Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores, by E. Raymond Hall and Keith R. Kelson This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores Author: E. Raymond Hall Keith R. Kelson Release Date: September 12, 2010 [EBook #33710] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK COMMENTS ON THE TAXONOMY *** Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores BY E. RAYMOND HALL and KEITH R. KELSON University of Kansas Publications Museum of Natural History Volume 5, No. 25, pp. 319-341 December 5, 1952 UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LAWRENCE 1952 UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS, MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, A. Byron Leonard, Edward H. Taylor, Robert W. Wilson Volume 5, No. 25, pp. 319-341 December 5, 1952 UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS Lawrence, Kansas PRINTED BY FERD VOILAND, JR., STATE PRINTER TOPEKA, KANSAS 1952 Transcriber's Note: Words and phrases printed in bold are marked with ~; i.e., ~This is bold.~ Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores BY E. RAYMOND HALL and KEITH R. KELSON In preparing maps showing the geographic distribution of North American mammals we have found in the literature conflicting statements and questionable identifications, which have led us to examine the specimens concerned with results as set forth below. Our studies have been aided by a contract (NR 161-791) between the Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy, and the University of Kansas. Grateful acknowledgment is made to the persons in charge of the several collections of mammals consulted for permission to examine and study the specimens therein. ~Didelphis marsupialis californica~ Bennett From Cuernavaca, Morelos, Hooper (Jour. Mamm., 28:43, February 1, 1947) lists a specimen, as he says, on purely geographic grounds, as of the subspecies _Didelphis mesamericana tabascensis_. We have examined this specimen, an unsexed skull-only, which falls within the range of individual variation of _Didelphis marsupialis californica_ and refer the specimen to that subspecies. ~Didelphis marsupialis etensis~ J. A. Allen From El Muñeco, Costa Rica, Harris (Occas. Papers, Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, no. 476:7, October 8, 1943) lists as _Didelphis richmondi_ a specimen ([Male], No. 67550 U.M.). Our examination of the specimen shows it to be within the range of individual variation of populations that have been referred to _D. m. etensis_ from adjoining areas. We identify the specimen as _Didelphis marsupialis etensis_. ~Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis~ J. A. Allen From Minatitlán, Veracruz, J. A. Allen (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14:168, June 15) listed a specimen under the name _Didelphis marsupialis_ [in the trinomial sense] instead of under the name _Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis_, which would be expected, on geographic grounds, to apply. The specimen is No. 78123, U.S. Nat. Mus., Biol. Surv. Coll. Our examination of the specimen reveals that it is within the range of individual variation of _Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis_ and we identify the specimen as of that subspecies. From Yaruca, Honduras, Bangs (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 39:157, July, 1903) doubtfully listed as _Didelphis yucatanensis_ a specimen, No. 10611, M.C.Z. Our examination of the specimen indicates that it is within the range of variation expectable in _Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis_, known from surrounding areas, and we identify the specimen as _Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis_. ~Didelphis marsupialis virginiana~ Kerr J. A. Allen (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14:166, May 28, 1901) and A. H. Howell (N. Amer. Fauna, 45:20, October 28, 1921) have identified four skulls from Sylacuga, Alabama, as _Didelphis virginiana pigra_. The two subspecies _virginiana_ and _pigra_ are not known to differ cranially. We have, however, examined the skulls which are Nos. 44057-44060 in the U.S. Nat. Mus., Biol. Surv. Coll. Because they are from a place north of other localities (Auburn and Greensboro, Alabama) from which the subspecies _virginiana_ has been recorded, and within the geographic range of _virginiana_, we identify the specimens as _Didelphis marsupialis virginiana_. Sycamore Creek (synonymous with Fort Worth), Texas, is a place from which J. A. Allen (_op. cit._:173) recorded a specimen as _Didelphis marsupialis texensis_. This specimen (No. 24359/31765 U. S. Nat. Mus., Biol. Surv. Coll.) is in the black color-phase. There are only a few white hairs on the hind feet, and the basal fourth of the tail is black. The black phase occurs all through the range of the species _D. marsupialis_ and our examination of the specimen reveals no characters by which it can be distinguished from _D. m. virginiana_ of the surrounding region and we accordingly identify the specimen as _Didelphis marsupialis virginiana_. ~Didelphis marsupialis pigra~ Bangs Davis (Jour. Mamm., 25:375, December 12, 1944) was one writer who presented evidence that _Didelphis virginiana_ (through its subspecies _virginiana_ or _pigra_ or both) was only subspecifically distinct from the species _Didelphis mesembrinus_ (= _D. marsupialis_) through the subspecies _texensis_. Davis, however, did not actually employ a name combination that would enforce his conclusion and he remarked that he had not seen specimens which showed actual intergradation in the color of the toes. As the remarks below will show, Davis (_loc. cit._) was correct in his supposition that J. A. Allen had seen such specimens. Deming Station, Matagordo, and Velasco, Texas, are three places from which J. A. Allen (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14:162, May 28, 1901) listed specimens as _Didelphis virginiana_. The specimens concerned are in the Biological Surveys Collection of the U.S. Nat. Museum and bear catalogue numbers as follows: Deming Station, 32430/44266, 32432/44268, 32433/44269; Matagordo, 32431/44267; Velasco, 32812/44833. In each specimen the tail is shorter than the head and body. The specimen from Velasco is semi-black, has the basal tenth of the tail black and there is no white on the ears or tail. The specimen from Matagordo is grayish, has the basal fifth of the tail black, ears black, the right hind foot black, but there is some white on the toes of the left hind foot and on each of the forefeet. Of the three specimens from Deming Station, all are in the gray color-phase. The first has the tail black only as far from the base as there is hair and there is considerable whitish on the hind toes. The second specimen has the basal fifth of the tail black and a slight amount of whitish on the hind toes. The third specimen has the basal third of the tail black and the toes are all black. In the sum total of their characters the specimens mentioned above are referable to _Didelphis marsupialis pigra_. These five specimens, and indeed the three from Deming Station alone, show intergradation in coloration of the feet between _Didelphis marsupialis texensis_ and _Didelphis virginiana pigra_. Probably there is three-way intergradation here at Deming Station in that _D. v. virginiana_ immediately to the north is involved. The specimens mentioned above, along with the information recorded by Davis (_loc. cit._) and other authors (for example, J. A. Allen, _loc. cit._, and Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 16:249-279, August 18, 1902), give basis for arranging the North American _Didelphis_ as follows: _Didelphis marsupialis virginiana_ Kerr. 1792. _Didelphis virginiana_ Kerr, Animal Kingdom, p. 193, type locality Virginia. _Didelphis marsupialis pigra_ Bangs. 