the median dark stripe, the specimens from Overton, Wooster, and Loudonville are referred to Tamias striatus ohionensis.

Tamias striatus pipilans Lowery

A. H. Howell (N. Amer. Fauna, 29:16, November 30, 1929) recorded six specimens of Tamias striatus striatus from Greensboro, Alabama. Subsequently, Lowery (Occas. Papers Mus. Zool., Louisiana State Univ., 13:235, November 22, 1943) named T. s. pipilans and assigned to it specimens from northeastern Alabama. Lowery did not, however, mention the specimens from Greensboro and, thus, their subspecific identity was placed in doubt. We have examined five of the six specimens mentioned by Howell (loc. cit.) (57034-57036, 57588, and 77037 BS) and because of their brilliant color and large size, refer them to Tamias striatus pipilans Lowery.

Tamias striatus rufescens Bole and Moulthrop

A. H. Howell (Jour. Mamm., 13:166, August 9, 1932) also referred a specimen (13154), from La Porte, Indiana, in the Chicago Nat. History Museum to T. s. fisheri. We find the specimen to be distinguishable from T. s. fisheri in darker, richer pelage, brown instead of blackish anterior third of the median dorsal stripe, more buffy light dorsal stripes, and more heavily constructed skull. The specimen most closely resembles T. s. rufescens in having, as compared to T. s. ohionensis, brighter, more rufescent color, wider incisors, proportionately narrower interorbital region, and more widely spreading zygomatic arches. We refer it to that subspecies.

Sciurus carolinensis pennsylvanicus Ord

When J. A. Allen considered what name to apply to the gray squirrel of northeastern United States and adjacent parts of Canada, (Monogr. N. Amer. Rodentia, p. 709, 1877) he selected the name leucotis of Gapper (Zool. Jour., 5:206, 1830) as applicable. Allen rejected Ord's (Guthrie's Geog., 2nd Amer. Ed., Zool. App., 2:292, 1815) earlier name, Sciurus Pennsylvanica, because (loc. cit.) "it was given to specimens from the Middle Atlantic States, and hence from a locality bordering upon the habitat of the southern form, and consequently the name is not strictly applicable to the northern type as developed in the Northern and Northeastern States and the Canadas." It must be recalled that Allen had not at that time seen a copy of Ord's exceedingly rare work and was basing his comments on Baird's statements on Ord's treatment of the squirrels.

Subsequently, Rhoads obtained a copy of the second edition of Guthrie's Geography and had Ord's zoological appendix thereto reprinted. The reprinted version (now known generally as Ord's Zoology by Rhoads, 1894) contains (Appendix, p. 19) Rhoads' review of the pennsylvanicus vs. leucotis controversy. Rhoads concluded that pennsylvanicus must apply because it has priority and is available. The habitat was given by Ord as "those parts of Pennsylvania which lie to the westward of the Allegany ridge," not the "Middle Atlantic States" as Allen thought.

Notwithstanding Rhoads' comments, Bangs (Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 10:156, December 28, 1896), in his "Review of the Squirrels of Eastern North America," employed leucotis Gapper and rejected Ord's name because it "is a nomen nudum" and of uncertain application. There seems to have been no attempt subsequently to review the pertinent names.

We are of the opinion that Rhoads' (loc. cit.) analysis and conclusions are correct and as cogent today as then. We do not agree with Bangs that pennsylvanicus is a nomen nudum for the following reasons. The name was based on melanistic individuals and could conceivably be applied to three species of squirrels, the red squirrel, the fox squirrel, and the gray squirrel. Melanistic red squirrels, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, are everywhere rare and in any case appear as individuals and not populations. Ord (loc. cit.) reported that his Sciurus Pennsylvanica was abundant. Ord, we think, was not referring to the fox squirrel, Sciurus niger, because he wrote that S. Pennsylvania "has always been confounded with... [Sciurus niger], but it is a different species," and (loc. cit.) described S. niger as a "Large Black Squirrel" and Sciurus Pennsylvanica as a "Small Black Squirrel." Therefore, pennsylvanicus Ord can refer only to Sciurus carolinensis. Further, melanistic gray squirrels then, as now, were common in western Pennsylvania and exceedingly rare in eastern Pennsylvania. Additionally, Ord described his animal, although admittedly inadequately (small, black, not S. niger). The name Sciurus Pennsylvanica Ord is clearly not a nomen nudum and must replace leucotis Gapper.

Allen's (loc. cit.) argument that the specimens were not representative of "leucotis" because they were from the Middle Atlantic States is based on an initial misunderstanding of the locality. Further, whether or not "topotypes" are representative of a subspecies has no bearing on the availability of the name appended to them. The name and synonomy of the northern gray squirrel are as follows:

Sciurus niger rufiventer Geoffroy

Two specimens (36192/48550, a young male with unworn teeth, and 36193/48551, an adult male with much worn teeth, both in the United States Biological Surveys Collection in the National Museum) were recorded by Bailey (N. Amer. Fauna, 25:75, 1905) as Sciurus ludovicianus from Gainesville, Texas. Bailey (loc. cit.) further stated that if the name Sciurus rufiventer Geoffroy proved usable it would apply to the specimens from Gainesville. Since the name rufiventer was revived there would be no question concerning the identity of these specimens had not Lowery and Davis (Occas. Papers, Mus. Zool., Louisiana State Univ., 9:172, 1942) assigned three specimens (not seen by us) to Sciurus niger limitis Baird from a point only thirteen miles northwesterly. Lowery and Davis (loc. cit.) say that their specimens are intergrades (presumably with rufiventer) and Bailey (loc. cit.) noted that his two specimens from Gainesville "are in size and color nearer to ludovicianus [= rufiventer] than to typical limitis." Examination of the two specimens from Gainesville convinces us that Bailey was correct and the specimens therefore are referable to Sciurus niger rufiventer. More in detail, the color agrees with that of rufiventer and differs from that of limitis and from that of darker specimens of Sciurus niger ludovicianus (in the restricted sense used by Lowery and Davis, op. cit.: 104). Also the size is larger than in limitis and as in rufiventer or ludovicianus. Selected measurements of Nos. 36192/48550 and 36193/48551 are,