| OCR Text |
Show COUES ON GEOMYS AND THOMOMYS. 243 Genus THOMOMYS, Maxim. Oryctomys, pt. EYD. & GERV., Mag. Zool. vi, 1836, 23. ThomomySj MAXIM., N. Act. Acad. Caes. Leop. xix, 1839, 383. (In addition to the foregoing, all the synonyms of G-eomys, q. v., have been applied to this genus.) The readiness with which the species of Geomys may be recognized and defined, is a measure of the difficulties encountered in the genus Thomomys, where, with the exception of T. clusius, the several forms into which the genus has become differentiated are not yet sufficiently stable to permit of positive, precise determination. After bringing to bear upon the subject an unusually protracted study, in the course of which I have critically examined a hundred or more specimens, I am forced to the conclusion that not a single one of the six or eight currently recognized species is susceptible of satisfactory diagnosis. No descriptive formula can be devised to mark off the characters of any one set of specimens, so completely is the whole series linked together. Nevertheless, it is easy to recognize three extremes of variation (i. e., of differentiation), selected specimens of which would not be confounded by the most careless observer; and it would be as unscientific to ignore these various phases of the genus, as to force them unnaturally apart in an attempt to ignore the still extant links by which they are bound together. There is an unmistakable average of characters, which serves for the recognition of three climatic or geographical races, conspecies or subspecies, which may be described in terms perhaps covering 75 per cent, of existing individuals; but the remainder cannot be thus disposed of. In other words, the causes which have been operative in modifying an original Thomomys stock have been only incompletely effectual in the formation of species. We clearly observe the tendency of those modifying influences to which the genus has been subjected; but we note with equal clearness the incompleteness, up to the present time, of the result. Nor is this by any means an exceptional case; on the contrary, positive diagnosis of forms, or specific distinctions in the proper sense, become impossible, in perhaps a majority of cases, when sufficient series of specimens are examined. As I have frequently remarked before under different modes of expression, the |