1898. _Didelphis virginiana pigra_ Bangs, Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 28:172, March, type from Oak Lodge, opposite Micco, Brevard Co., Florida. _Didelphis marsupialis texensis_ J. A. Allen. 1901. _Didelphis marsupialis texensis_ J. A. Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14:172, June 15, type from Brownsville, Cameron County, Texas. _Didelphis marsupialis californica_ Bennett. 1833. _Didelphis Californica_ Bennett, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p. 40, May 17, type probably from northwestern part of present Republic of Mexico. 1924. _Didelphis mesamericana mesamericana_, Miller. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., 128:3, April 29, 1924, and authors. Type locality, northern Mexico. (_Did[elphys]. mesamericana_ Oken, Lehrbuch d. naturgesch., pt. 3, vol. 2, p. 1152, 1816, along with other names from Oken 1816, is judged to be unavailable under current rules of zoological nomenclature.) _Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis_ J. A. Allen. 1901. _Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis_ J. A. Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14:173, June 15, type from Teapa, Tabasco. _Didelphis marsupialis yucatanensis_ J. A. Allen. 1901. _Didelphis yucatanensis_ J. A. Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14:178, June 15, type from Chichenitza, Yucatán. _Didelphis marsupialis cozumelae_ Merriam. 1901. _Didelphis yucatanensis cozumelae_ Merriam, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 14:101, July 19, type from Cozumel Island, Yucatan. _Didelphis marsupialis richmondi_ J. A. Allen. 1901. _Didelphis richmondi_ J. A. Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14:175, June 15, type from Greytown, Nicaragua. 1920. _D[idelphis], m[arsupialis], richmondi_, Goldman, Smithsonian Misc. Coll., 69(5):46, April 24. _Didelphis marsupialis etensis_ J. A. Allen. 1902. _Didelphis marsupialis etensis_ J. A. Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 16:262, August 18, type from Eten, Piura, Perú. _Didelphis marsupialis battyi_ Thomas. 1902. _Didelphis marsupialis battyi_ Thomas, Novitates Zoologicae, 9:137, April 10, type from Coiba Island, Panamá. _Didelphis marsupialis particeps_ Goldman. 1917. _Didelphis marsupialis particeps_ Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 30:107, May 23, type from San Miguel Island, Panamá. _Didelphis marsupialis insularis_ J. A. Allen. 1902. _Didelphis marsupialis insularis_ J. A. Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 16:259, August 18, type from Caparo, Trinidad. In listing the subspecific names given immediately above we are aware of the possibility that a thorough study of the geographic variation in _Didelphis marsupialis_ may contract or expand the list of recognizable subspecies. We are aware also that Hershkovitz (Fieldiana: Zoology, 31 (No. 47):548, July 10, 1951) has arranged several of the subspecific names listed immediately above as synonyms of _Didelphis marsupialis californica_ Bennett. We have not employed his arrangement because he has not given proof that the currently recognized subspecies are indistinguishable. ~Caluromys derbianus canus~ (Matschie) Matschie (Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, Jahrgang 1917, p. 284 (for April), September, 1917) applied the name _Micoureus canus_ to a specimen on which the locality was no more precise than Nicaragua. Comparison of Matschie's description with specimens in the United States National Museum (including the holotype of _Philander centralis_ Hollister and referred specimens of _Philander laniger pallidus_ Thomas) reveals that Matschie's specimen was intermediate in coloration between the other two kinds of woolly opossums named above and that there is nothing distinctive, in the specific sense, in the cranial measurements which Matschie published (_op. cit._). _M. canus_, therefore, may be merely an intergrade between the two previously named woolly opossums (_C. d. centralis_ and _C. d. pallidus_), an individual variant of a previously named kind, say, _C. d. pallidus_, or a valid subspecies. If it is a recognizable subspecies, it probably comes from somewhere in the eastern half of Nicaragua. As a means of handling the name, _Micoureus canus_ Matschie, we tentatively place it as a subspecies of the species _Caluromys derbianus_. The name may, therefore, stand as _Caluromys derbianus canus_ (Matschie), with type locality in Guatemala. ~Caluromys derbianus fervidus~ (Thomas) Elliott (Field Columb. Mus. Nat. Hist., Publ. No. 115, Zool. Ser., 8:5, 1907) lists as _Caluromys laniger pallidus_ a specimen from Honduras that was acquired for the Field Columbian Museum (= Chicago Natural History Museum) by purchase from Ward's Natural Science Establishment of Rochester, New York. On August 4, 1951, in the Chicago Natural History Museum, we found in the catalogue of the collection of Recent mammals an entry for a male _Caluromys_ bearing catalogue number 6 and listed as from "San Pedro Sula [Honduras]. From Wards. Mounted". In the collection of study specimens there is no specimen from Honduras that was purchased from Ward's, mounted or unmounted. In the sealed, glass-fronted, exhibit cases of mammals on display there is one, and only one, _Caluromys_. It is presumed to be specimen No. 6. This specimen is not _C. d. pallidus_ because it is too dark. It could be _Caluromys derbianus fervidus_ and we tentatively refer it to that subspecies. ~Caluromys derbianus pallidus~ (Thomas) From Puntarenas, Costa Rica, Harris (Occas. Papers Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, 476:7, October 8, 1943) listed as _Caluromys laniger centralis_ a female, skull and skin, No. 62702 in the Museum of Zoology of the University of Michigan. We have examined this specimen, the color of which is darker than in some other specimens of _C. d. pallidus_ but lighter than that of specimens of _C. d. centralis_ (for example, specimens from Turrialba, Costa Rica) and on basis of color we refer No. 62702 to _Caluromys