The Project Gutenberg eBook of Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores, E. Raymond HALL and Keith R. Kelsonby

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.

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.

From El Muñeco, Costa Rica, Harris (Occas. Papers, Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, no. 476:7, October 8, 1943) lists as Didelphis richmondi a specimen (♂, 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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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...."

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); 4½ 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.

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.).

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.

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:

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.

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:

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 (♂, 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.

A. H. Howell (N. Amer. Fauna, 26:31, November 24, 1906) listed as Spilogale arizonae martirensis one specimen (♀ sad.-yg., 145886 USBS) from Comondú, which is the type locality of S. microdon. Our examination of ♀ 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:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK COMMENTS ON THE TAXONOMY AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF SOME NORTH AMERICAN MARSUPIALS, INSECTIVORES AND CARNIVORES ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law 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™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ 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™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ 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™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law 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™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than 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™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ 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 in the United States and most other parts of the world 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. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (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™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

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™ 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™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (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™ 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™ 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™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ 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™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ 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 works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ 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™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ 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 MERCHANTABILITY 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™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ 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™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ 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™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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 information page at www.gutenberg.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. 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 business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread 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 www.gutenberg.org/donate.

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: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright 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 website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, 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.

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.

Column Heading Legend:
Col. A:	♂ ad. 186455 USNM, Mason, Texas. Type
Col. B:	♂ ad. 31970/24575 USBS, Blocker Ranch, Texas
Col. C:	♀ ad. 126241 USBS, 8 mi. S Langtry, Texas
Col. D:	♂ ad. 47122 USBS, Brownsville, Texas. Type
Col. E:	♂ ad. 45132/33129 USBS, Brownsville, Texas
Col. F:	♂ yg. 45900/33865 USBS, Brownsville, Texas
Col. G:	♀ ad. 47121/34865 USBS, Brownsville, Texas
Col. H:	♀ ad. 24839/32237 USBS, Laredo, Texas
Col. I:	♀ ad. 24840/32328 USBS, Laredo, Texas
Col. J:	♂? sad. 16651 AMNH, Kingsville, Texas

C. mesoleucus mearnsi				C. leuconotus texensis
	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J
Total length	633	...	610	800	920	770	670	685	700	...
Length of tail	...	...	269	360	410	300	250	220	260	...
Length of hind foot	72 [1]	75 [1]	71	74	70	90	65	78	80	...
Condylobasal length	72.0	72.8	64.5	83.5	78.9	78.2	72.0	75.7	74.5	...
Zygomatic breadth	51.3	50.1	43.4	55.3	76.8	...	48.3	49.0	48.0	50.3
Mastoidal breadth	41.0	44.2	37.0	47.3	78.2	43.7	40.5	40.5	40.7	...
Length of upper tooth-rows	28.9	29.8	31.8	28.9	28.0	25.8	32.7	55.3	30.4	29.9
Outside length of P4	7.3	...	6.1	8.5	53.2	7.5	7.5	6.6	7.7	7.6
Outside length of M1	7.8	7.0	6.7	9.2	52.7	8.4	8.3	7.6	9.3	9.1
Breadth of M1	7.6	7.0	6.5	9.3	...	8.6	8.2	7.9	9.4	8.2

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores

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

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Comments on the Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Some North American Marsupials, Insectivores and Carnivores

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

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

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

University of Kansas Publications
Museum of Natural History
Volume 5, No. 25, pp. 319-341
December 5, 1952

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
LAWRENCE
1952