillary suture +present; zygomatic arches much more concave on ventral surface; uniform +deep depression present in mature adults, between frontal processes of +premaxillae, and anterior interorbital region of frontals; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals less; sphenorbital fissure more +constricted; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally, extending well +ventrad of basioccipital; palatal pits shallower and smaller; molars +smaller; upper incisors shorter, narrower and paler (see comparison of +_aureiventris_). + +From near topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_ from 1 mile east of +Garrison, Millard County, Utah, _robustus_ differs in: Size smaller; +tail and hind foot shorter. Color: Lighter, terminal bands of hair +cinnamon, but because more black in underfur the animals appear darker; +postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Shorter, more nearly +flat and much more heavily ridged; nasals shorter; rostrum shorter and +wider; lacrimal processes larger and projecting higher above +anteromedial angle of orbit; zygomatic arches heavier, shorter, more +angular and actually as well as relatively wider; jugals thicker; angle +between maxillary plate and rostrum less obtuse; spinous process at +jugal-maxillary suture present; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals less; parietal ridges much more pronounced; looked at from +above, space enclosed within zygomatic arches more quadrangular in +shape as opposed to roughly triangular; tympanic bullae more inflated +ventrally; molars smaller; upper incisors shorter, narrower and paler. + +The characters that distinguish _robustus_ from topotypes of _Thomomys +bottae wahwahensis_ are: Size slightly smaller. Color: Darker +throughout. Skull: Rostrum longer and narrower; nasals longer; +zygomatic arches wider and longer; lacrimal processes larger and +projecting higher above anteromedial angle of the orbit; parietal +ridges more roughened; tympanic bullae much larger and more inflated +ventrally; supraoccipital higher; middorsal depression in frontals +present. For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae bonnevillei_ see account +of that form. + +The remaining forms from the Bonneville Basin, namely, _Thomomys bottae +sevieri_, _convexus_, _tivius_ and _stansburyi_ are all easily +distinguished from _robustus_. Specimens of _sevieri_ are paler, +smaller in every measurement taken, and the skulls are weaker and less +angular. All specimens of _convexus_ are paler, the skulls are more +convex dorsally and narrower, with less ridging and angularity. Both +_tivius_ and _stansburyi_ are small dark forms, with weak, smooth, +small skulls as compared with _robustus_ which is light colored and has +compact, ridged and angular skulls. + +_Remarks._--Twenty-three specimens were obtained at a small isolated +spring. Critical study of animals taken only a few miles to the east +prove them to be so different as to be referable to another subspecies, +_albicaudatus_. _T. b. robustus_ is an endemic form in this desert +valley. The variable color is noteworthy but difficult to explain in an +isolated population as small as this one. All five of the gray animals +are females of which four are lactating adults. The affinities of this +subspecies are with _albicaudatus_ to the east, but enough time has +elapsed since isolation to enable them to differentiate. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 23, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae minimus= Durrant + + _Thomomys bottae minimus_ Durrant, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 52:161, October 11, 1939; Marshall, Journ. + Mamm., 21:154, May 14, 1940. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 263942, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake, +Tooele County, Utah; June 25, 1938; collected by William H. Marshall; +original number 141. + +_Range._--Known only from the type locality. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements); tail relatively long. +Color: Upper parts Pinkish Buff, darker on head; underparts Pale +Pinkish Buff; front and hind feet white; nose, chin and postauricular +patches black. Skull: Long, slender and nearly devoid of ridges; +braincase moderately inflated; interparietal quadrangular; zygomatic +arches weak, widest in temporal region, but neither widely spreading +nor angular; nasals straight and truncate posteriorly; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals relatively great; tympanic bullae +moderately inflated; palatal pits deep; rostrum short but narrow; +interpterygoid space moderately lyre-shaped; upper incisors narrow; +molars light. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_, _minimus_ differs as follows: Size markedly smaller; +claws on front feet shorter and weaker. Color: Markedly lighter +throughout, being Pinkish Buff as contrasted with near (13''''_n_) +Black. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; slender, smooth, weak +and nonangular as opposed to ridged, robust, wide and angular; +zygomatic arches much weaker and not so widely spreading posteriorly; +ascending processes of premaxillae much narrower; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals less; interpterygoid space moderately +lyre-shaped as opposed to V-shaped; dentition lighter. + +Topotypes of _minimus_ differ from those of _Thomomys bottae +aureiventris_ as follows: Size markedly smaller. Color: Lighter +dorsally and no "gold color" on underparts. Skull: Markedly smaller in +every measurement taken; weak, smooth and slender as opposed to ridged, +angular and robust; zygomatic arches weak and widest posteriorly rather +than heavy and widest anteriorly; no great thickening at region of +union of jugal and zygomatic process of the maxilla; jugals more nearly +straight rather than concave laterally; interpterygoid space not so +markedly lyre-shaped; dentition lighter. + +The races nearest geographically to _minimus_ are _Thomomys bottae +nesophilus_ and _T. b. stansburyi_. For comparisons see accounts of +those forms. + +_Remarks._--This subspecies is the smallest of all the races of +_Thomomys bottae_ occurring in Utah. As far as known it is endemic to +Stansbury Island, and since the Pleistocene Lake Bonneville attained +its highest level has remained on that part of Stansbury Island that +was above this high level. (See comments under _nesophilus_.) The sandy +nature of the soil and the desert conditions of the area that has since +been exposed at lower levels apparently do not constitute a favorable +environment. Unlike _nesophilus_ from Antelope Island, this form does +not have its affinities with _albicaudatus_, the valley form of the +adjacent mainland, but does show affinities with _stansburyi_, the +nearest mountain form on the mainland. This is easily understood when +one realizes that Stansbury Island is only an isolated part of +Stansbury Mountain that projects northward as a peninsula into Great +Salt Lake. The history of Stansbury Island with reference to isolation +of _minimus_ parallels that of _nesophilus_ on Antelope Island. See +discussion under _nesophilus_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 5, as follows: _Tooele + County_: Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake, 5 (U. S. N. M.). + + +=Thomomys bottae nesophilus= Durrant + + _Thomomys bottae nesophilus_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 27 + (No. 2):2, October, 1936; Marshall, Journ. Mamm., 21:156, + May 14, 1940. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1136, Museum of Zooelogy, +University of Utah; Antelope Island, Great Salt Lake, Davis County, +Utah; April 20, 1935; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 761. + +_Range._--Known only from the type locality. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet long. +Color: Upper parts Cinnamon Buff; lighter below; sides Pinkish Buff +interspersed with gray; pectoral and inguinal regions Cinnamon; nose +grayish black; postauricular patches black. Skull: Interparietal +wedge-shaped; tympanic bullae small; dorsal surface of lambdoidal +prominence 3 mm. wide rather than developed as a crest; jugals nearly +straight; zygomatic arches strongly rectangular. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_, _nesophilus_ is of approximately the same size, but +differs as follows: Claws on front feet longer. Color: Lighter +throughout; tail white terminally, but much darker at base; +postauricular patches smaller. Skull: Interparietal wedge-shaped as +opposed to roughly quadrangular; lambdoidal eminence more of a crest +than a ridge; tympanic bullae smaller; jugals more nearly straight; +zygomatic arches more nearly rectangular. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, _nesophilus_ differs +in: Size smaller; claws on front feet longer. Color: Darker throughout; +postauricular patches larger. Skull: Heavier, more massive; zygomatic +arches more robust and convex laterally rather than concave; +interparietal wedge-shaped rather than roughly quadrangular; braincase +more nearly flat; tympanic bullae markedly smaller; upper molariform +series longer; molariform teeth wider and heavier; interpterygoid space +V-shaped rather than lyre-shaped. + +The race nearest geographically to _nesophilus_ is _T. b. minimus_ from +Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake. It can easily be distinguished from +_minimus_ by the following features: Size much larger; claws on front +feet longer and thicker. Color: Darker throughout; postauricular +patches larger and with more admixture of buff colored hairs. Skull: +Larger in every measurement taken; wide and robust as opposed to narrow +and slender; zygomatic arches more widely spreading and angular; +braincase more nearly flat; tympanic bullae actually larger, but +relatively smaller; lambdoidal eminence flat-topped rather than a +crest; interparietal wedge-shaped as opposed to quadrangular; teeth +larger. + +_Remarks._--The affinities of _nesophilus_ of Antelope Island are +unquestionably with _albicaudatus_ of the eastern and southern +mainland. At the time of this writing (1945), Antelope Island is not +truly an island, but only the tip of a broad peninsula projecting +westward into Great Salt Lake. Nevertheless, the area of occurrence of +_nesophilus_ is effectively isolated by the exposed, sandy lake bottom +that is unsuited to occupancy by pocket gophers. Fluctuations in the +level of the Great Salt Lake have broken and reestablished this +connection with the mainland many times. Each of the several other +kinds of mammals which are known from both the island and the mainland +show no differentiation on the island. These are kinds (see Marshall, +1940:156), which more freely cross the exposed, sandy lake bottom. I, +myself, have noted tracks of coyotes going to and from the island. The +pocket gopher, _nesophilus_, so far as known is the only mammal which +has developed a subspecies endemic to the island. The beach levels of +Pleistocene Lake Bonneville are well marked on both Antelope Island and +Stansbury Island, which is fifteen miles west of Antelope Island. On +the eastern side of Antelope Island the lower beach levels of this +prehistoric lake are farmed. Although sought for elsewhere on this +island, pocket gophers were found only in the farmed land. On Stansbury +Island there has been no farming, and the endemic pocket gophers, +_minimus_, although sought for elsewhere on that island were found only +above the highest beach levels of the ancient lake. Evidently these +pocket gophers still occupy only that part of Stansbury Island that +projected above water during the greatest height of Lake Bonneville. +Farming on Antelope Island may have developed a more favorable +environment for pocket gophers, thus causing them to move down to the +lower levels from that part of the island that was above water during +Pleistocene times. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 5, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae stansburyi= new subspecies + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 2045, Museum of Zooelogy, +University of Utah; South Willow Creek, Stansbury Mountains, 7,500 ft., +Tooele County, Utah; July 2, 1937; collected by O. S. Walsh and S. D. +Durrant; original number 1257 of Durrant. + +_Range._--Stansbury Mountains, Tooele County, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Saccardo's Umber, darker on head; sides and underparts Pinkish Buff; +nose, chin and postauricular patches black; front and hind feet and +distal third to half of tail white. Skull: Small, slender, weak and +smooth; zygomatic arches light and not widely spreading; zygomatic +arches actually as well as relatively short; interparietal generally +quadrangular; nasals relatively long and slender; interpterygoid space +narrowly V-shaped; basioccipital fairly wide; tympanic bullae +moderately inflated ventrally; dentition light. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypical specimens of _stansburyi_ can be readily +distinguished from those of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, _aureiventris_ +and _albicaudatus_ by being smaller in every measurement taken, +particularly those of the skull; the skull is weaker and smoother. In +color _stansburyi_ is like _albicaudatus_ but is much darker throughout +than _aureiventris_ and _centralis_. + +Comparisons of topotypes of _stansburyi_ with those of _Thomomys bottae +sevieri_ show them to be of approximately the same size, but to differ +as follows: Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Zygomatic arches shorter; +tympanic bullae less inflated ventrally; zygomatic breadth less; +mastoid breadth greater; width across alveolar processes of maxillae +greater; alveolar length of upper molar series greater; molariform +teeth larger. + +Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae minimus_, _stansburyi_ is +seen to be of larger size and darker color throughout, with a skull +that is larger in most every measurement taken, although of the same +slender, smooth, nonangular type. + +Among named races of _Thomomys bottae_, _stansburyi_ most closely +resembles tivius, a small, dark, mountain form from central Utah. Size +and color are almost the same but _stansburyi_ differs in: Tail +shorter; hind foot averaging slightly longer. Skull: Generally larger +in every measurement taken; zygomatic arches shorter; width across +alveolar processes of maxillae greater; zygomatic arches more widely +spreading, and widest in extreme posterior region rather than in region +of jugal-squamosal suture. + +_Remarks._--The Stansbury Mountains are separated from the Oquirrh +Mountains by the Stockton Bar, and from the Onaqui Mountains, which are +in reality a continuation of the Stansbury Mountains, by only a low +pass. Pocket gophers from Clover Creek, Onaqui Mountains and Little +Valley, Sheeprock Mountains, although intergrades between _robustus_ +and _albicaudatus_ are dark in color like _stansburyi_. These +intergrades are large, dark colored, and have heavy, ridged, angular +skulls. It appears that _stansburyi_ is a mountain subspecies derived +from _albicaudatus_ of the valley. It would be instructive to +artificially transplant gophers from mountains to valleys, and _vice +versa_, so as to reveal what effects if any on the animals' morphology +the environment might have in one or a few generations. Gophers are +well known to be very plastic, and such an experiment as suggested +might call for modification of the view, held here, that the +differential features of gophers from South Willow Creek and, say, +Bauer, are hereditary. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 11, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae albicaudatus= Hall + + _Thomomys perpallidus albicaudatus_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zooel., 32:444, July 8, 1930; Univ. California Publ. + Zooel., 37:3, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Durrant, Bull. Univ. + Utah, 28 (No. 4):5, August 18, 1937. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureiventris_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zooel., 37:3, April 10, 1931. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 43971, Museum of Vertebrate +Zooelogy, University of California; Provo, 4,510 ft., Utah County, Utah; +October 17, 1929; collected by Annie M. Alexander; original number 506. + +_Range._--From the area between the Great Salt Lake and the Wasatch +Mountains south along the western margin of the central mountains of +the state to the Sevier River, in Juab County, west into Tooele County +to the Onaqui and Sheeprock mountains. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet +medium. Color: Upper parts near (13''''_n_) Black, grading over sides +and flanks to Pinkish Cinnamon on underparts; chin, nose, top of head +and postauricular patches black; front feet, hind feet and distal third +to half of tail white. Skull: Angular and ridged; zygomatic arches +moderately wide spreading, widest posteriorly; paroccipital processes +weak; zygomatic processes of maxillae convex anteriorly; lacrimal +processes small and peglike; jugals convex dorsally on ventral surface; +nasals short, rounded distally and truncate proximally; parietal crests +bowed in, in two places; interpterygoid space broadly V-shaped. + +_Comparisons._-For comparisons of _albicaudatus_ with _Thomomys bottae +aureiventris_ and _centralis_ see accounts of those forms. + +Topotypes of _albicaudatus_ are dark colored and can be distinguished +from those of _Thomomys bottae birdseyei_, _tivius_, _stansburyi_ and +_contractus_ which are also dark forms, by larger size and larger, more +robust skulls (see accounts of those forms). It can be distinguished +from the remainder of the known subspecies of _Thomomys bottae_ in Utah +by darker color and by cranial details (see accounts of those forms). + +_Remarks._--The range of _albicaudatus_ is larger than that of any +other race of _Thomomys bottae_ limited to Utah. Specimens are +available from thirty localities which represent widely varied habitats +and environments. This subspecies consists of many highly variable +local populations, and the marginal populations intergrade freely with +adjacent races. In many populations, it is really difficult to +recognize the relationships on account of the great variation, and one +is frequently tempted to name some of them as distinct. Careful study +of the large number of specimens has enabled me to recognize diagnostic +characters common to all of these variable populations. The animals +range from large and dark at the north to small and light at the south. + +The Jordan River bisects Salt Lake County from north to south. Pocket +gophers were taken at nine places east of the river, and at three +places west of it. + +Gophers from Salt Lake City and environs (east of the river) vary in +color from almost black to dark cinnamon. Specimens from Draper, which +locality is likewise east of the river, are uniformly lighter, but also +vary in color. The skulls of animals from both localities are +indistinguishable from each other and closely resemble those of +topotypes. Specimens from the west side of the river, from Riverton, +two miles west of Murray and Rose Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, all are +lighter in color than topotypes. The color varies from darkest at the +north at Murray to lightest at the south at Riverton. This is exactly +the reverse of what would be expected since Riverton is the locality +geographically nearest to the type locality, Provo. The skulls are +quite uniform and are all referable to _albicaudatus_. The Jordan River +may be one factor which causes this lack of uniformity between the +animals from the two sides of the river. Davis (1939:56-57) states that +rivers are not barriers to movement of pocket gophers where the river +completely freezes over and has the ice covered with thick snow. +Although the Jordan River does occasionally freeze over, it is never +frozen for more than a few days at a time, and snow in this area does +not last for long periods. The material at hand indicates that the +gophers from both sides of the river are referable to the same +subspecies _albicaudatus_. The animals from the east side of the river +are in the aggregate of characters the most typical of _albicaudatus_ +of any in the entire range. Those from the west side of the river, +although definitely referable to _albicaudatus_ do show some +intergradation with _Thomomys bottae robustus_, the subspecies to the +west. + +The specimens from Bauer, Tooele County, are relatively uniform in +color, and are considerably lighter than topotypes of _albicaudatus_. +Their upper parts vary from Sepia to Saccardo's Umber as compared with +near (13''''_n_) Black of the topotypes. The sides and underparts are +lighter, due primarily to much less black in the underfur. They average +slightly longer in total length, but shorter in hind foot. All cranial +measurements are slightly smaller than in topotypes of _albicaudatus_. +The shape of the skull closely resembles that of _albicaudatus_, +although the rostrum, nasals, upper incisors and posterior tongues of +the premaxillae tend to be narrower. This narrowness indicates +intergradation with _Thomomys bottae stansburyi_, the race nearest to +the west. These animals are in the majority of characters referable to +_albicaudatus_. + +Bauer is situated in extreme western Tooele Valley at the foot of +Stockton Bar, a low pass between the Stansbury and the Oquirrh +mountains. This valley lies to the west of the aforementioned Jordan +River. Although these gophers are definitely referable to +_albicaudatus_ they are more unlike topotypes than are the animals from +Riverton. + +The specimens from Settlement Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, Tooele County, +show the same characteristics as those from Bauer. + +In a large series of animals from St. John, in Rush Valley, Tooele +County, the upper parts vary from black, even darker than topotypes of +_albicaudatus_, to Tawny Olive, and the underparts vary from black +through Cinnamon Buff to Pinkish Buff. Most of the animals are Cinnamon +Buff. Although variable they approach _albicaudatus_ in color. The +total length, tail and hind foot of males are longer than in topotypes +of _albicaudatus_; females differ in the same direction but only +slightly. In both sexes the zygomatic breadth is less, but the mastoid +breadth is greater than in _albicaudatus_. In size and shape of the +lacrimal processes, and the great thickening of the jugal at the +maxillo-jugal suture they approach _robustus_. They are much larger, +however, and in the majority of characters are referable to +_albicaudatus_. + +What has just been said relative to the animals from St. John applies +also to those from Clover Creek in the Onaqui Mountains of Tooele +County. At the latter locality the tendencies towards _robustus_ are +accentuated. This is to be expected, since this locality is midway +between St. John and the type locality of _robustus_. All characters +considered, these animals are all referable to _albicaudatus_. + +The animals from Little Valley, Sheeprock Mountains, Tooele County, +resemble _albicaudatus_ in color. They vary on the upper parts from +near (1) Sepia to Clay Color, and ventrally from nearly black to +Pinkish Buff. They are markedly smaller in every measurement taken, +except zygomatic and mastoidal breadths, and extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals. This relatively greater breadth indicates +intergradation with _robustus_ to the west. These gophers are smaller +in most measurements than any other population referred to +_albicaudatus_. This is understandable because gophers from mountains +usually are smaller and have weaker, smoother skulls than animals from +low lands. Although approaching _robustus_ in size and in some +aforementioned cranial details, the aggregate of characters including +color, make these animals referable to _albicaudatus_. + +The animals from Fairfield, Utah County, are closer geographically to +the type locality of _albicaudatus_ than any other series, but +morphologically are the least like topotypes. At first glance one is +struck with the differences. They are uniformly Clay Color above, with +Cinnamon Buff sides and flanks and Pinkish Buff underparts. Their color +closely approaches that of _robustus_ to the west which has Cinnamon +Buff on the upper parts. Examination of eleven measurements of males +and the same number for females, shows that the animals are nearest to +_robustus_ in two measurements, to _albicaudatus_ in 12, distinct in 7 +and intermediate in one. The general appearance of the skull is +intermediate between that of the two above mentioned forms. The +differences from _albicaudatus_ in size and color may be correlated +with the differences in soil at Fairfield and Provo. At Fairfield the +soil is light-colored clay, but at Provo it is sandy and darker. +Although they are intergrades between _robustus_ and _albicaudatus_, +the animals are referred to the latter race. Utah Lake and its outlet, +the Jordan River, make a partial barrier between populations at +Fairfield and at the type locality at Provo. During Pleistocene times, +when Lake Bonneville was present it formed a complete barrier. Enough +time has evidently elapsed since the disappearance of this lake to +allow _albicaudatus_, the mainland form, to expand its range to the +west. Intergradation has taken place, with the result that the animals +from Fairfield, although unstable, agree with the mainland form, +_albicaudatus_, in a majority of their characters. + +Pocket gophers were taken at four localities from north to south in +eastern Juab County. They range in color from Ochraceous Tawny on the +upper parts and Cinnamon Buff on the underparts to shades that are +slightly lighter. All are much lighter than topotypes of +_albicaudatus_. The general configuration of the skull is the same as +that of _albicaudatus_, and this is especially true in the females. In +the narrower rostrum and weaker dentition they approach _contractus_, +but are distinctly lighter colored. Hall (1931:3) referred one specimen +from Nephi, Juab County, to _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_. Since that +time _Thomomys bottae lenis_ which has some affinities with +_aureiventris_ has been described (see account of _contractus_). The +large series now available from Nephi and nearby localities do show +some intergradation with _lenis_, in that four characters are more as +in _lenis_ and _contractus_ and seven characters are more as in +_albicaudatus_. Although differing markedly in many respects from +topotypes of _albicaudatus_ they fit the aforementioned concept of this +subspecies, and are being treated as a variable local population of it. + +Provo is the locality listed for specimens which were available to +naturalists from 1875-1877. To these specimens the following names were +applied: _Thomomys talpoides bulbivorus_ Coues (1875:256; 1877:627) and +_Thomomys talpoides umbrinus_ Coues and Yarrow (1875:112). Possibly +these names were applied to the animals currently known as _Thomomys +bottae albicaudatus_ which does occur at Provo. Without the opportunity +to examine the actual specimens, which so far as I know are no longer +in existence, I cannot exclude the possibility that the locality +designation "Provo" was used in a general sense to include pocket +gophers taken a few miles to the eastward of Provo, where it is known +that pocket gophers of only the species _Thomomys talpoides_ (current +terminology) occur. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 239, distributed as follows: + _Davis County_: Bountiful, 4,500 ft., 1. _Salt Lake County_: + Salt Lake City and environs, 4,300 ft., 51; 2 mi. W Murray, + 4,300 ft., 6; Riverton, 4,300 ft., 11; Draper, 4,500 ft., 7; + Rose Canyon, Oquirrh Mountains, 5,650 ft., 4. _Tooele + County_: Bauer, 4,500 ft., 30; Settlement Creek, Oquirrh + Mountains, 6,500 ft., 1; St. John, 4,300 ft., 28; Clover + Creek, Onaqui Mountains, 5,500 ft., 15; Vernon, 4,300 ft., 2 + (U. S. A. C.); Little Valley, Sheeprock Mountains, 5,500 + ft., 20. _Utah County_: Fairfield, 4,800 ft., 24; Provo, + 4,400 ft., 20 (8, B. Y. U.; 12, M. V. Z.). _Juab County_: + Neff Farm, 4 mi. N Nephi, 5,000 ft., 2 (1, R. H.); Nephi, + 5,000 ft., 1 (M. V. Z.); 2 mi. S Nephi, 4,700 ft., 14; 7 mi. + SW Nephi, 6,000 ft., 2. + + +=Thomomys bottae bonnevillei= new subspecies + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 3576, Museum of Zooelogy, +University of Utah; Fish Springs, 4,400 ft., Juab County, Utah; June 8, +1940; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1955. + +_Range._--Known only from the type locality. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet +small. Color: Entire dorsal surface Warm Buff; sides near (_e_) +Cinnamon Buff, underparts near (16") Pale Pinkish Buff; inguinal +region, front and hind feet and distal part of tail white: top of head, +nose and cheeks grayish black; postauricular patches small and grayish +black; ears small, pointed and with heavily pigmented pinnae. Skull: +Angular, short and wide; nasals of medium length, narrow proximally but +widely flared distally; interparietal small; lambdoidal suture concave +towards the interparietal; zygomatic arches uniformly widely spreading; +interpterygoid space widely V-shaped; extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals long; lambdoidal crest well developed. + +_Comparisons._--From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, +_bonnevillei_ differs as follows: Size smaller, hind foot shorter. +Color: Upper parts and sides lighter; underparts pale buff rather than +"gold." Skull: Shorter and relatively wider; rostrum wider and heavier; +zygomatic arches relatively wider and more massive, with greatest width +posteriorly instead of anteriorly; interpterygoid space widely V-shaped +rather than lyre-shaped; thickening at union of jugal and zygomatic +process of maxilla less developed; anterior palatine foramina larger; +nasals shorter and more markedly flared distally; zygomatic breadth +relatively, and mastoidal breadth actually, wider; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; tympanic bullae more inflated +ventrally; upper incisors wider. + +From near topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, from 1 mile east of +Garrison, Millard County, Utah, _bonnevillei_ differs as follows: Size +smaller; hind foot and tail shorter. Color: Generally darker above and +lighter below; top of head darker; postauricular patches smaller and +lighter. Skull: Shorter and wider (zygomatic breadth expressed in +percent of basilar length being, in males, 74.5 in _bonnevillei_ and +71.5 in _centralis_); interpterygoid space more widely V-shaped; +interparietal smaller, and more triangular; nasals shorter and much +more dilated distally, as well as more constricted proximally; lacrimal +processes smaller and less globuse at tips; temporal fossae larger; +braincase and entire dorsal surface of skull more nearly flat; +lambdoidal suture convex posteriorly as opposed to nearly straight; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally. + +Comparisons of _bonnevillei_ with the type and type series of _Thomomys +bottae wahwahensis_ show them to be of approximately the same size, but +to differ as follows: Color: Slightly darker above and lighter below; +postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Larger in every +measurement taken, except breadth of rostrum which is smaller; skull +not as flat; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; nasals and +rostrum longer; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; +interparietal smaller and more triangular; zygomatic arches more bowed +out laterally; jugals heavier; interpterygoid space more widely +V-shaped; upper incisors less massive. + +The characters that distinguish _bonnevillei_ from _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_ are: Size smaller. Color: Markedly lighter throughout. +Skull: Shorter and wider; mastoid and zygomatic breadths greater; +rostrum narrower but shorter; angle between rostrum and zygomatic +processes of maxillae less; interparietal smaller and more triangular; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; upper incisors +shorter, narrower and more recurved. + +_T. b. bonnevillei_ is indistinguishable in color from _Thomomys bottae +convexus_, but differs from it in the following features: Size larger +in nearly every measurement taken. Skull: Flattened dorsally as opposed +to convex; zygomatic arches longer and weaker; jugals more nearly +perpendicular; tympanic bullae larger; upper incisors longer; alveolar +length of upper molar series the same, but molars narrower; rostrum +longer but nasals shorter; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +greater. + +Topotypes of _bonnevillei_ can be distinguished from those of both +_Thomomys bottae tivius_ and _stansburyi_ by being larger in every +measurement taken, by markedly lighter color throughout, and by ridged, +massive, angular skulls rather than smooth, weak, nonangular skulls. + +The races closest geographically to _bonnevillei_ are _Thomomys bottae +robustus_ and _T. b. sevieri_. Compared with topotypes of _robustus_, +_bonnevillei_ differs in: Size larger. Color: Lighter throughout. +Skull: Larger, although not as compact; zygomatic arches more widely +spreading; jugals lighter; lacrimal processes not as prominent; +zygomatic processes of maxillae not as robust; nasals more flared +distally; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; +alveolar length of upper molar series longer; molars larger; upper +incisors longer, wider and darker in color; when placed ventral side +down on a surface, the dorsal face of a skull of _robustus_ is +approximately parallel to the surface, whereas one of _bonnevillei_ +dips down in the occipital region. + +_T. b. sevieri_ can be easily distinguished from _bonnevillei_ by being +smaller in every measurement taken, darker in color, and by small, +weak, smooth skulls as opposed to large, robust, ridged skulls. + +_Remarks._--Fish Springs, where _bonnevillei_ occurs is a marshy area +south of the barren, salt-desert country of western Utah. The source of +water is springs at the base of the north end of the Fish Springs +Mountains. Only the moist area supports pocket gophers. Specimens from +Trout Creek, Juab County, twenty-five miles to the southwest are +intergrades between _bonnevillei_ and _aureiventris_, and are referred +to the latter subspecies. The country between Fish Springs and Trout +Creek in 1937 and 1940 lacked pocket gophers; it was of the playa and +sand type. Probably _T. b. bonnevillei_ was derived from _T. b. +aureiventris_, a western mainland form of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville, +through isolation and subsequent differentiation morphologically. The +moist soils at Cane Springs, seven miles south of Fish Springs, had no +pocket gophers when visited in 1940. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 11, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae centralis= Hall + + _Thomomys perpallidus centralis_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zooel., 32:445, July 8, 1930. + + _Thomomys bottae centralis_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Hall and Johnson, + Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. Arts and Letters, 15:121, 1938. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 41688, Museum of Vertebrate +Zooelogy, University of California; 2-1/2 mi. E Baker (1-1/4 mi. W +Nevada-Utah boundary on 39th parallel), 5,700 ft., White Pine County, +Nevada; May 30, 1929; collected by E. Raymond Hall; original number +2683. + +_Range._--Extreme western Utah, in Millard, Beaver and Iron counties. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); tail long; claws on front +feet long. Color: Near Cinnamon Buff on upper parts, darker in +middorsal region, grading to Pinkish Buff on underparts, more +accentuated in pectoral and inguinal regions; nose, cheeks and +postauricular patches grayish black; front and hind feet and distal +half of tail white. Skull: Robust and moderately ridged; zygomatic +breadth about the same for entire length of arches; jugals vertical +posterior to middle; moderate thickening present at region of +maxillo-jugal suture; interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; dorsal +frontomaxillary sutures convex medially; lacrimal processes globose and +well developed; nasals long and with distal denticulations; +paroccipital processes well developed. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_, _centralis_ differs as follows: Size larger; tail +longer; claws on front feet longer. Color: Lighter throughout, Cinnamon +Buff as opposed to near (13''''_n_) Black. Skull: Basilar length and +length of nasals greater; zygomatic breadth less; zygomatic arches +thicker at region of maxillo-jugal sutures; interpterygoid space more +broadly V-shaped; dorsal frontomaxillary sutures convex medially as +opposed to straight; paroccipital processes more developed; zygomatic +arches approximately the same width throughout as opposed to widest +posteriorly. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_ see account of that +form. + +_T. b. centralis_ can be distinguished from _Thomomys bottae +bonnevillei_, _robustus_, _sevieri_ and _convexus_ by larger size +throughout and generally darker color (see accounts of those forms). +From _Thomomys bottae stansburyi_ and _tivius_, _centralis_ differs in +larger size throughout and lighter color (see accounts of those forms). + +_Remarks._--_Thomomys bottae centralis_ has one of the most extensive +ranges of any of the known races of _T. bottae_. The eastern limits +extend into extreme western Utah. Specimens from Utah for the most part +are intergrades between _centralis_ and _aureiventris_, the race to the +north. Some minor intergradation is also noted between _centralis_ and +_sevieri_ and _bonnevillei_, the races to the east. Intergradation is +the expected condition because the animals belonging to _centralis_ are +at the extremes of their range in this area. The greater affinities of +these animals with _aureiventris_ is to be expected because both +_aureiventris_ and _centralis_ are forms of the western mainland of the +Pleistocene Lake Bonneville; while the races to the east, although +closest geographically, were isolated from the gophers of the western +mainland during prehistoric times by this lake. They are still isolated +and enough time has elapsed so that only vestiges of morphological +intergradation exist between _centralis_ and these eastern forms. Two +specimens from Cedar City, Iron County, are intergrades between +_Thomomys bottae wahwahensis_, _centralis_ and _planirostris_. Their +skulls are slightly convex as in _planirostris_, and the rostrum is +short and wide as in _wahwahensis_. In shape of the zygomatic arches, +length of the nasals, and color, they resemble _centralis_ to which +they are here referred. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 49, distributed as follows: + _Millard County_: 1 mi. SE Gandy, 5,000 ft., 15 (M. V. Z.); + White Valley (Tule Spring), 60 mi. W Delta, 4, (3 in R. W. + Fautin Vertebrate Collection); Robison Ranch, 5,300 ft., (on + Hendry Creek) Simonsons Ranch, 4,596 ft., 2 (M. V. Z.); 1 + mi. E Garrison, 5,000 ft., 21; 5 mi. S Garrison, 5,400 ft., + 5 (M. V. Z.). _Iron County_: Cedar City, 2 (M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys bottae sevieri= new subspecies + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 2530, Museum of Zooelogy, +University of Utah; Swasey Spring, House Mountains, 6,500 ft., Millard +County, Utah; May 16, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number +1380. + +_Range._--Known only from the type locality. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements); claws on front feet short +and weak; ears short; tail relatively long. Color: Upper parts Pinkish +Buff, grading over sides to Pale Pinkish Buff on underparts; nose, top +of head, chin and cheeks grayish black; postauricular patches small and +grayish black; front and hind feet and distal two-thirds of tail white. +Skull: Small, weak and smooth; rostrum narrow; nasals narrow, not +markedly flared distally; zygomatic arches weak, not angular, and of +"graceful" contour; lacrimal processes small; characteristic dorsal +depression present in region of sagitto-coronal suture; mastoid and +zygomatic breadths narrow; occiput narrow and high; braincase well +inflated; paroccipital processes small and smooth; interpterygoid space +narrowly V-shaped; tympanic bullae small, but well inflated ventrally; +alveolar length of upper molar series short; molars small; upper +incisors short, but narrow. + +_Comparisons._--From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, +_sevieri_ differs as follows: Size smaller. Color: Lighter throughout, +no "gold" on underparts. Skull: Much smaller in every measurement +taken, less massive and not angular; zygomatic arches weaker and widest +posteriorly rather than anteriorly; union of jugal and zygomatic +process of maxilla not greatly thickened; interpterygoid space narrowly +V-shaped rather than lyre-shaped; pterygoid hamulae shorter and weaker; +tympanic bullae smaller, but markedly more inflated ventrally; +dentition smaller and weaker. + +From near topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, _sevieri_ can be +distinguished by the following features: Size markedly smaller. Color: +Lighter throughout. Skull: Markedly smaller in every measurement taken, +weaker and smoother; zygomatic arches weaker, less angular and more +"graceful"; rostrum shorter, but narrower; lacrimal processes smaller; +tympanic bullae smaller, but more inflated ventrally, being triangular +in shape as opposed to ovate and with anteromedial margin decidedly +pointed; pterygoid hamulae smaller and weaker; dentition smaller and +weaker. + +_T. b. sevieri_ can readily be distinguished from _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_ by the following features: Size smaller in every +measurement taken. Color: Markedly lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller, +and weaker; rostrum shorter and narrower; ascending processes of +premaxillae narrower; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +shorter; posterior tongues of premaxillae narrower; dentition much +lighter. + +Comparisons of _sevieri_ with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +wahwahensis_ show them to be of approximately the same size, but to +differ as follows: Hind foot longer; ear shorter. Color: Slightly +darker. Skull: Smaller, weaker, less ridged; zygomatic breadth less; +zygomatic arches markedly less angular; mastoid breadth less; rostrum +much longer and narrower, not as blunt nor flattened; tympanic bullae +much larger and more inflated ventrally; braincase vaulted as opposed +to flattened. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae bonnevillei_, _sevieri_ differs in: +Size smaller throughout. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken, +weaker, smoother and less angular; dentition smaller and weaker. + +Topotypes of _sevieri_ are easily distinguished from those of _Thomomys +bottae robustus_ by smaller size, and smaller, markedly weaker skull +which is less angular and ridged. + +Among named races of _Thomomys bottae_, _sevieri_ is closest +geographically to _convexus_, but differs from it as follows: Size +larger; hind foot longer. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; +nasals shorter and not so flaring distally; rostrum weaker, narrower +and not so depressed; zygomatic arches markedly weaker and less +angular; lacrimal processes smaller; supraoccipital narrower and +higher; paroccipital processes weaker; tympanic bullae smaller; +dentition markedly weaker. + +Topotypical specimens of _sevieri_ can be readily distinguished from +those of _Thomomys bottae tivius_ by Pinkish Buff instead of Mummy +Brown on upper parts. Tympanic bullae larger and markedly more +inflated; nasals longer; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths greater; +rostrum longer and more depressed; upper incisors longer and wider; +molariform teeth smaller. The skulls of _sevieri_ resemble those of +_tivius_ more closely than those of any other subspecies. + +_Remarks._--The House Mountains in western Millard County are +surrounded by desertlike terrain that is seemingly unsuited to pocket +gophers. In these mountains, gophers were sought in vain at several +localities, including Antelope Springs which superficially appeared +suitable for the animals. Pocket gophers were found only at the type +locality, Swasey Spring, which is well above the highest level of the +Pleistocene Lake Bonneville. _T. b. sevieri_, like _T. b. minimus_ on +Stansbury Island, Great Salt Lake, appears to remain only on land that +was an island when Lake Bonneville was at its highest level. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 10, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae convexus= Durrant + + _Thomomys bottae convexus_ Durrant, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 52:159, October 11, 1939. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 2482, Museum of Zooelogy, +University of Utah; E side Clear Lake, 4,600 ft., Millard County, Utah; +May 20, 1938; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1401. + +_Range._--Westcentral Utah in Delta Valley. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts and +sides Pinkish Buff, purest on sides; underparts Pale Pinkish Cinnamon; +inguinal and pectoral regions Pale Pinkish Buff; nearly all specimens +have white on perineal region; nose grayish black; front feet, hind +feet and distal third to half of tail white; postauricular patches +black. Skull: Braincase moderately convex on dorsal surface; rostrum +strongly depressed, giving the entire dorsal surface of the skull a +"rocker-shape"; zygomatic arches heavy, short and widely spreading, +widest posteriorly; upper incisors recurved, short and wide; molariform +teeth large; alveolar length of upper molar series long; palatal pits +deep; tympanic bullae moderately inflated ventrally; mastoidal breadth +actually as well as relatively wide. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +wahwahensis_, _convexus_ is of approximately the same color, but +differs as follows: Size smaller; tail, hind foot, and ear shorter. +Skull: Rostrum longer, narrower and more depressed; skull convex rather +than flat; nasals longer, and convex rather than flat; tympanic bullae +larger; zygomatic arches shorter and more massive; molariform teeth +larger. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, _convexus_ differs in: +Size smaller; tail and hind foot shorter. Color: Uniformly lighter, +more white in perineal region. Skull: Smaller, more convex; rostrum +shorter, wider and more depressed; zygomatic arches shorter and +heavier; mastoidal breadth actually, as well as relatively wider; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; upper incisors shorter and +wider. + +Comparatively, topotypes of _convexus_ can be distinguished from those +of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_ by: Size smaller; tail and hind foot +shorter. Color: Darker on upper parts; no "gold" on underparts. Skull: +Smaller and more nearly flat; rostrum shorter and more depressed; +zygomatic arches shorter, heavier and widest posteriorly rather than +anteriorly; interpterygoid space V-shaped as opposed to lyre-shaped; +upper incisors shorter, narrower and more recurved. + +Topotypical specimens of _convexus_ differ from those of _Thomomys +bottae nesophilus_ as follows: Size smaller; tail and hind foot +shorter. Color: Uniformly lighter throughout, Cinnamon Buff as opposed +to Pinkish Buff. Skull: Smaller; rostrum heavier, shorter and more +depressed; zygomatic arches shorter, heavier and not so widely +spreading; no widening of supraoccipital as in _nesophilus_; upper +incisors shorter and more recurved. + +When compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_, +_convexus_ shows the following differences: Size smaller; tail and +hind foot shorter. Color: Markedly lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller, +more convex and compact; rostrum shorter, heavier, more depressed and +compact; zygomatic arches shorter and more robust; upper incisors +shorter and more recurved. + +_Thomomys bottae tivius_ is the race closest geographically to +_convexus_. From it, _convexus_ can be readily distinguished by: Size +larger; tail shorter; hind foot longer. Color: Markedly lighter +throughout. Skull: Much heavier and more compact, weights of skulls of +males and females of the two subspecies being 2.4 grs., 1.6; 1.6, 1.2, +respectively; rostrum heavier, wider and more depressed; zygomatic +arches shorter, and more massive; upper incisors shorter, wider and +more recurved; molariform teeth larger. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae lenis_, _contractus_, _sevieri_, +_bonnevillei_, and _robustus_ see accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--_T. b. convexus_ is limited to the area around Clear Lake +in Millard County. This lake is surrounded by areas of loose, shifting +sand and flat areas of barren alkali. The lake is fed by springs which +flow from lava outcroppings on its eastern side. As far as discernible, +the only area populated by pocket gophers (1938) was that adjacent to +the lake where vegetation had trapped the sand. The factor which limits +the extension of range of this subspecies probably is plant food. Also, +the soil is mechanically poor for burrowing, since it caves in easily +and burrows were found only in the sand where salt grass (_Distichlis +stricta_) had trapped and stabilized it. Burrows were found from the +edge of the water back as far as this grass persisted. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 17, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae tivius= Durrant + + _Thomomys bottae tivius_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 (No. + 4):5, August 18, 1937. + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 1827, Museum of Zooelogy, +University of Utah; Oak Creek Canyon, 6 mi. E Oak City, 6,000 ft., +Millard County, Utah; September 14, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; +original number 1100. + +_Range._--Limited to the Canon Mountains, Millard County. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Mummy +Brown, grading through Cinnamon on the sides to Pale Cinnamon on the +underparts; cheeks Cinnamon; postauricular patches black; distal third +to half of tail white. Skull: Small, weak; zygomatic arches weak, not +widely spreading, widest posteriorly; tympanic bullae large; +interpterygoid space V-shaped; nasals short, usually simple distally, +but with some denticulations in some specimens; palatal pits deep; +palate narrow; paroccipital processes small; incisors, both upper and +lower, narrow; molariform teeth small. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _tivius_ differ from those of _Thomomys +bottae albicaudatus_ as follows: Size markedly smaller in every +measurement taken. Color: Lighter, Mummy Brown as opposed to near +(13''''_n_) Black. Skull: Smaller, slenderer and weaker; zygomatic +arches weak and not widely spreading as opposed to massive and wide +spreading; nasals and rostrum narrower and shorter; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals shorter; tympanic bullae smaller; +molariform teeth smaller. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae stansburyi_ and _T. b. +contractus_ see accounts of those forms. + +The four subspecies _tivius_, _albicaudatus_, _stansburyi_, and +_contractus_ are the darkest in color of all the _Thomomys bottae_ +occurring within the state. + +_Remarks._--This small, dark subspecies is limited to the Canon +Mountains in eastern Millard County. Apparently it is a mountain +derivative of _Thomomys bottae contractus_ which occurs in the valleys +to the east and west of these mountains. Intergradation is noted with +animals from the valleys on either side. For further comments on +distributional problems of this type see remarks under _Thomomys bottae +stansburyi_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 12, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae contractus= new subspecies + + _Thomomys perpallidus albicaudatus_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zooel., 37:3, April 10, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_ Durrant. Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 + (No. 4):4, August 18, 1937. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1851, Museum of Zooelogy, +University of Utah; Scipio, 5,315 ft., Millard County, Utah; September +17, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; original number 1125. + +_Range._--Extreme eastern Millard and Beaver counties, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, mixed with black giving a color of Dresden Brown; sides +between Cinnamon Buff and Pinkish Buff; underparts Pinkish Buff, purest +on inguinal and pectoral regions; postauricular patches medium in size +and black; ears covered with black hairs; nose, chin, cheeks and top of +head dusky; front feet, hind feet and distal third to half of tail +white; proximal part of tail covered all around with buff-colored +hairs. Skull: Long, slender, moderately ridged and convex transversally +at proximal ends of nasals; nasals long; rostrum long and narrow; +posterior ends of nasals truncate or shallowly emarginate; ascending +processes of premaxillae slender; extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals long; zygomatic arches neither robust nor widely spreading; +interparietal subquadrangular; supraoccipital extending horizontally +well behind lambdoidal suture instead of dropping off abruptly to the +foramen magnum; interpterygoid space moderately V-shaped in some +specimens, but somewhat lyre-shaped in others; tympanic bullae large +and truncate anteriorly; upper incisors long and narrow; molariform +teeth small and light. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +albicaudatus_, _contractus_ differs as follows: Tail longer. Color: +Lighter throughout. Skull: Slenderer, less ridged and angular; rostrum +narrower; zygomatic and mastoidal breadths less; ascending processes of +premaxillae narrower; posterior tongues of premaxillae narrower; +posterior ends of nasals less truncate; zygomatic arches weaker, less +angular, and less widely spreading posteriorly; interparietal larger; +paroccipital processes weaker; interpterygoid space not as widely +V-shaped; upper incisors longer and narrower; molariform teeth smaller. + +Topotypes of _contractus_ can be distinguished from those of _Thomomys +bottae convexus_ by the following: Size larger, tail longer; hind foot +larger. Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Longer, narrower, and not as +massive; top of skull moderately, as opposed to strongly, convex; +nasals arched rather than straight; zygomatic arches neither as widely +spreading, angular nor massive; space enclosed within zygomatic arches +longer; interparietal larger; interpterygoid space more narrowly +V-shaped; upper incisors longer and narrower; molariform teeth much +lighter. + +Comparisons of topotypes of _contractus_ with near topotypes of +_Thomomys bottae centralis_ show them to be approximately the same +size, but to differ as follows: Color: Darker throughout. Skull: +Shorter and slenderer; rostrum narrower; region between posterior +tongues of premaxillae narrower and more convex transversally; nasals +more truncate; zygomatic breadth less, but arches relatively more +widely spreading posteriorly; interparietal larger; interpterygoid +space generally narrower; upper incisors longer and narrower; +molariform teeth smaller. + +Topotypes of _contractus_ differ from those of _Thomomys bottae +aureiventris_ as follows: Size smaller; tail longer; hind foot shorter. +Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Shorter but slenderer; rostrum +narrower; nasals shorter but slenderer, and more truncate posteriorly; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals longer; zygomatic arches +weaker and less angular; zygomatic processes of maxillae weaker and +with no marked thickenings at union of maxilla and jugals; +interparietal larger; interpterygoid space more generally V-shaped; +upper incisors longer and narrower; molariform teeth smaller. + +Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae planirostris_, _contractus_ +differs in: Size smaller throughout. Color: Darker, more black and less +Cinnamon in pelage. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; rostrum +narrower; nasals arched instead of flat; zygomatic arches neither +angular, massive nor widely spreading; upper incisors narrower; +molariform teeth markedly smaller and weaker. + +Topotypes of _contractus_ differ from those of _Thomomys bottae +levidensis_ in larger size, darker color and longer, slenderer skulls. + +Among named races of _T. bottae_, _contractus_ is closest +morphologically to _tivius_. It differs from it as follows: Size larger +throughout. Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: The same general shape +and proportions, but larger in every measurement taken; rostrum longer +and narrower; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals longer; +posterior tongues of premaxillae narrower. + +_Remarks._--Fifteen animals from Oak City are intergrades between +_contractus_ and _tivius_. Intergradation with _lenis_ is also shown in +some specimens by the widely spreading zygomatic arches. In the +majority of characters including the diagnostic long, slender, narrow +rostrum they are more like _contractus_ to which they are here +referred. + +Nine animals from Beaver were considered by Hall (1931:3) and Durrant +(1937:4) to be intergrades between _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_ and +_Thomomys bottae centralis_. Restudy of these specimens in the light of +additional material now shows them to be intergrades between _T. b. +centralis_, _T. b. planirostris_ and _T. b. contractus_. The majority +of these animals are intermediate in color between _centralis_ and +_contractus_, but a few have the reddish cast of _planirostris_. The +shape of the nasals is characteristic of _planirostris_, while the +zygomatic arches are as in _centralis_. In the remainder of the +diagnostic characters they are like _contractus_ to which they are here +referred. + +Strong affinities exist between _albicaudatus_, _tivius_ and +_contractus_. All three of these races probably stemmed from a dark +form which formerly inhabited the eastern mainland of the Pleistocene +Lake Bonneville. At present, _tivius_ is isolated on the Canon +Mountains in eastern Millard County, while the range of _albicaudatus_ +and _contractus_ have been separated by that of _lenis_. _T. b. lenis_ +has the majority of its affinities with _aureiventris_ which is an +inhabitant of the western mainland of this ancient lake. An +understanding of the history of the Sevier River Valley will probably +clarify this distribution of pocket gophers. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 39, distributed as follows: + _Millard County_: Oak City, 5,000 ft., 15; Scipio, 5,315 + ft., 15. _Beaver County_: Beaver, 6,000 ft., 9 (M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys bottae lenis= Goldman + + _Thomomys townsendii lenis_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 55:75, June 25, 1942. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Moore, Journ. Mamm., 10:259; + November 11, 1931. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 264805, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Richfield, 5,308 ft., Sevier County, +Utah; March 11, 1928; collected by A. W. Moore; X-catalogue number +28835 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--Sevier River Valley from Piute County north to southwestern +Juab and northeastern Millard counties, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size large (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff mixed with black in middorsal region; sides, flanks, +forearms, thighs and underparts Pinkish Buff; inguinal region, front +feet, hind feet, underpart of tail and end of tail white; postauricular +patches small and dusky; chin, cheeks, nose and top of head dusky. +Skull: Largest of Utah gophers, massive and angular; nasals long and +denticulate distally; rostrum long and relatively narrow; zygomatic +arches widely spreading and heavy throughout; jugals nearly vertical; +zygomatic processes of maxillae heavy and flaring out abruptly from +base of rostrum; union of zygomatic process of maxilla and jugal +greatly thickened; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals long; +posterior tongues of premaxillae relatively narrow; lacrimal processes +small; pterygoid hamulae long; interpterygoid space moderately +V-shaped, tending to be somewhat lyre-shaped in some specimens; +tympanic bullae somewhat flattened, only moderately inflated ventrally; +upper incisors long and narrow; molariform teeth actually large, but +relatively small. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _lenis_ can be distinguished from those of +_Thomomys bottae tivius_, _convexus_, _contractus_, _albicaudatus_, +_levidensis_, _centralis_ and _aureiventris_ by the following markedly +greater average measurements of males: Total length, 250 mm.; length of +nasals, 15.5; zygomatic breadth, 28.3; mastoid breadth, 22.5; and +length of rostrum, 18.3. Other distinguishing characters are: Zygomatic +arches more widely spreading; length of zygomatic processes of maxillae +greater; and relatively longer, narrower rostrum. + +_Remarks._--Twenty-one animals obtained from Lynndyl, Millard County, +are all intergrades between _lenis_ and _aureiventris_. They are like +_aureiventris_ in the shape of the zygomatic arches, and in the bowing +of the parietal crests. Slight intergradation with _centralis_ is +indicated by color and the shape of the nasals. The transverse arching +of the posterior part of the rostrum is indicative of some relationship +with _contractus_. In six other characters studied they most closely +approach _lenis_ to which they are here referred. + +Large size is the distinctive feature of _Thomomys bottae lenis_. The +skulls are the largest of any species or subspecies of _Thomomys_ found +in Utah. In total length, however, these animals are no longer than the +extremes found in other named races. When Goldman (1942:75) described +this race as new, he referred it to the species _Thomomys townsendii_, +but remarked that the animal from Richfield was different enough from +any other form then named to merit probably full specific status. I +know of no character other than size to separate _Thomomys townsendii_ +from _Thomomys bottae_, and since intergradation has been shown to +exist between these alleged _townsendii_ from Richfield and animals +from extreme western Utah known to belong to the species _bottae_, +_lenis_ is here arranged as a subspecies of _Thomomys bottae_ which +name has priority over _Geomys townsendii_. + +The range here ascribed to this race is the Sevier River Valley from +Piute County as far downstream as the town of Lynndyl which is near the +eastern mainland of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville. The Sevier River +continues farther out into Delta Valley ultimately to empty into Sevier +Lake, which at present is adjacent to the area that formerly +constituted the western mainland of the aforementioned ancient lake. +This watercourse may have provided a migration route in ancient times, +during the fluctuations of Lake Bonneville, whereby the animals +formerly of the western mainland were able to come far eastward. The +animals from Lynndyl which are intergrades between _lenis_, an eastern +mainland form, and _centralis_ and _aureiventris_ which are western +mainland forms of Lake Bonneville lend support to this hypothesis. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 26, distributed as follows: + _Millard County_: Lynndyl, 4,796 ft., 21. _Juab County_: U. + B. (= Yuba) Dam, 5,000 ft., 1. _Sevier County_: Salina, + 4,575 ft., 1; Richfield, 5,308 ft., 3. (U. S. N. M.). + + +=Thomomys bottae levidensis= Goldman + + _Thomomys bottae levidensis_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 55:76, June 25, 1942. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 191962, U. S. National Museum +(Merriam Collection); Manti, 5,500 ft., Sanpete County, Utah; December +6, 1888; collected by Vernon Bailey; original number 427 (after +Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--San Pitch River Valley, Sanpete County, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts and +sides Cinnamon Buff, finely mixed with black along median line of back; +underparts Pinkish Buff; nose, cheeks and chin grayish black; +postauricular patches fairly large and grayish black; front and hind +feet white (examples from type series badly stained); tail light buff +but apparently white distally (the color of these specimens has +apparently changed with age). Skull: Small, fairly robust; basilar +length short; zygomatic arches weak, but widely spreading; tympanic +bullae small; nasals short and simple distally; ventral margin of +jugals convex dorsally; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +relatively as well as actually long; posterior tongues of premaxillae +relatively wide. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _levidensis_ differ from those of +_Thomomys bottae absonus_ as follows: Size smaller. Color: Lighter +throughout. Skull: Shorter, weaker and less ridged and angular, but +relatively wider. + +Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_, _levidensis_ +differs as follows: Size smaller in every measurement taken. Color: +Markedly lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken; +width relatively greater; skull smooth, weak and nonangular as opposed +to ridged, robust and angular. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae lenis_ and _contractus_ see +accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--The range here ascribed to _levidensis_ is the San Pitch +River Valley, which gradually merges southward into the Sevier River +Valley. The latter valley in this area is inhabited by pocket gophers +that belong to another subspecies, _lenis_. Nephi Valley to the west of +San Pitch River Valley is inhabited by animals belonging to the +subspecies _albicaudatus_. No known specimens show intergradation +between _lenis_ and _levidensis_, but intergradation between _lenis_ +and _albicaudatus_ is noted in the Nephi Valley animals (see account of +_albicaudatus_). Superficially _levidensis_ resembles _absonus_ in size +and color, but the skulls closely resemble those of _albicaudatus_, +except for size in which they are smaller in all measurements. _T. b. +albicaudatus_ is the most variable subspecies of _T. bottae_ occurring +in Utah, and additional material from the Sevier River Valley between +San Pitch River Valley and Nephi Valley may show _levidensis_ to be +only a local variant of the highly variable subspecies, _albicaudatus_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 6, from the type locality. + + +=Thomomys bottae osgoodi= Goldman + + _Thomomys perpallidus osgoodi_ Goldman, Journ. Washington + Acad. Sci., 21:424, October 19, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae osgoodi_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156; October 31, 1935. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 158530, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Hanksville, Wayne County, Utah; +October 20, 1908; collected by W. H. Osgood; original number 3701 +(after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--Eastern Utah in the valleys of the drainage of the San +Rafael, Dirty Devil and Price rivers. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts near +(_e_) Pale Ochraceous Buff, definitely yellow in appearance; sides Pale +Ochraceous Buff; entire underparts white, with a wash of Light Buff in +the pectoral and inguinal regions; top of head, nose, cheeks, and chin +dusky; postauricular patches grayish black; front feet, hind feet and +distal part of tail white. Skull: Fairly robust but narrow; zygomatic +arches concave medially in mid-jugal region; skull moderately convex +dorsally, due to swelling in region of base of rostrum; lambdoidal +suture situated well ahead of posterior margin of skull, with +supraoccipital forming a side shelf at posterior part of skull; +interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped; tympanic bullae well inflated +ventrally; basioccipital short; nasals rounded posteriorly; molariform +teeth large. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _osgoodi_ differ from those of _Thomomys +bottae absonus_ as follows: Size generally smaller. Color: Lighter +throughout, more yellowish in appearance as opposed to buffy. Skull: +Smaller in all measurements, except length of nasals, mastoid breadth, +and alveolar length of upper molar series which are larger; rostrum +shorter but relatively wider; zygomatic arches more robust and concave +medially; palate wider; supraoccipital more bulging posteriorly; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae aureus_ and _T. b. dissimilis_ +see accounts of those forms. + +_Remarks._--The animals here referred to _osgoodi_ are remarkably +uniform in color, but vary widely in cranial details. Specimens from +Carbon County are not typical and when more material becomes available +it may prove that these animals from the northern part of the range of +_osgoodi_ will merit separation and naming. The specimens from Emery +County are not typical but resemble _osgoodi_ more than do the animals +from Carbon County. + +The range here ascribed to _osgoodi_ is in that part of the eastern +Utah desert that is bounded on the east by the Green and Colorado +rivers, on the west by the high mountains of central Utah, on the north +by the Book Cliffs and on the south by the Dirty Devil River. This area +is an uninviting wasteland in which there are relatively few roads and +little water. In addition, it is greatly cut up by washes and gullies +which contain water only during a few weeks of the year. The +continuation of this area of wasteland southward beyond the Dirty Devil +River is inhabited by pocket gophers belonging to the subspecies +_absonus_. If specimens were available they would undoubtedly show +intergradation to exist between _osgoodi_ and _absonus_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 14, distributed as follows: + _Carbon County_: 1-2 mi. N Spring Glen, 6,150 ft., 2; Spring + Glen, 6,200 ft., 2; 2 mi. E Spring Glen, 6,200 ft., 1. + _Emery County_: Price River, 2 mi. SE Woodside, 4,600 ft., 2 + (C. M.); Green River, 4,080 ft., 5 (M. V. Z.). _Wayne + County_: Hanksville, 2 (U. S. N. M.). + + +=Thomomys bottae howelli= Goldman + + _Thomomys bottae howelli_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 26:116, March 15, 1936. + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 25684, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); Grand Junction, 4,600 ft., Mesa +County, Colorado; November 7, 1895; collected by A. H. Howell; original +number 493 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--In the valleys of eastern Utah, east of the Green River and +north of the Colorado River. + +_Diagnosis and Comparisons._--Inasmuch as there is but one specimen, +the holotype known, and as it was impossible to study it, the following +diagnoses and comparisons are from Goldman, (1936:116). + +"_General characters._--A rather large, pallid subspecies with a broad, +flattened cranium. Similar to the palest specimens of _Thomomys bottae +aureus_ of the San Juan River Valley, southeastern Utah, in color, but +underparts more thinly overlaid with buffy white, and cranial +characters, especially the broad, flat braincase, distinctive. +Approaching _Thomomys bottae osgoodi_ of the Fremont River Valley, +Utah, in color, but much larger and skull widely different. + +"_Color._--Type (winter pelage): Upper parts in general between tilleul +buff and pale olive buff (Ridgway 1912), somewhat darkened on head by a +mixture of cinnamon buff and brown; a few inconspicuous dusky-tipped +hairs along median line of back; muzzle dusky; ears and postauricular +spots deep, contrasting black; underparts thinly overlaid with buffy +white, the hairs becoming pure white to roots on inguinal region; +thighs pure white to roots all around; feet white; tail buffy whitish, +slightly paler below than above. + +"_Skull._--Similar in general to that of _T. b. aureus_, but braincase +conspicuously broader and flatter; zygomata more widely spreading; +nasals shorter; premaxillae more attenuate posteriorly; interparietal +larger; audital bullae more rounded and fully inflated anteriorly; +incisors short, as in _aureus_, but less strongly recurved. Compared +with that of _T. b. osgoodi_ the skull is much larger, with flatter +braincase, shorter nasals, and posteriorly narrower premaxillae." + +_Remarks._--Six specimens, in the Carnegie Museum from 10 miles north +of Moab, Grand County, Utah, were available for this study. They are +not typical of _howelli_ as it is diagnosed by Goldman (_loc. cit._). +They appear to be intergrades between _howelli_ and _osgoodi_ in +cranial characters, but more closely resemble _howelli_, particularly +in the flat, widened, low braincase. In color, some specimens seem to +intergrade toward _aureus_. + +The range ascribed to this form in Utah appears to be one of the most +natural ones within the state since it is bounded by the Green and +Colorado rivers which have formed deep rocky gorges in this region. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 6, as follows: _Grand County_: + 10 mi. N Moab, 6 (C. M.). + + +=Thomomys bottae wahwahensis= Durrant + + _Thomomys bottae wahwahensis_ Durrant, Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 + (No. 4):4, August 18, 1937. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 1750, Museum of Zooelogy, +University of Utah, Wah Wah Springs, 30 mi. W Milford, 6,500 ft., +Beaver County, Utah; July 22, 1936; collected by S. D. Durrant; +original number 989. + +_Range._--Westcentral Utah, in Wah Wah Mountains, and Pine Valley to +the west of these mountains. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Pinkish Buff; underparts Pale Pinkish Buff with considerable admixture +of gray; inguinal and pectoral regions Pale Pinkish Buff; nose and +cheeks grayish black; postauricular patches small and black; front +feet, hind feet and distal one-third to one-half of tail white. Skull: +Flat dorsoventrally; rostrum short and wide; premaxillae broad and +heavy; nasals short and straight, with no arching as viewed laterally; +tympanic bullae small; space enclosed within zygomatic arches short +antero-posteriorly; alveolar length of upper molar series short; +molariform teeth small. + +_Comparisons._--From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, +_wahwahensis_ differs as follows: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Lighter, Pinkish Buff as opposed to Cinnamon Buff. Skull: +Rostrum wider, shorter and more nearly flat; nasals straight as opposed +to moderately convex; tympanic bullae smaller and less inflated +ventrally; zygomatic arches more widely spreading and angular; +molariform teeth smaller; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +less. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae albicaudatus_, _wahwahensis_ differs +as follows: Hind foot shorter. Color: Lighter throughout, Pinkish Buff +as opposed to (13''''_n_) Black. Skull: Smaller and more nearly flat; +rostrum shorter, wider and more nearly flat; nasals straight as opposed +to convex; zygomatic breadth less but mastoid breadth greater; tympanic +bullae smaller, and less inflated ventrally; extension of premaxillae +posterior to nasals less; molariform teeth smaller. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureiventris_, _wahwahensis_ differs +in the following features: Size smaller; hind foot shorter. Color: +Lighter throughout, no "gold" on underparts. Skull: Smaller in nearly +every measurement taken; rostrum shorter and relatively wider; +zygomatic arches more angular and relatively more widely spreading; +nasals shorter and more nearly flat; thickening at union of jugal and +zygomatic process of maxilla less; interpterygoid space V-shaped as +opposed to lyre-shaped; tympanic bullae much smaller, and less inflated +ventrally; molariform teeth much smaller. + +Topotypes of _wahwahensis_ can be easily distinguished from those of +_Thomomys bottae tivius_ by their markedly larger size in every +measurement taken, lighter color, and larger, more robust and more +nearly flat skull. + +For comparisons of _wahwahensis_ with _Thomomys bottae sevieri_, +_robustus_, _bonnevillei_ and _convexus_ see comparisons under those +forms. + +Among the named races of _Thomomys bottae_, _wahwahensis_ definitely +has its affinities with _planirostris_ from Zion National Park. Both +possess flat skulls with wide, short rostra. It differs from the latter +in: Size smaller in every measurement taken. Color: Lighter throughout. +Skulls: Nasals and rostrum shorter and more nearly flat; tympanic +bullae markedly smaller; alveolar length of upper molar series shorter; +molariform teeth markedly smaller and weaker. + +_Remarks._--Wah Wah Springs, the type locality of _wahwahensis_, are on +the summit of a low pass in the Wah Wah Mountains in the desert of west +central Utah. The surrounding valleys, for many miles, as far as my +investigations show, are not inhabited by pocket gophers, except the +Desert Range Experiment Station of the United States Forest Service in +Pine Valley to the west of these mountains. There, pocket gophers were +obtained which are intergrades between _centralis_ and _wahwahensis_. +In five out of seven characters investigated these gophers resemble +_wahwahensis_, to which they are here referred. Study of the topography +reveals the probable means by which the animals reached this valley. +The long axis of the Wah Wah Mountains is north and south, but a +westward arm forms the northern boundary of Pine Valley. Around springs +in this westward projecting arm workings of pocket gophers were found. +With the development of water at the Desert Range Experiment Station, +and subsequent improvement of forage, these animals probably came down +into the valley from the springs to the north. + +The terrain between the Desert Range Experiment Station in Pine Valley +and Snake Creek (where _centralis_ occurs) to the west is not inhabited +by pocket gophers at present. This area, however, forms part of the +southwest mainland of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville, which mainland in +times past was probably suitable for pocket gophers. Since the close of +the Pleistocene, aridity has rendered most of it unfit for pocket +gophers, and they remain only in isolated areas where suitable +environments still persist. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 18, distributed as follows: + _Millard County_: Desert Range Experiment Station, United + States Forest Service, Sec. 9, T. 25 S, R. 17 W, Salt Lake + Base Meridian, 6. _Beaver County_: Wah Wah Springs, Wah Wah + Mountains, 30 mi. W Milford, 6,500 ft., 12 (2, M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys bottae dissimilis= Goldman + + _Thomomys perpallidus dissimilis_ Goldman, Journ. Washington + Acad. Sci., 21:425, October 19, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae dissimilis_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Female, adult, skin and skull, No. 158526, U. S. National +Museum (Biological Surveys Collection); E slope Mount Ellen, Henry +Mountains, 8,000 ft., Garfield County, Utah; October 15, 1908; +collected by W. H. Osgood; original number 3677 (after Goldman, type +not seen). + +_Range._--Known only from the type locality. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts Light +Buff, grading over sides to nearly white on underparts; underparts +lightly washed with Pale Buff, more marked in inguinal and pectoral +regions; postauricular patches grayish black; nose, chin, cheeks and +top of head dusky; front feet, hind feet and distal half of tail white. +Skull: Small and weak; zygomatic arches long, but lying close to skull, +giving it a slender appearance; supraoccipital markedly projecting +posteriorly from lambdoidal suture; rostrum relatively long and narrow; +nasals long; tympanic bullae well inflated ventrally, with a median +ventral ridge; pterygoid hamulae weak; interpterygoid space narrowly +V-shaped; upper incisors short and light in color; molariform teeth +relatively large. + +_Comparisons._--Comparison of one topotype of _dissimilis_ with +topotypes of _Thomomys bottae aureus_ shows it to differ as follows: +Size smaller throughout. Color: Lighter dorsally and on sides, pale +buff as contrasted with rich ochraceous; underparts more buffy. Skull: +Smaller in every measurement taken; zygomatic arches markedly less +widely spreading; braincase narrower and more vaulted; tympanic bullae +with a median ventral ridge as opposed to smooth; pterygoid hamulae +slenderer; interpterygoid space narrowly V-shaped as opposed to +U-shaped; upper incisors smaller and lighter in color. + +Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae absonus_, _dissimilis_ +differs in the following features: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Lighter throughout. Skull: Smaller in every measurement +taken, except alveolar length of upper molar series which is greater; +skull narrower and weaker; zygomatic arches weaker and less widely +spreading; tympanic bullae more ridged on ventral surface and shorter +(more rounded) in antero-posterior measurement; upper incisors shorter +and narrower; molariform teeth larger. + +_Thomomys bottae dissimilis_ resembles _T. b. osgoodi_ more than any +other subspecies but differs in: Size smaller throughout. Color: +Slightly darker dorsally. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken, +and slenderer; rostrum relatively longer; zygomatic arches weaker, and +less widely spreading, more converging anteriorly; tympanic bullae less +rounded, more ridged medioventrally; upper incisors shorter but +narrower; molariform teeth smaller. + +_Remarks._--The Henry Mountains, in eastern Garfield County, are in the +Colorado River drainage. The surrounding country is desertlike and cut +by gullies and washes with sheer escarpments and precipitous draws. The +type locality of _dissimilis_ is possibly in an isolated area. Only +three specimens were available to Goldman when he named _dissimilis_. +He commented on the close resemblance to _osgoodi_ which inhabits the +country to the north. I have examined only one of the three specimens +available to Goldman. Although I can see the characters that he +mentioned, I am not fully convinced that _dissimilis_ is separable from +_osgoodi_. Two specimens from Escalante, Garfield County, are referred +to _absonus_, but they show intergradation with _dissimilis_. + + _Specimens examined._--One (U. S. N. M.) from E slope Mount + Ellen, Henry Mountains, 8,000 ft., Garfield County. + + +=Thomomys bottae aureus= Allen + + _Thomomys aureus_ Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 5:49, + April 28, 1893. + + _Thomomys bottae aureus_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Benson, Univ. + California Publ. Zooel., 40:450, December 31, 1935. + + _Thomomys fulvus aureus_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 21:417, October 19, 1931; Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 23:464, October 15, 1933. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:74, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--No. 5243/4123. American Museum of Natural History; Bluff City, +San Juan County, Utah; May 12, 1892; collected by Charles P. Rowley +(after Allen, type not seen). + +_Range._--All of San Juan County (except extreme southwestern part) and +Grand County east of the Colorado River. + +_Diagnosis._--Size large (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, lighter on sides; underparts generally white, or if +colored at all with only a faint wash of Light Buff; nose and chin +blackish gray; top of head blackish due to admixture of black hairs; +postauricular patches small and dusky; front feet and hind feet white. +Skull: Long, narrow but massive; zygomatic arches not widely spreading, +but heavy; jugals thick, union of jugals and zygomatic processes of +maxillae thickened; rostrum long but wide; top of rostrum convex in +lateral view; ascending processes of premaxillae wide and heavy; nasals +thin proximally; braincase long and narrow; tympanic bullae well +inflated ventrally; alveolar length of upper molar series long; molars +large; pterygoid hamulae heavy; interpterygoid space U-shaped; palate +arched; upper incisors long and wide. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae osgoodi_, +_aureus_ differs as follows: Size larger in every measurement taken, +except tail which is shorter. Color: Darker throughout except on +ventral surface which is lighter. Skull: Larger, longer and wider; +nasals longer; rostrum wider and longer; zygomatic arches more nearly +straight and heavier; ascending processes of premaxillae wider; +basioccipital longer; interpterygoid space U-shaped as opposed to +V-shaped; tympanic bullae larger; upper incisors longer, wider; molars +larger. + +Topotypical specimens of _aureus_ can be distinguished from those of +_Thomomys bottae dissimilis_ by: Size larger throughout. Color: A +trifle darker on dorsal surface. Skull: Larger in every measurement +taken; zygomatic arches heavier and more nearly straight; tympanic +bullae larger and more inflated ventrally; interpterygoid space +U-shaped as opposed to V-shaped; alveolar length of upper molar series +longer; molars larger; upper incisors longer and wider. + +Topotypes of _aureus_ differ from those of _Thomomys bottae absonus_ as +follows: Size larger in every measurement taken. Color: Darker +dorsally, Light Ochraceous as opposed to Cinnamon Buff; due to +admixture of gray, _absonus_ has more of a grayish cast. Skull: Larger +in every measurement taken, longer, narrower and more compact; +zygomatic arches heavier; ascending processes of premaxillae wider; +jugals heavier; tympanic bullae larger; interpterygoid space U-shaped +rather than V-shaped; upper incisors longer and wider; molars larger. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae planirostris_, _aureus_ can be +distinguished as follows: Size larger; tail shorter. Color: Lighter +throughout. Skull: Larger in every measurement taken except zygomatic +breadth, extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals, and length of +upper molariform series which are less; rostrum longer, wider and more +convex; nasals slightly arched rather than straight; depression absent +rather than present in posterior region of nasals; zygomatic arches not +so widely spreading, but equally heavy. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae alexandrae_, see accounts under +that form. + +_Remarks._--Topotypes of _aureus_ are among the largest pocket gophers +in the state. They are exceeded in total length only by _T. b. lenis_ +and are approached by _T. b. aureiventris_ and _T. b. planirostris_. On +the average they have the longest hind foot, body and ear. The length +of the skull is second only to that of _lenis_ as also is the length +and breadth of the rostrum relative to the basilar length. + +From the time of the original description of _aureus_ in 1893 until +1930, all light colored gophers from Utah were referred to that form. +Barnes (1927:100) gives the range of _aureus_ as extending completely +across southern Utah and on the west and east sides as far north as +central Utah. Since 1930, forms named by E. R. Hall, W. H. Burt, E. A. +Goldman and the writer have restricted the range of _aureus_ in Utah to +that part of the state east of the Colorado River. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 22, as follows: _San Juan + County_: Bluff, 3,300 ft., 22 (15, M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys bottae birdseyei= Goldman + + _Thomomys bottae birdseyei_ Goldman. Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 50:134, September 10, 1937. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male, adult skin and skull, No. 161654. U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Pine Valley Mountains, 5 mi. E Pine +Valley, 8,300 ft., Washington County, Utah; April 10, 1909; collected +by Clarence Birdseye; original number 861 (after Goldman, type not +seen). + +_Range._--High mountains and plateaus of southwestern Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +between Cinnamon and Sayal Brown, finely mixed with black in median +dorsal region, grading over sides and flanks to Cinnamon on underparts; +front feet, hind feet, and distal part of tail white; postauricular +patches, chin, cheeks and top of head grayish black. Skull: Depressed +along median line of frontals and posterior ends of nasals; region of +nasofrontal suture concave ventrally; zygomatic arches heavy and widely +spreading, widest posteriorly; posterior ends of nasals straight, +tending to be somewhat rounded in some specimens; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals moderate; tympanic bullae moderately +inflated ventrally; basioccipital wide; interpterygoid space widely +V-shaped. + +_Comparisons._--Topotypes of _birdseyei_ differ from near topotypes of +_Thomomys bottae virgineus_, from Beaverdam Wash as follows: Size +larger; tail and hind foot longer. Color: Darker throughout, between +Cinnamon and Sayal Brown as opposed to Cinnamon Buff. Skull: Larger in +every measurement taken except extension of premaxillae posterior to +nasals, and length and width of rostrum which are less; skull more +depressed in nasofrontal region; zygomatic arches more widely +spreading; zygomatic processes of squamosals shorter; pterygoid hamulae +longer; tympanic bullae smaller and less inflated ventrally. + +Among named races of _T. bottae_, _birdseyei_ most closely resembles +_trumbullensis_ in size, but differs as follows: Hind foot and tail +longer. Color: Lighter throughout; postauricular patches smaller and +lighter. Skull: Larger; mastoid breadth less; zygomatic arches wider +and more widely spreading posteriorly; median frontal depression more +marked; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; tympanic +bullae less inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger. + +For comparisons with _Thomomys bottae planirostris_ see account of that +form. + +_Remarks._--_T. b. birdseyei_ is apparently endemic to the mountainous +area of southwestern Utah in Washington and Iron counties. It +intergrades with _virgineus_ and with _planirostris_ as described in +the account of the latter. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 8, distributed as follows: + _Washington County_: Pine Valley, 1 (U. S. N. M.); Pine + Valley Mountains, 5 mi. E Pine Valley, 8,300 ft., 3 (U. S. + N. M.); Pine Valley campground, 6,800 ft., 1 (R. H.); 3/4 + mi. E town of Pine Valley, 6,500 ft., 3 (R. H.). + + _Additional records._--_Washington County_: Hebron, 1; + Mountain Meadows, 2 (Bailey 1915:75). + + +=Thomomys bottae virgineus= Goldman + + _Thomomys bottae virgineus_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 50:133, September 10, 1937. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 262016, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Beaverdam Creek, near confluence with +Virgin River, Littlefield, 1,500 ft., Mohave County, Arizona; October +16, 1936; collected by Luther C. Goldman; original number 67 (after +Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--Extreme southwestern Utah, in Beaverdam Wash, Washington +County, Utah. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, finely mixed with black; sides and flanks Pinkish Buff; +underparts Pale Pinkish Buff; front feet, hind feet, and distal part of +tail white; nose, cheeks, chin and top of head grayish black. Skull: +Robust, with moderately wide zygomatic arches; zygomatic processes of +maxillae wide; zygomatic processes of squamosals long; jugals concave +laterally, giving the zygomatic arches the appearance of double bowing; +nasals long; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals long; +tympanic bullae well inflated ventrally; pterygoid hamulae heavy; +interpterygoid space widely V-shaped; molariform teeth large. + +_Comparisons._--For comparisons of _virgineus_ with _Thomomys bottae +planirostris_ and _T. b. birdseyei_ see accounts under those forms. + +Topotypical specimens of _virgineus_ can be distinguished from those of +_Thomomys bottae trumbullensis_ as follows: Size smaller. Color: +Lighter throughout. Skull: Zygomatic arches less widely spreading; +jugals more bowed medially; zygomatic processes of squamosals longer; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; tympanic bullae +larger and more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger. + +Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae centralis_, _virgineus_ +differs in: Size smaller; tail shorter; hind foot smaller. Color: +Deeper Cinnamon Buff, thus darker in overall appearance. Skull: +Smaller, but relatively wider; zygomatic processes of maxillae heavier; +region of maxillo-jugal sutures thicker; jugals more concave laterally; +tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth larger. + +_Remarks._--This pocket gopher occupies practically the same range in +Utah as the large kangaroo rat _Dipodomys deserti deserti_ Stephens. +Both are found in the Beaverdam Wash. The type locality of _virgineus_ +is but a short distance down the Beaverdam Creek at Littlefield, +Arizona. It intergrades with _birdseyei_, the mountain form to the +north and east (see remarks under _birdseyei_). There are evidences of +intergradation with _planirostris_ of the Virgin River Valley above the +narrows of the Virgin River where it cuts through the Beaverdam +Mountains (see the discussion under _planirostris_). There are +intergradational tendencies exhibited towards _centralis_ in some +specimens. Some of the animals are practically indistinguishable in +color and there are intergrading cranial characters in the nasals, +zygomatic arches and tympanic bullae. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 20, distributed as follows: + _Washington County_: Beaverdam Wash, 8 mi. N Utah-Arizona + border, 7; Beaverdam Wash, 5 mi. N Utah-Arizona border, + 2,600 ft., 13. + + +=Thomomys bottae planirostris= Burt + + _Thomomys perpallidus planirostris_ Burt, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 44:38, May 8, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae planirostris_ Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. + Soc. Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934; Goldman, Proc. + Biol. Soc. Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935; Presnall, + Zion-Bryce Mus. Bull., 2:14, January, 1938; Long, Journ. + Mamm., 21:176, May 14, 1940. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927; + Woodbury, Ecological Monographs, 3:193, April, 1933. + + _Thomomys bottae centralis_ Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934; Presnall, Zion-Bryce + Mus. Bull., 2:14, January, 1938. + + _Thomomys perpallidus centralis_ Hall, Univ. California + Publ. Zooel., 23:445, July 8, 1930. + + _Thomomys bottae nicholi_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. + Sci., 28:337, July 15, 1938, type from Shivwits Plateau, 20 + mi. S Wolf Hole (road to Parashonts), 5,000 ft., Mohave + County, Arizona; Hardy, Ecological Monographs, 15:98, + January, 1945. + + _Thomomys bottae trumbullensis_ Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. + Soc. Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 8395, Collection of Donald R. +Dickey; Zion National Park, Washington County, Utah; May 4, 1920; +collected by A. Brazier Howell; original number 2184 (after Burt, type +not seen). + +_Range._--Valley of the Virgin River from Zion National Park west to +the Beaverdam Mountains. + +_Diagnosis._--Size large (see measurements); tail long. Color: Upper +parts Sayal Brown; underparts between Vinaceous Cinnamon and Cinnamon, +grading to Pinkish Cinnamon in some specimens; nose, chin, cheeks, +postauricular patches, and top of head grayish black; front feet and +hind feet white; tail Pinkish Buff, with distal third white. Skull: +Massive and ridged; nasals straight and flat, simple distally; dorsal +surface of rostrum slightly concave at proximal end of nasals; +zygomatic arches widely spreading, widest posteriorly; zygomatic +processes of maxillae heavy; premaxillae broad and extending far beyond +posterior end of nasals; rostrum wide and heavy; palate slightly +arched; pterygoid hamulae heavy; interpterygoid space V-shaped; +tympanic bullae moderately inflated ventrally, somewhat compressed +laterally; upper incisors long and heavy; molariform teeth large. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae birdseyei_, +_planirostris_ differs as follows: Size larger, except total length +which averages slightly less in females. Color: Lighter throughout. +Skull: Larger in every measurement taken; more massive; rostrum wider, +longer and more nearly flat; nasals straight and not inflated dorsally +on distal end; premaxillae wider at posterior ends; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals greater; zygomatic arches heavier, +especially the zygomatic processes of the maxillae; posterior ends of +nasals more nearly truncate as opposed to generally rounded; tympanic +bullae more nearly flat and relatively smaller; upper incisors longer +and heavier; interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; molariform +teeth much heavier. + +Topotypes of _planirostris_ differ from near topotypes of _Thomomys +bottae virgineus_ as follows: Size larger; tail and hind foot longer. +Color: Slightly darker dorsally, but markedly darker ventrally; +postauricular patches smaller and lighter. Skull: Larger in every +measurement taken; skull more massive; nasals flat, neither arched nor +swollen distally; rostrum wider; nasofrontal region flattened or +concave as opposed to convex; premaxillae relatively narrower; +zygomatic arches heavier, especially in the processes of the maxillae; +tympanic bullae smaller and less inflated ventrally; interpterygoid +space generally more narrowly V-shaped; upper incisors longer and +heavier; molariform teeth larger. + +From topotypes of _Thomomys bottae trumbullensis_, _planirostris_ +differs in: Size larger throughout; tail longer. Color: Much lighter +throughout. Skull: More convex dorsally; rostrum wider and more +depressed distally; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +greater; zygomatic arches shorter, and not as widely spreading +posteriorly; interpterygoid space more narrowly V-shaped; tympanic +bullae smaller; upper incisors wider and longer; molariform teeth +larger. + +Topotypes of _planirostris_ can be easily distinguished from those of +_Thomomys bottae absonus_ by darker color throughout and markedly +larger size. + +_Remarks._--From the synonomy at the beginning of this account one may +note that the animals here ascribed to this subspecies have had nearly +as many subspecific names applied to them as there have been +investigators who have written about them. Although each of the +previous writers had but a small amount of material upon which to base +his opinion, the diversity of opinion as to subspecific status bespeaks +the instability of these animals. The present study is based upon +eighty animals including additional comparative material. + +All animals from Zion National Park have the characters pointed out by +Burt (1931:38) in his description of this form. Farther down the +Virgin River Valley towards St. George, however, some very perplexing +problems of intergradation are encountered. St. George and environs may +correctly be thought of as a "melting pot." Each of the fifty-seven +animals studied from this region is an intergrade; some specimens +combine the characters of three subspecies. + +As may be seen on the distribution map, three different subspecies of +_Thomomys bottae_ occur in Washington County. Down the river, below St. +George, the race _virgineus_ inhabits the Virgin River Valley below the +narrows of the Beaverdam Mountains. Because these narrows are filled +with water from wall to wall during periods of high runoff, they form +an effective barrier at present to migration of pocket gophers. The +mountains to the north of St. George are inhabited by the dark form, +_birdseyei_. The type locality of _planirostris_ is on the middle +reaches of the Virgin River, in Zion National Park. In addition Mount +Trumbull to the south, in northern Arizona, is the locality of another +subspecies, _trumbullensis_. + +Unquestionably the easiest route of migration into the St. George area +is down the Virgin River from Zion National Park; no barrier to gophers +occurs between the Park and St. George. Although the animals from St. +George are all intergrades, the majority of their affinities as would +be expected are with _planirostris_ from Zion National Park. The river +itself is not an impassable barrier for gophers to the north and south +of it, since this stream frequently changes its course, and often +nearly dries up. The Virgin River Valley in Zion National Park is in +the bottom of a relatively deep, narrow canyon which has sheer rock +escarpments. The upper reaches of the river are inhabited by pocket +gophers of another species, _Thomomys talpoides_. + +Two specimens from St. George, north of the Virgin River, were +identified as _centralis_ by Hall and Davis (1934:52), but were stated +to be intergrades between _centralis_, _trumbullensis_ and +_planirostris_. Goldman (1938:338) referred twelve specimens from St. +George to _nicholi_, but stated that they intergraded with +_planirostris_. Twenty-six other specimens from three miles southwest +of St. George on the west side of Santa Clara Creek, about one-half +mile above its confluence with the Virgin River and on its north side, +like the topotypes of _planirostris_ were taken in May and have +complete, fresh summer pelage. With the exception of two specimens +which show the ventral color of _virgineus_, these animals are +indistinguishable in color from the topotypes of _planirostris_. A +study of eleven measurements of the males of this series yield the +following data: Like _planirostris_ in four measurements, _birdseyei_ +in one, _virgineus_ in one; intergrade between _planirostris_ and +_birdseyei_ in two, _planirostris_ and _virgineus_ in two and +_birdseyei_ and _virgineus_ in one. Corresponding measurements of the +females show the animals to be: Like _planirostris_ in four +measurements, _birdseyei_ in one, _virgineus_ in two; intergrade +between _planirostris_ and _birdseyei_ in two, _planirostris_ and +_virgineus_ in one and _birdseyei_ and _virgineus_ in one. In eight of +eleven measurements the males either are like _planirostris_ or +intergrade towards it, and the females are similarly allied to +_planirostris_ in seven out of eleven measurements. In none of the +measurements was either sex referable to _trumbullensis_. + +Intergradation was noted in still other cranial details. In the heavy, +relatively straight zygomatic arches, a majority of the skulls resemble +those of _planirostris_, although some show the elongated zygomatic +processes of the squamosals that are characteristic of _virgineus_. +Some skulls show a tendency toward _birdseyei_ in the widely spreading +posterior regions of the zygomatic arches. The nasals for the most part +are as in _planirostris_. Intergradation between all three subspecies +is shown in the extension of the premaxillae posterior to the nasals. +Some skulls show the lateral concavity of the jugals which is +characteristic of _virgineus_. The tympanic bullae are variable but on +the average are intermediate between those of _planirostris_ and +_birdseyei_, but more as in the latter. The size of the pterygoid +hamulae is like that of _planirostris_, but the shape of the +interpterygoid space is more like that of _birdseyei_. The size of the +molariform teeth is as in _birdseyei_. The incisors are intermediate +between those of _planirostris_ and _birdseyei_, but more like those of +_birdseyei_. + +Eighteen specimens from St. George and its environs, on the north side +of the Virgin River, agree with the twenty-six specimens just +described, except that they show more evidence of intergradation with +_birdseyei_ in slightly darker color, length of hind foot, length of +nasals and alveolar length of the upper molar series. + +One specimen from three miles south, two from two miles southwest, +another from four miles southeast of St. George, and four immature +animals from Short Creek Road south of the town of Virgin, all on the +south side of the Virgin River, are darker than topotypes of +_planirostris_ and show intergradation with _trumbullensis_ to the +south. In size they are likewise closer to the latter race. They +intergrade with _trumbullensis_ in the size and shape of the zygomatic +arches and tympanic bullae. In the majority of cranial details, +however, they are like _planirostris_ to which they are here referred. + +One specimen, a skin only, from Danish Ranch, 5 miles northwest of +Leeds, north of the Virgin River is an intergrade in size and color +between _birdseyei_ and _planirostris_, but referable to the latter. + +Three specimens from the East Entrance, and three from near the east +entrance to Zion National Park are much darker than topotypes of +_planirostris_. All of these animals are in worn pelage, thus allowing +a great amount of the black underfur to show, which gives a markedly +darker color. The unworn hair is only slightly darker than that of the +topotypes. The cranial details prove these animals to be intergrades +between _planirostris_ and _trumbullensis_. They resemble +_trumbullensis_ in size of tympanic bullae, extension of the +premaxillae posterior to the nasals and shape of the nasals. The +majority of the cranial details are as in _planirostris_ to which they +are here referred. + +When Goldman (1938:337) named _Thomomys bottae nicholi_ from northern +Arizona he referred twelve specimens from St. George, Washington +County, Utah, to his newly named race. He noted that the animals from +this region intergrade with _planirostris_. I have had occasion to +study one-fourth of the material available to Goldman for his original +description of _nicholi_. For his specimens listed as from St. George, +the exact locality of capture, which is so essential in this +distributional study, was not given. All of the specimens that I have +seen from the Biological Surveys Collection are from the south side of +the Virgin River, while St. George itself is on the north side. As +noted earlier in this account there are differences between the gophers +from the two sides of the Virgin River in this area. Those from the +north side are intergrades between _birdseyei_, _planirostris_ and +_virgineus_, while those from the south side are intergrades between +_planirostris_ and _trumbullensis_. + +Goldman (_loc. cit._) mentioned several times that the skulls of +nicholi were nearly indistinguishable from, or closely resembled those +of, _trumbullensis_. Color was the only truly diagnostic character +mentioned by Goldman. My study reveals the same differences and +likenesses found by Goldman, but I consider color alone insufficient +basis in this instance for establishing a new subspecies, and regard +_Thomomys bottae nicholi_ as a synonym of the earlier proposed name, +_Thomomys bottae trumbullensis_. + +The animals from the south side of the Virgin River, labelled as from +St. George, Washington County, heretofore referred by Goldman to +_nicholi_, are intergrades between _trumbullensis_ and _planirostris_ +and along with other specimens from the same place are referable to the +latter race. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 68, distributed as follows: + _Washington County_: Danish Ranch, 5 mi. NW Leeds, 1; Zion + National Park, 2 (M. V. Z.); Grotto Camp, Zion National + Park, 4,300 ft., 6 (N. H. M. S. D.); Springdale, 3,400 ft., + 4 (K. U.); near Short Creek Road, S town of Virgin, 4 (R. + H.); St. George, N Virgin River, 2,950 ft., 21 (4, M. V. Z.; + 8, R. H.; 9, N. H. M. S. D.); Santa Clara Creek, 3 mi. SW + St. George, 2,800 ft., 26; St. George, S Virgin River, 5 (2, + M. V. Z.; 3, U. S. N. M.); 2 mi. SE St. George, 2,950 ft., 2 + (N. H. M. S. D.); 3 mi. S St. George, 1 (C. M.); 4 mi. SE + St. George, S Virgin River, 1 (R. H.); 6 mi. S St. George, + 2,700 ft., 6 (K. U.). _Kane County_: East Entrance Zion + National Park, 5,725 ft., 3 (N. H. M. S. D.); near East + Entrance Zion National Park, 5,500 ft., 3 (N. H. M. S. D.). + + _Additional records._--_Washington County_: Zion National + Park, 22; Washington, 7 (Burt, 1931:39); St. George, 5; + Santa Clara, 2 (Bailey, 1915:75). + + +=Thomomys bottae absonus= Goldman + + _Thomomys perpallidus absonus_ Goldman, Journ. Washington + Acad. Sci., 21:425, October 19, 1931. + + _Thomomys bottae absonus_ Hall and Davis, Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 47:52, February 9, 1934; Goldman, Proc. Biol. + Soc. Washington, 48:156, October 31, 1935. + + _Thomomys perpallidus aureus_ Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 39:75, + November 15, 1915; Barnes, Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):85, + April, 1922; Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):100, June, 1927. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 250016, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); Jacobs Pools, Houserock Valley, 4,000 +ft., Coconino County, Arizona; June 7, 1931; collected by E. A. +Goldman; original number 23569 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--Southern Utah in Kane and Garfield counties, in the drainages +of Kanab Creek, Johnson Creek, Paria River and Escalante River. + +_Diagnosis._--Size medium (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Ochraceous Buff mixed with dusky; sides and underparts Light Ochraceous +Buff; chin, nose, cheeks and top of head grayish black; postauricular +patches black mixed with buff; front feet, hind feet, inguinal region +and distal third of tail white. Skull: Nasals relatively long; rostrum +narrow; ascending processes of premaxillae narrow; extension of +premaxillae posterior to nasals short; lambdoidal and sagittal crests +poorly developed; zygomatic arches light; jugals nearly straight; +palate narrow; molariform teeth small. + +_Comparisons._--Compared with topotypes of _Thomomys bottae +trumbullensis_, _absonus_ differs in: Size smaller. Color: Markedly +lighter throughout. Skull: Smoother, less angular; zygomatic arches +weak as opposed to robust; nasals more convex as viewed laterally; +extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals less; ascending processes +of premaxillae narrower; palate narrower; palatal pits shallower; +rostrum narrower; molariform teeth smaller. + +For comparisons of _absonus_ with _Thomomys bottae aureus_ see account +under that form. + +Among named races of _Thomomys bottae_, _absonus_ most closely +resembles _planirostris_, but can be distinguished from the topotypes +as follows: Size markedly smaller. Color: Lighter, more buffy +throughout. Skull: Smaller, less ridged and more nearly flat; nasals +convex as opposed to flat; extension of premaxillae posterior to nasals +less; width of ascending processes of premaxillae less; zygomatic +arches weaker; palate narrower; alveolar length of upper molar series +shorter; tympanic bullae more inflated ventrally; molariform teeth +smaller and lighter. + +_Remarks._--One specimen from Kanab is an intergrade between +_trumbullensis_ and _absonus_. The majority of its characters are with +_absonus_ to which it is referred (see Hall and Davis, 1934:52). Two +specimens from Escalante are intergrades between _absonus_ and +_dissimilis_, but are referable to _absonus_. + + _Specimens examined._--Total, 3, distributed as follows: + _Garfield County_: Escalante, 5,258 ft., 2 (B. Y. U.), _Kane + County_: Kanab, 4,925 ft., 1 (M. V. Z.). + + +=Thomomys bottae alexandrae= Goldman + + _Thomomys alexandrae_ Goldman, Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., + 23:464, October 15, 1933. + + _Thomomys bottae alexandrae_ Benson, Univ. California Publ. + Zooel., 40:449, December 31, 1935. + +_Type._--Male, adult, skin and skull, No. 250969, U. S. National Museum +(Biological Surveys Collection); 5 mi. SE Rainbow Lodge, near Navajo +Mountain, Coconino County, Arizona; June 16, 1933; collected by E. A. +Goldman; original number 23613 (after Goldman, type not seen). + +_Range._--In extreme southwestern San Juan County, Utah. Known only +from Navajo Mountain, probably limited to the area enclosed on the +north by the Colorado and San Juan rivers, on the east and west by +Navajo and Piute canyons, respectively. + +_Diagnosis._--Size small (see measurements). Color: Upper parts +Cinnamon Buff, grading over the sides to Pinkish Buff on underparts; +nose and top of head grayish black; hind feet and tail white; +postauricular patches large and dark. Skull: Small and not heavily +ridged; zygomatic arches widely spreading but weak; zygomatic arches +nearly parallel; tympanic bullae moderately inflated ventrally; palate +not arched; interpterygoid space U-shaped; dentition light. + +_Comparisons._--Compared to topotypes of _Thomomys bottae absonus_, +_alexandrae_ differs as follows: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Upper parts Cinnamon Buff as contrasted with Light +Ochraceous Buff. Skull: Smaller in every measurement taken except +interorbital breadth and alveolar length of upper molar series which +are larger; molariform teeth larger. + +Among named races of _Thomomys bottae_ occurring in Utah, _alexandrae_ +most resembles _T. b. aureus_ to the northeast. It can be distinguished +from topotypes of the latter by: Size smaller in every measurement +taken. Color: Darker throughout. Skull: Smaller, slenderer and more +nearly flat; palate nearly flat as opposed to arched; zygomatic arches +weaker and not so widely spreading; interparietal narrower; tympanic +bullae smaller; dentition weaker. + +_Remarks._--Goldman (1933:464) accorded _alexandrae_ full specific +status, because he found no intergradation with other races, from which +he thought _alexandrae_ had been isolated perhaps for thousands of +years by the barriers of the surrounding terrain. Benson (1935:450) +noted resemblances between _alexandrae_ and specimens of _latirostris_ +from Keams Canyon, Zuni Well, and Winslow in Navajo County, Arizona (= +_aureus_), and also between _alexandrae_ and _absonus_ from Houserock +Valley, Arizona. He thought that _alexandrae_ is no more differentiated +or isolated than each of several other kinds of desert pocket gophers, +and, therefore, accorded _alexandrae_ only subspecific status, as I, +also, am inclined to do. + + _Specimens examined._--One (M. V. Z.) from Soldier Spring, + Navajo Mountain, 8,600 ft., San Juan County. Fourteen + topotypes from Arizona also were examined. + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT MALES OF THOMOMYS + +(In millimeters) + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. b. aureiventris_, 4; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 243 67 32 36.4 14.7 26.5 21.5 6.6 7.9 2.4 .... ... +Min. 232 59 31 35.3 14.0 25.5 20.9 6.1 7.8 1.8 .... ... +Max. 253 72 33 37.1 15.3 27.3 22.3 6.9 8.0 3.4 .... ... + +_T. b. centralis_, 9; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 237 75 30 36.3 14.6 25.2 20.7 6.6 8.0 3.2 .... ... +Min. 215 61 29 34.5 13.9 24.6 19.7 5.8 7.5 2.2 .... ... +Max. 250 83 32 38.0 15.9 26.1 21.9 7.2 8.7 4.5 .... ... + +_T. b. albicaudatus_, 7; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 228 65 31 35.4 14.0 26.1 20.5 6.6 8.1 3.2 .... ... +Min. 223 59 29 34.9 13.4 24.9 19.8 6.4 7.8 3.0 .... ... +Max. 235 72 32 36.1 15.1 27.8 21.1 6.9 8.4 3.8 .... ... + +_T. b. robustus_, 9; topotypes +Av. 222 65 29 34.1 13.6 26.0 20.8 6.4 7.8 2.7 15.7 8.4 +Min. 214 59 28 32.6 13.0 25.2 20.0 6.1 7.3 2.0 14.7 8.1 +Max. 236 70 31 35.7 14.4 26.7 21.5 6.7 8.2 3.0 17.0 8.8 + +_T. b. stansburyi_, 5; topotypes +Av. 206 60 28 32.3 12.4 22.4 19.1 6.3 7.6 2.8 14.7 7.5 +Min. 198 58 26 30.6 12.0 21.5 18.2 6.2 7.0 2.5 14.1 7.1 +Max. 215 68 31 33.4 13.0 23.1 20.1 6.5 8.0 3.0 15.4 7.8 + +_T. b. nesophilus_, 4; topotypes +Av. 230 69 32 35.3 14.4 25.5 20.4 6.8 8.4 2.5 17.1 8.2 +Min. 220 60 30 33.6 14.1 24.9 19.8 6.5 8.2 2.1 16.4 7.6 +Max. 242 75 33 36.5 14.8 26.2 21.1 7.1 8.7 2.9 18.4 8.6 + +_T. b. minimus_, 2; topotypes +Av. 184 60 25 30.7 11.3 21.3 18.7 6.4 7.4 2.5 13.9 7.5 +Min. 179 55 24 28.7 10.2 20.2 17.8 6.3 7.3 2.5 12.9 7.0 +Max. 189 64 26 32.8 12.5 22.4 19.6 6.4 7.6 2.5 15.0 7.9 + +_T. b. lenis_, 2; topotypes +Av. 251 80 32 39.7 16.0 28.6 22.6 6.8 8.3 3.4 18.4 8.8 +Min. 248 74 31 39.4 15.8 28.4 22.4 6.6 8.2 3.0 17.9 8.6 +Max. 255 86 32 29.9 16.2 28.7 22.7 6.9 8.5 3.7 18.8 8.9 + +_T. b. contractus_, 8; topotypes +Av. 229 74 31 33.3 12.5 23.7 19.1 6.6 7.6 3.0 15.4 7.3 +Min. 209 63 28 30.0 10.9 21.4 17.7 6.3 7.2 2.4 13.5 6.5 +Max. 255 85 33 37.4 14.5 26.4 20.9 6.9 8.0 3.5 18.2 8.0 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT MALES OF THOMOMYS--_Continued_ + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +No. 191959 (U. S. N. M.) _T. b. levidensis_, 1; topotype + 222 65 28 33.3 12.7 24.5 19.0 6.5 7.6 3.3 15.1 8.0 + +_T. b. convexus_, 6; topotypes +Av. 213 59 28 33.1 14.3 24.9 21.7 6.6 8.0 2.6 16.2 8.2 +Min. 206 57 27 31.3 13.9 23.8 21.0 6.5 7.7 2.1 15.2 8.0 +Max. 233 68 29 35.0 14.6 26.7 22.3 6.8 8.1 2.8 17.2 8.6 + +_T. b. tivius_, 7; topotypes +Av. 208 69 27 31.5 12.2 22.4 18.4 6.4 7.2 2.4 14.0 7.1 +Min. 199 67 25 29.3 11.9 20.6 17.1 6.0 7.0 2.1 13.2 6.5 +Max. 227 70 30 34.1 12.8 25.0 19.8 6.6 7.6 3.0 15.0 7.9 + +_T. b. bonnevillei_, 3; topotypes +Av. 228 70 30 35.4 13.9 26.4 21.8 6.6 8.1 3.7 17.6 8.5 +Min. 221 62 30 33.6 13.2 25.4 20.5 6.5 8.1 3.4 16.1 8.2 +Max. 236 79 30 37.4 14.9 28.0 22.5 6.7 8.1 4.3 18.1 8.7 + +_T. b. sevieri_, 3; topotypes +Av. 216 67 30 32.7 12.9 22.9 18.7 6.4 7.2 2.5 15.3 7.6 +Min. 210 66 29 31.7 11.8 22.2 18.0 6.2 7.0 1.8 14.5 7.5 +Max. 222 68 31 33.5 13.5 23.4 19.3 6.7 7.2 3.0 16.4 7.7 + +_T. b. wahwahensis_, 4; topotypes +Av. 228 66 29 34.7 13.5 25.5 20.7 6.6 7.3 2.3 15.7 8.7 +Min. 210 60 26 33.0 13.1 24.6 20.1 6.5 7.0 2.2 14.9 8.5 +Max. 250 78 30 37.6 14.6 27.0 21.4 6.8 8.0 2.5 17.1 9.0 + +_T. b. planirostris_, 8; topotypes (Burt, 1931:39) +Av. 238 76 32 35.6 13.8 25.9 20.4 6.6 8.5 3.7 .... 8.8 +Min. 222 66 31 33.3 12.5 24.4 19.8 6.2 8.2 3.0 .... 8.3 +Max. 261 83 34 38.7 15.3 27.6 21.3 7.2 8.9 4.5 .... 9.4 + +_T. b. birdseyei_, 3; topotypes +Av. 227 64 31 34.9 13.8 26.2 20.9 6.2 8.4 2.6 16.3 8.3 +Min. 214 52 30 34.5 13.1 26.0 20.1 6.0 8.1 2.2 16.0 8.2 +Max. 243 81 32 35.2 14.1 27.4 21.5 6.5 8.8 2.8 16.9 8.4 + +_T. b. virgineus_, 5; Beaverdam Wash, 5 mi. N Utah-Arizona Line +Av. 226 68 29 34.6 13.5 25.6 20.7 6.3 8.0 3.0 16.5 8.5 +Min. 216 62 27 33.5 12.8 25.0 20.0 6.1 7.6 2.4 15.3 8.3 +Max. 235 70 30 34.9 14.4 26.0 21.1 6.6 8.4 3.5 17.4 8.7 + +_T. b. aureus_, 3; topotypes +Av. 242 68 34 36.6 14.3 25.3 21.4 6.6 8.3 2.4 17.2 8.7 +Min. 233 65 32 35.3 13.8 24.6 20.6 6.4 7.7 2.0 16.7 8.3 +Max. 251 70 36 37.8 14.9 25.8 22.0 6.8 8.7 2.5 17.9 9.0 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT MALES OF THOMOMYS--_Concluded_ + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. b. howelli_, 5; 10 mi. N Moab +Av. 213 67 31 33.1 13.5 23.2 20.1 6.5 8.3 2.5 16.1 8.8 +Min. 205 64 30 31.8 12.8 22.8 18.9 6.4 8.0 2.3 15.1 8.1 +Max. 225 68 32 35.3 14.3 24.1 20.7 6.8 8.8 2.8 17.5 9.4 + +No. 3094 (U. U.) _T. b. absonus_, 1; topotype + 220 71 29 32.0 13.9 22.6 19.0 6.4 7.0 1.0 15.1 7.2 + +No. 158529 (U. S. N. M.) _T. b. osgoodi_, 1; topotype + 225 70 29 33.8 13.3 22.7 19.6 6.6 8.4 3.2 16.5 8.3 + +_T. b. alexandrae_, 1; topotype (Benson, 1935:450) + 205 59 27 33.9 13.7 24.3 19.7 6.5 8.0 ... 15.8 8.1 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT FEMALES OF THOMOMYS + +(In millimeters) + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. b. aureiventris_, 2; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 212 62 30 32.4 12.9 22.9 19.4 6.7 7.4 2.8 .... ... +Min. 208 58 29 31.8 12.6 22.5 18.9 6.6 7.0 2.7 .... ... +Max. 215 65 30 33.0 13.1 23.3 19.8 6.8 7.8 3.1 .... ... + +_T. b. centralis_, 17; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 214 67 29 31.8 12.6 22.1 19.0 6.6 7.6 2.7 .... ... +Min. 195 55 27 30.5 11.9 21.3 18.2 5.9 7.0 2.0 .... ... +Max. 229 75 30 33.0 13.8 23.1 20.1 7.1 7.8 3.4 .... ... + +_T. b. albicaudatus_, 4; topotypes (Hall, 1930:446) +Av. 211 64 30 32.5 12.9 22.9 18.8 6.6 7.7 2.7 .... ... +Min. 199 55 29 31.7 11.9 21.9 18.2 6.1 7.5 2.6 .... ... +Max. 219 70 32 33.8 13.5 24.0 19.5 6.8 8.0 3.0 .... ... + +_T. b. robustus_, 11; topotypes +Av. 199 61 27 30.6 11.7 22.6 18.8 6.4 7.6 2.6 13.9 7.4 +Min. 191 56 22 29.0 10.6 21.0 18.1 6.2 7.1 2.0 12.0 7.1 +Max. 207 66 29 31.6 12.2 23.6 19.8 6.7 8.0 2.9 14.7 7.9 + +_T. b. stansburyi_, 5; topotypes +Av. 202 57 28 31.1 12.1 21.9 18.7 6.5 7.7 2.6 14.5 7.4 +Min. 195 56 26 29.9 10.6 21.0 17.8 6.2 7.3 2.3 13.4 6.9 +Max. 210 63 30 32.7 12.8 22.4 19.5 6.8 8.0 3.0 15.2 7.7 + +No. 900 (U. U.) _T. b. nesophilus_, 1; topotype + 210 65 31 31.2 12.3 23.2 19.3 6.9 8.2 2.2 15.2 7.3 + +_T. b. minimus_, 2; topotypes +Av. 178 56 25 28.2 10.6 19.7 17.4 6.1 7.0 2.3 13.1 6.7 +Min. 175 54 24 28.1 10.4 19.6 17.1 6.1 7.0 2.3 13.0 6.5 +Max. 181 58 25 28.2 10.8 19.7 17.7 6.1 7.0 2.3 13.2 6.8 + +_T. b. contractus_, 6; topotypes +Av. 219 68 30 33.1 12.6 23.3 19.5 6.5 7.8 2.6 15.5 7.1 +Min. 208 58 29 32.2 12.0 22.2 18.9 6.4 7.6 2.3 14.2 7.0 +Max. 225 73 31 34.7 13.3 25.2 20.6 6.7 8.2 3.2 17.0 7.3 + +_T. b. levidensis_, 4; topotypes +Av. 205 69 26 30.5 11.1 21.7 17.5 6.6 7.5 2.9 14.0 7.0 +Min. 194 61 26 29.3 10.6 21.5 17.3 6.3 7.2 2.8 13.0 6.9 +Max. 223 73 27 30.8 11.5 21.9 17.9 6.9 7.8 3.2 14.7 7.2 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT FEMALES OF THOMOMYS--_Continued_ + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +_T. b. convexus_, 11; topotypes +Av. 197 57 27 29.9 12.5 21.7 19.3 6.6 7.7 2.6 14.7 7.4 +Min. 182 43 26 27.9 11.2 21.0 18.8 6.2 7.1 2.1 13.3 7.1 +Max. 204 63 28 30.9 13.4 22.3 19.8 7.1 7.9 3.1 15.2 7.7 + +_T. b. tivius_, 5; topotypes +Av. 203 68 27 29.5 11.1 21.1 17.8 6.5 7.2 2.4 13.5 6.8 +Min. 192 63 26 28.0 10.5 20.1 17.3 6.3 7.1 2.0 12.7 6.4 +Max. 215 74 30 31.3 11.4 22.9 19.0 6.7 7.5 3.0 14.2 7.2 + +_T. b. bonnevillei_, 7; topotypes +Av. 199 57 28 31.7 11.8 22.2 19.3 6.6 7.7 3.2 14.9 7.3 +Min. 184 50 24 29.4 10.1 20.3 18.1 6.4 7.1 2.6 13.5 6.9 +Max. 216 66 29 34.3 13.6 24.3 20.3 7.0 8.5 4.1 16.6 7.7 + +_T. b. sevieri_, 7; topotypes +Av. 205 62 28 30.2 11.8 21.6 18.0 6.4 7.0 2.7 14.2 7.1 +Min. 199 54 28 29.4 11.3 20.6 17.7 6.1 6.6 2.1 13.9 6.6 +Max. 212 70 29 30.7 12.6 22.1 18.6 6.8 7.4 3.0 14.7 7.6 + +_T. b. wahwahensis_, 8; topotypes +Av. 185 56 27 28.7 11.3 20.6 17.6 6.3 7.1 2.1 12.6 7.1 +Min. 180 50 26 26.3 10.2 19.0 16.5 5.8 6.9 1.1 10.8 6.4 +Max. 197 62 29 30.7 12.6 22.0 19.0 6.7 7.8 2.9 14.0 7.6 + +_T. b. planirostris_, 8; topotypes (Burt, 1931:39) +Av. 215 71 31 32.2 12.4 23.2 18.7 6.5 8.1 3.6 .... 7.9 +Min. 205 61 30 31.5 11.8 22.3 18.1 6.4 7.5 2.8 .... 7.5 +Max. 228 78 33 33.0 12.9 24.1 19.5 6.7 8.6 4.5 .... 8.1 + +_T. b. birdseyei_, 3; topotypes +Av. 220 71 29 31.6 11.8 22.7 18.6 6.1 7.4 2.4 14.7 7.5 +Min. 217 68 28 31.4 11.0 22.4 18.3 6.0 7.3 1.6 13.3 7.4 +Max. 223 75 30 32.0 12.8 23.0 19.1 6.2 7.4 3.0 15.3 7.5 + +_T. b. virgineus_, 4; Beaverdam Wash, 5 mi. N Utah-Arizona Line +Av. 211 64 29 31.6 12.2 22.6 19.4 5.9 7.5 3.1 15.1 7.3 +Min. 202 60 27 31.3 11.3 22.4 18.8 5.8 7.3 2.4 14.4 7.2 +Max. 218 68 30 32.1 12.8 22.7 20.0 6.1 7.8 3.7 15.5 7.6 + +_T. b. aureus_, 3; topotypes +Av. 226 57 31 33.2 13.3 23.8 19.8 6.7 8.2 1.9 15.3 8.2 +Min. 217 54 30 32.8 12.5 23.3 19.6 6.4 8.0 1.6 14.5 8.2 +Max. 233 64 31 34.0 14.2 24.4 19.8 6.9 8.4 2.0 16.4 8.3 + +No. 20300 (C. M.) _T. b. howelli_, 1; 10 mi. N Moab + 202 59 28 32.4 12.3 21.1 19.2 6.4 7.9 2.4 15.8 8.3 +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + +MEASUREMENTS OF ADULT FEMALES OF THOMOMYS--_Concluded_ + +====================================================================== + Total length + | Length of tail + | | Length of hind foot + | | | Basilar length + | | | | Length of nasals + | | | | | Zygomatic breadth + | | | | | | Mastoid breadth + | | | | | | | Interorbital breadth + | | | | | | | | Alveolar length of + | | | | | | | | upper molar series + | | | | | | | | | Extension of premax + | | | | | | | | | post. to nasals + | | | | | | | | | | Length of + | | | | | | | | | | rostrum + | | | | | | | | | | | Breadth + | | | | | | | | | | | of rostrum +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +No. 158524 (U. S. N. M.) _T. b. dissimilis_, 1; topotype + 188 61 27 28.2 10.1 19.0 16.7 6.1 7.4 2.1 12.8 6.5 + +No. 158528 (U. S. N. M.) _T. b. osgoodi_, 1; topotype + 203 61 27 29.6 11.5 .. 18.3 6.9 7.4 2.0 14.0 7.3 + +_T. b. alexandrae_, 3; topotypes +Av. 205 63 28 30.9 11.8 20.8 17.9 6.4 7.6 1.8 14.1 7.5 +Min. 195 57 27 28.7 11.5 20.5 17.2 6.3 7.5 1.5 13.6 7.2 +Max. 215 70 29 31.5 12.1 22.2 18.6 6.5 7.7 2.0 14.7 7.7 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------- + + + + +LITERATURE CITED + + +ALLEN, J. A. + + 1874. Notes on the mammals of portions of Kansas, Colorado, + Wyoming and Utah, Part IV. On the mammals of the Great + Salt Lake Valley, Utah. Bull. Essex Inst., 6:61-66, 1874. + + 1893. Descriptions of four new species of _Thomomys_ with + remarks on other species of the genus. Bull. Amer. Mus. + Nat. Hist., 5:47-68, April 28, 1893. + + 1893. List of mammals collected by Mr. Charles P. Rowley in + the San Juan region of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, + with descriptions of new species. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. + Hist., 5:69-84, April 28, 1893. + + 1896. List of mammals collected by Mr. Walter W. Granger in + New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Nebraska, 1895-1896, with + field notes by the collector. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. + Hist., 8:241-258, November 25, 1896. + + 1905. Mammals from Beaver County, Utah, collected by the + Museum expedition of 1904. Brooklyn Inst. Mus. Sci. + Bull., 1:117-122, March 31, 1905. + +BAILEY, VERNON. + + 1915. Revision of the pocket gophers of the genus + _Thomomys_. N. Amer. Fauna, 39:1-136, pls. 8, 10 figs., + November 15, 1915. + +BARNES, CLAUDE T. + + 1922. Mammals of Utah. Bull. Univ. Utah, 12 (No. 15):1-176, + 30 figs., April, 1922. + + 1927. Utah mammals. Bull. Univ. Utah, 17 (No. 12):1-183, 32 + figs., June, 1927. + +BENSON, SETH B. + + 1935. A biological reconnaissance of Navajo Mountain, Utah. + Univ. California Publ. Zooel., 40:439-455, December 31, + 1935. + +BURT, WILLIAM H. + + 1931. A new pocket gopher of the genus _Thomomys_ from Utah. + Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 44:37-40, May 8, 1931. + +COUES, E. + + 1875. Abstract of results of a study of the genera _Geomys_ + and _Thomomys_. Part III. Zooelogy, in explorations of + the Colorado River of the West and its tributaries, + explored in 1869, 1870, 1871 and 1872 under the + direction of the Smithsonian Institution, reported by + J. W. Powell, Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D. C., + 1875. + + 1877. Monographs of North American Rodents, No. X, Geomyidae, + pp. 601-629, U. S. Geol. Surv. of the territories, + Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1877. + +COUES, E., and YARROW, H. C. + + 1875. Report upon the collection of mammals made in portions + of Nevada, Utah, California, New Mexico and Arizona + during the years 1871-74. Wheeler's Rept. Expl. W of + 100th Mer. vol. 5, pp. 35-129, 1875. + +DAVIS, WILLIAM B. + + 1939. The Recent mammals of Idaho. The Caxton Printers, Ltd., + Caldwell, Idaho, pp. 1-400, pls. 2, 33 figs., April 5, + 1939. + +DURRANT, STEPHEN D. + + 1937. Two new gophers from Utah. Bull. Univ. Utah, 28 (No. + 4):1-7, August 18, 1937. + + 1939. A new pocket gopher of the _Thomomys quadratus_ group + from the northern Great Basin region. Bull. Univ. + Utah, 39 (No. 6):1-6, February 28, 1939. + +GOLDMAN, E. A. + + 1933. New mammals from Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. + Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., 23:463-473, October 15, + 1933. + + 1936. New pocket gophers of the genus _Thomomys_. Journ. + Washington Acad. Sci., 26:111-120, March 15, 1936. + + 1938. New pocket gophers of the genus _Thomomys_ from + Arizona and Utah. Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., + 28:333-343, July 15, 1938. + + 1939. Remarks on pocket gophers, with special reference to + _Thomomys talpoides_. Journ. Mamm., 20:231-244, May + 14, 1939. + + 1942. Three new rodents from southern Utah. Proc. Biol. Soc. + Washington, 55:75-78, July 25, 1942. + +HALL, E. RAYMOND. + + 1931. Critical comments on mammals from Utah, with + descriptions of new forms from Utah, Nevada and + Washington. Univ. California Publ. Zooel., 37:1-13, + April 10, 1931. + +HALL, E. RAYMOND, and DAVIS, WILLIAM B. + + 1934. Notes on Arizona rodents. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, + 47:51-56, February 9, 1934. + +HAYWARD, C. LYNN. + + 1936. A bibliography of Utah mammalogy; including references + to names and type localities applied to Utah mammals. + Utah Acad. Sci. Arts and Letters, 13:122-146, 1936. + + 1941. A bibliography of Utah mammalogy; including references + to names and type localities (first supplement). Great + Basin Nat., 2:125-136, December 31, 1941. + +MARSHALL, WILLIAM H. + + 1940. A survey of the mammals of the islands in Great Salt + Lake, Utah. Journ. Mamm., 21:149-159, 2 pls., 1 map, + May 14, 1940. + +MERRIAM, C. HART. + + 1901. Descriptions of twenty-three new pocket gophers of + the genus _Thomomys_. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, + 14:107-117, July 19, 1901. + +MILLER, GERRITT S., JR. + + 1924. List of North American Recent mammals, 1923. U. S. + Nat. Mus. Bull., 128, pp. I-XVI, + 1-673, Govt. + Printing Office, Washington, D. C., March 18, 1924. + +SVIHLA, RUTH DOWELL. + + 1931. Mammals of the Uinta Mountains region. Journ. Mamm., + 12:256-266, pls. 1, 1 fig., August 24, 1931. + +21-2786 + + + + + * * * * * + +Transcriber's Notes + + +Made minor punctuation corrections, and the following changes: + +Page 11: Changed Oquirrah Mountains to Oquirrh Mountains. + +Page 15: Changed interptergoid to interpterygoid. + +Page 25: Changed acccounts to accounts. + +Page 30: Changed distiguished to distinguished. + +Page 54: Changed hpyothesis to hypothesis. + +Page 57: Changed under parts to underparts. + +Formatted Tables to fit width guidelines. + +Bold text is shown within =equal signs=. + +Italicized text is shown within _underscores_. + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) of +Utah, Vol. 1 No. 1, by Stephen D. Durrant + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE POCKET GOPHERS (GENUS *** + +***** This file should be named 39164.txt or 39164.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/9/1/6/39164/ + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Diane Monico, and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net. Some images courtesy of The Internet +Archive. + + +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/license + +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. diff --git a/39164.zip b/39164.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2f097fd --- /dev/null +++ b/39164.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d5687d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #39164 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39164) |