derbianus pallidus_. ~Scalopus aquaticus aereus~ (Bangs) Bangs' (Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 10:138, December 28, 1896) name _S. a. aereus_ was based on a single specimen that shows more than an average amount of coppery color. Jackson (N. Amer. Fauna, 38:52, September 30, 1915) and subsequent authors accord full specific rank to the specimen under the name _Scalopus aereus_. Blair (Amer. Midland Nat., 22:98, July, 1939) recorded, from the type locality of _Scalopus aereus_, normally colored individuals of _Scalopus aquaticus pulcher_ Jackson. Previously, Scheffer (Kansas State Agric. College, Exp. Bull., 168:4, August 1, 1910) reported that in his examination of 100 individuals of _Scalops_ [= _Scalopus_] _aquaticus_ from Manhattan, Kansas, there were two individuals "that were suffused all over with rich golden brown." Because our examination of the type specimen of _Scalops texanus aereus_ Bangs reveals no features additional to coppery color that differentiate _aereus_ from other individuals of _Scalopus aquaticus pulcher_ Jackson (Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 27:19, February 2, 1914) we conclude that Jackson's name and Bangs' name (_Scalops texanus aereus_) apply to the same subspecies. Bangs' name has priority and the correct name, therefore, for the populations of moles that in recent years have been designated as _Scalopus aereus_ Bangs and _Scalopus aquaticus pulcher_ Jackson will be _Scalopus aquaticus aereus_ (Bangs). This name combination was previously used by Miller (U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull., 79:8, December 31, 1912). ~Scalopus aquaticus australis~ (Chapman) Quay (Jour. Mamm., 30:66, February 14, 1949) recorded _Scalopus aquaticus_ from Springhill Plantation, 10 miles south-southwest of Thomasville, Georgia. He stated that the specimens were intermediate between the subspecies _S. a. australis_ and _S. a. howelli_, but did not refer the specimens to either subspecies. The locality whence the material was obtained is approximately half way between the geographic ranges, as previously known, of _S. a. australis_ and _S. a. howelli_ (see Jackson, N. Amer. Fauna, 38, September 30, 1915). The specimens recorded by Quay probably are two females in the Cleveland Museum of Natural History bearing Catalogue Nos. 18136 and 18262 and labeled as from Springhill Plantation, Thomas County, Georgia. We have examined these specimens and find that they resemble _S. a. howelli_ in narrowness across the upper tooth-rows, but that they resemble _S. a. australis_ in length of tail (22, 24), in shortness of maxillary tooth-row (9.5, 9.5), and in convex dorsal outline of the skull. Accordingly, we refer the specimens to _Scalopus aquaticus australis_. ~Sorex cinereus cinereus~ Kerr In his revision of the American long-tailed shrews, Jackson (N. Amer. Fauna, 51, vi + 238, 13 pls., 24 figs., July 24, 1928) referred specimens of _Sorex cinereus_ from Tyonek, Cook Inlet, Alaska, to the subspecies _S. c. cinereus_ (_op. cit._: 46) and one specimen from Chester Creek, Anchorage, Alaska, to the subspecies _S. c. hollisteri_ (_op. cit._: 56). Thus, the geographic ranges of the two subspecies would seem to overlap around the northern shores of Cook Inlet. In an attempt to resolve this seemingly anomalous distribution, we have examined pertinent materials in the Biological Surveys Collection, U.S. National Museum. We agree with Jackson (_op. cit._) that the series of specimens from Tyonek is readily referable to _S. c. cinereus_. To our eye, however, the specimen, No. 232691, from Anchorage is referable to _Sorex cinereus cinereus_, rather than to _S. c. hollisteri_. The reference is made on the basis of the darker color, especially of the underparts. In this specimen, other characters that distinguish the two mentioned subspecies are not apparent, probably because it is relatively young; the teeth show only slight wear. ~Sorex trowbridgii humboldtensis~ Jackson In his account of the long-tailed shrews, Jackson (N. Amer. Fauna, 51:98, July 24, 1928) listed under specimens examined of _Sorex trowbridgii montereyensis_ four specimens from 7 mi. N Hardy, Mendocino Co., California. Under his account of the subspecies _S. t. humboldtensis_, however, he (_op. cit._:97) mentions that specimens (seemingly the same four) from 7 mi. N Hardy "have shorter tails than typical representatives of _humboldtensis_, but in color and cranial characters they are similar to this [_humboltensis_] subspecies." We conclude, therefore, that the specimens mentioned were inadvertently listed as _S. t. montereyensis_ and are _Sorex trowbridgii humboldtensis_. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the locality concerned, 7 mi. N Hardy, is within the geographic range assigned to _S. t. humboldtensis_ by Jackson (_op. cit._:97); his southern records of occurrence of _S. t. humboldtensis_ are Sherwood and Mendocino, both in Mendocino County, California. Our conclusion is further supported by Grinnell's (Univ. California Publ. Zool., 40(2):80, September 26, 1933) statement of the range of _S. t. montereyensis_ as "from southern Mendocino County south...." ~Blarina brevicauda churchi~ Bole and Moulthrop Kellogg (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 86:253, February 14, 1939) tentatively referred specimens of the short-tailed shrew from the mountainous parts of eastern Tennessee to the subspecies _Blarina brevicauda talpoides_, with the remark that they were unlike specimens of that subspecies obtained in eastern and southern West Virginia. Subsequently, Bole and Moulthrop (Sci. Publ. Cleveland Mus. Nat. Hist., 5:109, September 11, 1942) named the subspecies _Blarina brevicauda churchi_ with type locality at Roan Mountain, North Carolina. We have examined the specimens in the U.S. National Museum recorded by Kellogg (_loc. cit._) from the following localities: Shady Valley, 2900 ft. (Catalogue No. 267182); Holston Mtn., 4 mi. NE Shady Valley, 3800 ft. (Nos. 267176-267178, 267180, and 267181); Holston Mtn., 3 mi. NE Shady Valley, 3000 ft. (No. 267179); Roan Mtn., (Nos. 267469-267475); Mt. Guyot, 6300 ft. (No. 267183); 4-1/2 mi. SE Cosby, 3300 and 3400 ft. (Nos. 267184 and 267185); and Snake Den Mtn., 3800 ft. (No. 267186). Among named kinds of _Blarina brevicauda_, we find these specimens to resemble most closely _Blarina brevicauda churchi_ and so refer them. They are readily distinguishable from specimens of _B. b. kirtlandi_, that occurs farther north in the same mountain range, by larger size and longer tail. Incidentally, in the specimens that we have examined, we do not find that _B. b. churchi_ is darker colored than other subspecies of _Blarina brevicauda_; _B. b. churchi_, to us, is indistinguishable in color from _B. b. kirtlandi_. Bole and Moulthrop (_op. cit._) thought that _B. b. churchi_ was notably darker than other subspecies from adjoining areas. ~Blarina brevicauda carolinensis~ (Bachman) Blair (Amer. Midland Nat., 22(1):99, July, 1939) referred specimens of the short-tailed shrew from the Arbuckle Mountain area of Oklahoma to _Blarina brevicauda hulophaga_ and specimens from Mohawk Park, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, to _B. b. carolinensis_. Later Bole and Moulthrop (Sci. Publs. Cleveland Mus. Nat. Hist., 5:108, September 11, 1942) saw two of the specimens from Mohawk Park and assigned them to _B. b. hulophaga_. According to the most recent published account, therefore, _B. b. hulophaga_ would seem to have a peculiarly discontinuous geographic range. We have examined the material seen by Blair and by Bole and Moulthrop (Nos. 75946, 75947, 75643, Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan) in an attempt to form our own judgment as to their subspecific identity. The teeth of No. 75946 are well worn, whereas the teeth of the other two are scarcely worn. We are unable to distinguish No. 75946 from topotypes of _B. b. carolinensis_ by size, color, or cranial features. The two younger specimens are smaller and paler, but do not agree with the description of _B. b. hulophaga_. The nearly-complete narrow, white girdle of No. 75947 is clearly an individual variation. We assign the animals to _Blarina brevicauda carolinensis_ (Bachman) as did Blair (_loc. cit._). ~Blarina brevicauda minima~ Lowery Bailey (N. Amer. Fauna, 25:207, October 24, 1905) identified as _Blarina brevicauda carolinensis_ one specimen from Joaquin and two specimens from Big Thicket, 8 mi. NE Sour Lake, both localities in eastern Texas. Strecker and Williams (Jour. Mamm., 10:259, August 10, 1929) later recorded the specimens again under the same name. The subsequent naming of _B. b. plumbea_ from Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Aransas County, Texas (Davis, Jour. Mamm., 22(3):317, August 14, 1941) and _B. b. minima_ from Louisiana (Lowery, Occas. Papers Mus. Zool., Louisiana St. Univ., 13:218, November 22, 1943) leaves the identity of the specimens from eastern Texas in doubt. We have examined the following specimens in the Biological Surveys Collection, U.S. National Museum: No. 117372, from Joaquin; No. 136407, from 7 mi. NE Sour Lake; and No. 136788, from 8 mi. NE Sour Lake. We judge these to be the specimens referred to by Bailey (_loc. cit._). We find that they are indistinguishable from specimens of _Blarina brevicauda minima_ and they seem to differ from _B. b. plumbea_ in being chestnut rather than plumbeous in color and in lacking the highly-arched posterior border of the palate. They are easily distinguished from _B. b. carolinensis_ by their chestnut, rather than slaty-black, color and small size. They are distinguishable from _B. b. hulophaga_, to which they might conceivably be referred on geographic grounds, by their color and small size. We refer them to _Blarina brevicauda minima_ Lowery. ~Spilogale angustifrons angustifrons~ A. H. Howell In his "Revision of the skunks of the genus Spilogale" (N. Amer. Fauna, 26, November 24, 1906) A. H. Howell identified certain specimens in the United States National Museum as follows: _Spilogale leucoparia_, [Male] sad. 55585 from Tulancingo, Hidalgo (_op. cit._:21). _Spilogale gracilis_, [Male] sad. 88154 from San Sebastian in Jalisco, [Male] ad. 79017 from Lagos in Jalisco, [Male] ad. 47177 from Pátzcuaro in Michoacán (_op. cit._:23). _Spilogale ambigua_, [Male] ad. 35667/20437 from Barranca Ibarra in Jalisco, [Male] yg. 120101 from Ocotlán in Jalisco (_op. cit._:25). Hall and Villa (Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist, 1:448, December 27, 1949) inferred that No. 47177 from Pátzcuaro was instead referable to _Spilogale angustifrons angustifrons_. Our examination of No. 47177 and of each of the other specimens mentioned by catalogue number immediately above leads us to conclude that they all are of one species, and that, among named kinds of _Spilogale_, they should be referred to the subspecies _Spilogale angustifrons angustifrons_ Howell. Our examination of all of the specimens that Howell (_op. cit_.) identified as _Spilogale [angustifrons] angustifrons_ reveals that none of the specimens from the type locality had attained full adult stature; the holotype is a subadult and the other specimens from the type locality are even younger. The small size of these specimens from the type locality seems to have misled Howell into thinking that they were taxonomically distinct from the larger specimens--those from Jalisco, Michoacán and Hidalgo--that he identified as other kinds. ~Spilogale gracilis gracilis~ Merriam In the genus _Spilogale_ four specific names, concerning the status of which we have been uncertain, are listed below in the order of their appearance in the literature. 1890. _Spilogale gracilis_ Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, 3:83, September 11, type from bottom of canyon, Grand Canyon, Arizona. 1890. _Spilogale leucoparia_ Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, 4:11, October 8, type from Mason, Mason County, Texas. 1891. _Spilogale phenax arizonae_ Mearns, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 3:256, June 5, type from near Fort Verde, Yavapai County, Arizona. 1897. _Spilogale ambigua_ Mearns, Preliminary diagnoses of new mammals ... from the Mexican boundary line, p. 3, January 12 [reprinted in Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 20:460, December 24, 1897], type from summit of Eagle Cliff Mtn., 2 mi. S of Monument No. 5 of Emory's Survey which, according to Miller (U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull., 128:134, April 29, 1924), is "Eagle Mountain, Chihuahua, Mexico, about four miles south of Dona Ana County, New Mexico." In 1906 (N. Amer. Fauna, 26:1-55, 10 pls., November 24) A. H. Howell's "Revision of the skunks of the genus Spilogale" was published and the four names listed above were retained by him as applying to four species (not subspecies). His map (_op. cit._, pl. 1) showing the geographic distribution of the four kinds looks reasonable enough at first inspection and does not indicate any overlapping of the geographic ranges of the species in question, but if a map be made by plotting the localities of occurrence recorded by Howell (_op. cit._), for specimens examined by him, a notably different geographic distribution is shown. For one thing the geographic ranges of _gracilis_, _leucoparia_, _arizonae_ and _ambigua_ coincide over a considerable part of Arizona. Also, specimens collected in recent years from Arizona and adjoining areas do not readily fit into the "species" recognized by Howell; some specimens are structurally intermediate between two or more of these species and other specimens combine the diagnostic characters ascribed to two or more of the alleged species. For these and other reasons a re-appraisal of the application of the names mentioned above long has been indicated. Before re-appraising the names it is pertinent to recall that Howell's paper in 1906 on _Spilogale_ was only the second revisionary paper that he prepared. It was prepared by a man who at that time lacked much taxonomic experience, and who held to a morphotype concept. Howell worked under the guidance, in the literal sense, of Dr. C. Hart Merriam. The concept of species and subspecies held by Merriam fortunately was recorded by him (Jour. Mamm., 1:6-9, November 28, 1919). Merriam's reliance on degree of difference and his disregard of intergradation were naturally (and necessarily, we think, in Howell's work in 1906) adopted by Howell. For example, of six specimens from Point Reyes in west-central California, a place less than ten miles from the type locality of _Spilogale phenax phenax_, Howell (_op. cit._:33) assigned one specimen to the subspecies _Spilogale phenax latifrons_! _S. p. latifrons_ occurs in Oregon and in northern California--no nearer than 200 miles to Point Reyes. Howell's assignment of this specimen to _S. p. latifrons_ was not a _lapsus_, as persons with the modern (geographic) concept of a subspecies would be likely to suppose. Howell's assignment of the one specimen to _S. p. latifrons_ and the other five specimens to _S. p. phenax_ was intentional, as he told one of us (Hall). He explained that he relied upon the morphological characters of the individual animal instead of upon the morphological characters of a population of animals. To him, therefore, there was nothing inconsistent in his procedure in 1906. Also, variation that was the result of difference in age and variation that was the result of individual deviation were not understood, or at least not taken into account, by Howell in 1906, nor by Merriam in 1890. For example, Merriam selected the most extensively white specimen available to him for the holotype of _Spilogale leucoparia_. He, and Howell in 1906, used the extensiveness of the white areas of that particular specimen (see fig. 3, pl. 2, N. Amer. Fauna, 26, 1906) as a character diagnostic of the "species" _S. leucoparia_ although each of the authors had available two other specimens of _S. leucoparia_ from the type locality, and all of the other referred specimens in the United States National Museum, that were less extensively white than the holotype. The _individual specimen_ was the primary basis for the species or subspecies and one selected specimen alone often was used in making comparisons between a given named kind and some other species or subspecies. Also, be it remembered, degree of difference, and not presence or absence of intergradation, was the basis on which subspecific _versus_ specific rank was accorded to a named kind of animal. Howell wrote on the labels of some specimens of _Spilogale_ "not typical" when the individuals differed from the type specimen in features that owe their existence to individual variation, and he wrote the same words on the labels of other specimens that had not yet developed mastoidal crests because the animals were not yet adult. Anyone who examines the specimens that Howell used will do well to bear in mind the circumstances noted above concerning Howell's paper of 1906; otherwise the reasons for Howell's identifications of certain specimens can not be understood. We have examined and compared the holotypes, and other specimens used by Howell. While doing so we have borne in mind the degree of individual variation well shown by each of several series of specimens (for example, that in six adult males, from the Animas Mountains of New Mexico, recorded by V. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 53:339, 1932) and age variation (for example, that shown in specimens of _S. interrupta_ from Douglas County, Kansas). The degree of each of these kinds of variation, although considerable, is not extraordinary. That is to say, the variations are of approximately the same degree as we previously have ascertained to exist in _Mephitis mephitis_ and in _Mustela frenata_, two species that are in the same family, Mustelidae, as _Spilogale_. As a result of our comparisons, we conclude, first that the four names mentioned at the beginning of this account all pertain to one species, and second that the three names _S. gracilis_, _S. p. arizonae_ and _S. ambigua_, and probably also _S. leucoparia_, were based on individual variations in one subspecies. _S. gracilis_ has priority and will apply; the other names are properly to be arranged as synonyms of it, as follows: 1890. _Spilogale gracilis_ Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, 3:83, September 11. 1890. _Spilogale leucoparia_ Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, 4:11, October 8. 1891. _Spilogale phenax arizonae_ Mearns, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 3:256, June 5. 1897. _Spilogale ambigua_ Mearns, Preliminary diagnoses of new mammals ... from the Mexican boundary line, p. 3, January 12. Some information in support of the above arrangement, along with some other observations on _Spilogale_, are as follows: The type specimen of _Spilogale gracilis_ bears on the original skin-label in the handwriting of Vernon Bailey, the collector, the statement that the tail was imperfect. The recorded measurements of 400 for total length and 142 for length of tail, therefore, are presumed to be subject to correction. This presumption and the further circumstance that other specimens from Arizona and New Mexico are as large as specimens of comparable age and sex that we have examined from Nevada and Utah of _Spilogale gracilis saxatilis_ Merriam, indicate that _S. g. saxatilis_ differs less from the allegedly smaller _S. g. gracilis_ than was previously thought. Nevertheless, from north to south (for example, from northern Nevada to southern Arizona) there is an increase in extent of white areas at the expense of black areas of the pelage. As a result, the lateralmost white stripe in _S. g. saxatilis_ averages narrower (and often is wanting) than in _S. g. gracilis_. The absence, or narrowness, of the lateralmost white stripe seems to be the principal basis for recognizing _S. g. saxatilis_, just as the tendency to narrow rostrum in Coloradan specimens seems to be the principal basis for recognizing _Spilogale gracilis tenuis_ A. H. Howell. Both _S. g. saxatilis_ and _S. g. tenuis_ are "poorly" differentiated from _S. g. gracilis_ and from each other. The holotype of _Spilogale ambigua_ Mearns is slightly smaller than other adult males of comparable age, and the braincase, relative to its width, is slightly deeper than in the average adult male. These variations, nevertheless, are within the range of individual variation, as also are those characterizing the holotype of _Spilogale phenax arizonae_ Mearns. The latter specimen is an adult male, with much inflated mastoidal bullae, nearly straight dorsal profile on the skull, relatively shallow braincase, and only slightly worn teeth. The holotype of _Spilogale leucoparia_ Merriam, as pointed out above, is an extreme example of the extensiveness of the white areas of the pelage at the expense of the black areas. This feature occurs more often in the southwestern desert areas of the United States than it does farther north. In addition to the extensiveness of the white markings, the other two characters allegedly distinctive of _S. leucoparia_ are broad and much flattened braincase and great degree of inflation of the mastoidal bullae. Although these three mentioned features do distinguish _S. leucoparia_ from _S. indianola_ to the eastward, they seem not to set _S. leucoparia_ apart from _S. gracilis_ to the westward. For example, in Arizona some specimens are extensively white and some others have the braincase flattened and the mastoidal bullae much inflated. V. Bailey (N. Amer. Fauna, 53:339, 1932) refers to a specimen ([Male], No. 147252 USBS) from the head of the Rio Mimbres in New Mexico in which, as our comparisons show, the inflation of the mastoidal bullae exceeds that of any Texan specimen of _S. leucoparia_, the holotype included. Also, at the type locality of _S. leucoparia_, subadult male No. 188467 USNM and adult male No. 188468 USNM are narrower across the mastoidal region than is the holotype. In summary and review, specimens from the eastern part of the range heretofore ascribed to _S. leucoparia_ nearly all have much inflated mastoidal bullae whereas less than half of the specimens of _Spilogale_ from western New Mexico and Arizona have these bullae as greatly inflated; but, in No. 147252 from the head of the Rio Mimbres of New Mexico the inflation of the bullae is more extreme than in any specimen that we know of that has been referred to _S. leucoparia_. If intergradation occurs between _Spilogale gracilis gracilis_ and _Spilogale indianola_ and between one or both of these kinds on the one hand and _Spilogale interrupta_ on the other hand, central Texas would be a logical place to collect intergrades. We suppose that such intergradation will be found to occur and that eventually _Spilogale putorius_ will be the specific name to apply to all of the Recent subspecies of spotted skunks. Until proof of such intergradation is forthcoming we employ current nomenclature. ~Spilogale gracilis microdon~ A. H. Howell A. H. Howell (N. Amer. Fauna, 26:31, November 24, 1906) listed as _Spilogale arizonae martirensis_ one specimen ([Female] sad.-yg., 145886 USBS) from Comondú, which is the type locality of _S. microdon_. Our examination of [Female] No. 145886 convinces us that it is referable to _S. microdon_. Examination of the materials used by Howell (_op. cit._) reveals that there is an increase in size of animal and its skull from within the geographic range of _S. g. martirensis_ southward to Cape St. Lucas which is the type locality of _S. lucasana_. Specimens of _S. microdon_, which so far has been recorded only from Comondú, the type locality, are, as would be expected, intermediate in size between _S. g. martirensis_ and _S. lucasana_. The differential characters of these three named kinds of _Spilogale_ are principally those of size, and we can see no characters judged to be of more than subspecific worth. Consequently the named kinds should stand as: _Spilogale gracilis martirensis_ Elliott; _Spilogale gracilis microdon_ A. H. Howell; _Spilogale gracilis lucasana_ Merriam. ~Spilogale gracilis microrhina~ Hall When Hall (Jour. Mamm., 7:53, February 15, 1926) named as new _Spilogale phenax microrhina_, he did not mention specimens previously recorded by A. H. Howell (N. Amer. Fauna, 26:32, November 24, 1906) as _Spilogale phenax_ from San Bernardino Peak (57026 USBS), La Puerta (99580 USBS), Dulzura (55848, 56173, 56873, 33693/45728, 36291/48656 and 36292/48657) in southern California. On geographic grounds these specimens would be expected to be _S. g. microrhina_ although geographically slightly outside the area that could be delimited by Hall's (_op. cit._) marginal record-stations of occurrence. Our examination of the pertinent specimens reveals that they are _Spilogale gracilis microrhina_. The localities from which the specimens came are, respectively, the northeasternmost, easternmost and southernmost occurrences so far listed for the subspecies. ~Conepatus mesoleucus mearnsi~ Merriam Examination of the holotypes of _Conepatus filipensis_ Merriam, _Conepatus pediculus_ Merriam, _Conepatus sonoriensis_ Merriam, and _Conepatus mesoleucus mearnsi_ Merriam, and other specimens of the two kinds last named, convinces us that all are the same species and that the names should stand as follows: _Conepatus mesoleucus filipensis_ Merriam (type locality, Cerro San Felipe, Oaxaca); _Conepatus mesoleucus pediculus_ Merriam (Sierra Guadalupe, Coahuila); and _Conepatus mesoleucus sonoriensis_ Merriam (Camoa, Río Mayo, Sonora). One method of designating the ages of individuals in _Conepatus_ is to recognize four categories from younger to older, as follows: 1) juvenile--retaining one or more deciduous teeth; 2) young--sutures open and clearly to be seen between bones of the facial part of the skull; 3) subadult--skull of adult form, but lacking sagittal and lambdoidal crests and retaining faint traces of sutures between facial bones; and 4) adult--sutures obliterated, lambdoidal ridge high and temporal ridges (of females) or sagittal crest (of males) prominent. On this basis of designating age, the holotype of _C. pediculus_ is young and nearer the juvenal than the subadult stage. Its small size is partly the result of its youth. Other than its small size we find no characters to distinguish it from _C. m. mearnsi_. Unfortunately no young male of _C. m. mearnsi_ of the same age as the holotype of _C. pediculus_ is available. Also, from the general area of the Sierra Guadalupe, Coahuila, only the one specimen of _Conepatus mesoleucus_ (the holotype of _C. m. pediculus_) is known. Consequently, we can not yet prove that some young males of _C. m. mearnsi_ are as small as the holotype of _C. pediculus_. Because of this lack of proof we tentatively recognize the subspecies _Conepatus mesoleucus pediculus_ instead of placing the name _Conepatus pediculus_ in the synonomy of _Conepatus mesoleucus mearnsi_. The holotype of _C. sonoriensis_ is a young female, older than the holotype of _C. pediculus_, and approximately midway between the juvenal and subadult stages. The holotype of _C. filipensis_ is an adult male. We suppose that _C. mesoleucus mesoleucus_ Lichtenstein and _C. mesoleucus mearnsi_ Merriam on the one hand, and _Conepatus leuconotus leuconotus_ Lichtenstein and _C. l. texensis_ Merriam on the other hand will be found to intergrade, in which event the name _Conepatus leuconotus_, having page priority over _Conepatus mesoleucus_, will apply to the species. Proof of complete intergradation is not yet available. The one difference between the two that prevents our uniting them as subspecies of one species is the larger size of _C. l. leuconotus_ and _C. l. texensis_. Measurements of the smallest adult male and female available to us of _C. l. texensis_ and of the largest adult male and female of _C. m. mearnsi_ are given below. Where the geographic ranges of the two species approach one another the only taxonomically significant difference detected by us is in size, _C. leuconotus_ being larger than _C. mesoleucus_. Other characters that are useful in separating the two alleged species now are known to vary geographically in a fashion that indicates only subspecific status for the two kinds. For example, three specimens from Laredo, Texas (previously recorded by V. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 25:205, October 24, 1905--Nos. 24839/32237, 24840/32238 and 24842/32245 USBS), bridge the gap in color pattern between _C. l. texensis_ to the east and _C. m. mearnsi_ to the west. _C. l. texensis_ characteristically has the white stripe terminating anteriorly in an obtuse angle, and on the hinder back the area of white is restricted to a narrow line or is wanting. _C. m. mearnsi_ characteristically has the white stripe truncate anteriorly and approximately as broad on the hinder back as on the shoulders. In the specimens from Laredo, the young female, No. 24842, has the white nearly truncate anteriorly (pointed in the other two specimens, adult females). In No. 24839 the area of white on the hinder back is only slightly restricted in width (noticeably restricted but present in the other two specimens). The proof of intergradation, or the lack of it, between the two alleged species, _Conepatus mearnsi_ and _Conepatus leuconotus_, would seem to be profitably sought by obtaining specimens along the Rio Grande in Texas between the Blocker Ranch ("50 miles southeast of Eagle Pass") and Laredo. Measurements illustrating the size difference between the two alleged species are as follows: TABLE 1. Measurements of _Conepatus_ from Texas Column Heading Legend: Col. A: [Male] ad. 186455 USNM, Mason, Texas. Type Col. B: [Male] ad. 31970/24575 USBS, Blocker Ranch, Texas Col. C: [Female] ad. 126241 USBS, 8 mi. S Langtry, Texas Col. D: [Male] ad. 47122 USBS, Brownsville, Texas. Type Col. E: [Male] ad. 45132/33129 USBS, Brownsville, Texas Col. F: [Male] yg. 45900/33865 USBS, Brownsville, Texas Col. G: [Female] ad. 47121/34865 USBS, Brownsville, Texas Col. H: [Female] ad. 24839/32237 USBS, Laredo, Texas Col. I: [Female] ad. 24840/32328 USBS, Laredo, Texas Col. J: [Male]? sad. 16651 AMNH, Kingsville, Texas ============================================+========================== C. mesoleucus mearnsi | C. leuconotus texensis ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Total | 633 | ... | 610 | 800 | 920 | 770 | 670 | 685 | 700 | ... length | | | | | | | | | | ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Length | ... | ... | 269 | 360 | 410 | 300 | 250 | 220 | 260 | ... of tail | | | | | | | | | | ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Length | 72[1]| 75[1]| 71 | 74 | 70 | 90 | 65 | 78 | 80 | ... of hind | | | | | | | | | | foot | | | | | | | | | | ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Condylo- | 72.0 | 72.8 | 64.5| 83.5| 78.9| 78.2| 72.0| 75.7| 74.5| ... basal | | | | | | | | | | length | | | | | | | | | | ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Zygomatic | 51.3 | 50.1 | 43.4| 55.3| 76.8| ... | 48.3| 49.0| 48.0|50.3 breadth | | | | | | | | | | ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Mastoidal | 41.0 | 44.2 | 37.0| 47.3| 78.2| 43.7| 40.5| 40.5| 40.7| ... breadth | | | | | | | | | | ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Length | 28.9 | 29.8 | 31.8| 28.9| 28.0| 25.8| 32.7| 55.3| 30.4|29.9 of upper | | | | | | | | | | tooth-rows| | | | | | | | | | ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Outside | 7.3 | ... | 6.1| 8.5| 53.2| 7.5| 7.5| 6.6| 7.7| 7.6 length | | | | | | | | | | of P4 | | | | | | | | | | ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Outside | 7.8 | 7.0 | 6.7| 9.2| 52.7| 8.4| 8.3| 7.6| 9.3| 9.1 length | | | | | | | | | | of M1 | | | | | | | | | | ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Breadth | 7.6 | 7.0 | 6.5| 9.3| ... | 8.6| 8.2| 7.9| 9.4| 8.2 of M1 | | | | | | | | | | ----------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- [1] Measured dry. ~Conepatus mesoleucus venaticus~ Goldman When Goldman (Jour. Mamm., 3:40, February 10, 1921) named _C. m. venaticus_ from Arizona he did not mention material which Merriam (Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 15:163, August 6, 1902) had recorded from Ft. Verde, Arizona, under the name _Conepatus mesoleucus mearnsi_. This material seems to be specimens in the American Museum of Natural History of which the two oldest specimens are as follows: No. 2486/1921, male, adult, from Box Cañon, 20 mi. S Ft. Verde; No. 2487/1922, female, subadult, from Verde River, Arizona. Pertinent measurements of these specimens are, respectively, as follows: condylobasal length, 72.4, 68.8; zygomatic breadth, 50.0, 44.2; width of braincase at constriction behind zygomata, 36.4, 33.8; mastoidal breadth, 44.3, 38.4. Comparison of these measurements with those given for _C. m. venaticus_ (Goldman, _loc. cit._) reveals that the specimens concerned agree in narrowness of skull with _C. m. venaticus_ (_C. m. mearnsi_ is relatively wider) and it is on this basis that we refer the specimens to _Conepatus mesoleucus venaticus_. ~Urocyon cinereoargenteus costaricensis~ Goodwin J. A. Allen (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 20:48, February 29, 1904) listed two specimens of gray fox from Pozo Azul, Costa Rica, as _Urocyon guatemalae_. Goodwin, in his "Mammals of Costa Rica" (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 87(5):271-474, December 31, 1946) did not mention any material from Pozo Azul. We have examined the skull of the adult female (No. 19208 AMNH) taken on July 17, 1902, at Pozo Zul [sic], by M. A. Carriker and find it to be indistinguishable from other specimens of _Urocyon cinereoargenteus costaricensis_ to which subspecies we therefore refer the specimen. ~Canis lupus griseoalbus~ Baird In 1823 Sabine (No. V, Zoological Appendix, p. 654, _In_ Narrative of a journey to the shores of the Polar Sea ... xvi + 768, 30 pls., 4 maps, 1823, London, by John Franklin) applied the name _Canis Lupus-Griseus_ to the gray wolf in the vicinity of Cumberland House, Saskatchewan. On the following page (p. 655) he employed the name _Canis Lupus-Albus_ for a white wolf obtained at Fort Enterprise, Northwest Territories. In 1937 Goldman (Jour. Mamm., 18(1):45, February 14) did not consider the wolves of the Cumberland House region to be sufficiently different from animals from surrounding areas to warrant nominal separation for them and he placed the name _Canis lupus griseus_ Sabine as a synonym of _Canis lupus occidentalis_ Simpson. Anderson (Jour. Mamm., 24(3):386, August 17, 1943) revived Sabine's name _griseus_ and assigned to _Canis lupus griseus_ an extensive geographic range in central Canada. Later, Goldman (Part II, Classification of wolves, p. 395 and 424, _In_ The Wolves of North America, American Wildlife Institute, May 29, 1944) by implication, again arranged _griseus_ of Sabine as a synonym of _Canis lupus occidentalis_ and pointed out (_op. cit._:395) that, in any event, the name _griseus_ is preoccupied by _[Canis] Griseus_ Boddaert, 1784 [= _Urocyon cinereoargenteus_ (Schreber), 1775]. Still later, Anderson (Bull. 102, Nat. Mus. Canada, p. 54, January 27, 1947) again recognized the subspecies formerly known as _Canis lupus griseus_ Sabine, and, because of Boddaert's prior usage of _[Canis] griseus_, renamed the subspecies _Canis lupus knightii_. It appears, however, that there is an earlier name available for this subspecies. Goldman (_op. cit._, 1943:395) points out that "apparently combining the names _Canis (Lupus) griseus_ and _Canis (Lupus) albus_ of Sabine ... as _Canis occidentalis_ var. _griseo-albus_, Baird [Mammals, Repts. Explor. and Surv. for R. R. to Pacific Ocean, Washington, p. 104, vol. 8, (1857) July 14, 1858] seems to have entertained a somewhat composite concept of a widely ranging race varying in color from 'pure white to grizzled gray.' No type was mentioned and the name does not appear to be valid or clearly assignable to the synonomy of any particular race." We agree with Goldman that Baird's concept was a composite one, but Baird's name, _Canis occidentalis_ var. _griseo-albus_, was clearly based on the primary names of Sabine (_griseus_ and _albus_), of De Kay (_occidentalis_), of Maxmillian (_variabilis_, a synonym of _Canis lupus nubilis_) and of Townsend (_gigas_, a synonym of _Canis lupus fuscus_). Nevertheless, the name _griseo-albus_ was applied to, among others, the subspecies of wolf the type locality of which is at Cumberland House, Saskatchewan, and, by restriction, the name _Canis lupus griseoalbus_ Baird is available for the subspecies and, of course, antedates _Canis lupus knightii_ of Anderson (_op. cit._, 1947:54). It might be argued that Baird did not intend to propose a new name, but that he did so is a _fait accompli_. _Canis lupus albus_ Sabine, 1823, is not available since it is preoccupied by _C[anis]. Lupus albus_ Kerr (Animal Kingdom, Class I, Mammalia, p. 137, 1792), a name applied to the wolf of the Yenisei region of Siberia. The name and synonomy of the wolf of central Canada should stand as follows: ~Canis lupus griseoalbus~ Baird 1858. _Canis occidentalis_, var. _griseo-albus_ Baird, Mammals, Repts. Explor. and Surv. for R. R. to Pacific Ocean, Washington, vol. 8, p. 104 (1857), July 14, 1858, based on _Canis Lupus-Griseus_ Sabine 1823 from the vicinity of Cumberland House, Saskatchewan. 1823. _Canis Lupus-Griseus_ Sabine, No. V, Zool. App. p. 654, _In_ Narrative of a journey to the shores of the Polar Sea ... by John Franklin (_nec [Canis] Griseus_ Boddaert, Elench. Anim. p. 97, 1794, a synonym of _Urocyon cinereaorgenteus_ (Schreber), Säugethiere, p. 92, 1775). 1943. _Canis lupus griseus_, Anderson, Jour. Mamm., 24(3):386, August 17. 1947. _Canis lupus knightii_ Anderson, Bull. 102, Nat. Mus. Canada, p. 54, January 24. (A renaming of _Canis Lupus-Griseus_ Sabine, 1823.) The name _Canis Lupus-Albus_ Sabine, 1823 (_nec C[anis]. Lupus albus_ Kerr, Animal Kingdom, p. 137, 1792) should, of course, be retained as a synonym of _Canis lupus mackenzii_ Anderson as arranged by Anderson (Bull. 102, Nat. Mus. Canada, p. 55, January 24, 1947). When Anderson (_op. cit._:54) recognized the subspecies _Canis lupus knightii_ [= _C. l. griseoalbus_] he made no mention of a specimen of wolf from Norway House, Manitoba, which Goldman (_op. cit._, 1944:427) had referred to _C. l. occidentalis_, but the subspecific identity of which was placed in doubt by Anderson's action. We have examined the specimen, No. 115995, in the Biological Surveys Collection, U.S. National Museum, and have compared it with specimens, including topotypes, of _C. l. occidentalis_ and _C. l. hudsonicus_. The specimen fits the description of _C. l. griseoalbus_ and differs from _C. l. occidentalis_ in its long and narrow incisive foramina, larger skull, more nearly straight frontal profile (not markedly concave), and slightly higher coronoid processes. Other differences alleged to obtain between these two subspecies offer no assistance in the present case. The specimen from Norway House differs from _C. l. hudsonicus_ in larger size of skull and stouter, blunter, postorbital processes, the posterior borders of which turn less abruptly inward. In brief, among currently recognized subspecies, the specimen from Norway House seems best referred to _Canis lupus griseoalbus_ Baird. ~Canis niger rufus~ Audubon and Bachman Goldman (Part II, Classification of wolves, p. 486, _In_ The wolves of North America, American Wildlife Institute, May 29, 1944) referred two specimens of the red wolf from Reeds Spring, Missouri, to the subspecies _C. n. gregoryi_. Leopold and Hall (Jour. Mamm., 26(2):143, July 19, 1945) referred wolves from 5 mi. N Gainesville and from 3 mi. N Thomasville, both localities in Missouri, to _C. n. rufus_. The identification of Leopold and Hall was made on the basis of the small size of their specimens and they did not have the advantage of comparative material. The locations of these and other records of occurrence in Missouri and Arkansas suggest that the specimens from Reeds Spring might be better referred to _C. n. rufus_, the more western subspecies. An examination and comparison of the two specimens from Reeds Spring, Nos. 244127 and 244527, Biological Surveys Collection, discloses that they are intergrades between _C. n. rufus_ and _C. n. gregoryi_. They resemble _C. n. rufus_ in small size and cranial characters, but are more nearly _C. n. gregoryi_ in the darker, less brightly rufescent color of the pelage. Being, in this case, more strongly influenced by the size and cranial features than by the color, we consider the animals from Reeds Spring best referred to _Canis niger rufus_. _Transmitted July 15, 1952._ End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores, by E. Raymond Hall and Keith R. Kelson *** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK COMMENTS ON THE TAXONOMY *** ***** This file should be named 33710-8.txt or 33710-8.zip ***** This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: http://www.gutenberg.org/3/3/7/1/33710/ Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. *** START: FULL LICENSE *** THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at http://gutenberg.org/license). Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. - You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email [email protected]. 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 [email protected] 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.