(eBook PDF) The European Union: How Does It

Work? 5th Edition download

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-european-union-how-
does-it-work-5th-edition/

Download more ebook from https://ebookluna.com

 We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookluna.com
to discover even more!

(eBook PDF) Politics in the European Union 3rd Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-politics-in-the-european-union-3rd-
edition/

(eBook PDF) Politics in the European Union 4th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-politics-in-the-european-union-4th-
edition/

(eBook PDF) Policy-Making in the European Union 7th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-policy-making-in-the-european-
union-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Fairhurst's Law of the European Union 12th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-fairhursts-law-of-the-european-
union-12th-edition/
(eBook PDF) European Union Law 3rd Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-european-union-law-3rd-edition/

(eBook PDF) European Union Politics 6th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-european-union-politics-6th-
edition-2/

(eBook PDF) European Union Politics 6th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-european-union-politics-6th-
edition/

(eBook PDF) Law of the European Union 11th by John Fairhurst

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-law-of-the-european-union-11th-by-
john-fairhurst/

(eBook PDF) European Union Law (Core Texts Series) 10th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-european-union-law-core-texts-
series-10th-edition/
DETAILED CONTENTS

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  xiii

LIST OF FIGURES  xvi

LIST OF BOXES  xvii

LIST OF TABLES  xix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS  xx

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS  xxiv

NEW TO THIS EDITION  xxv

THE EUROPEAN UNION’S MEMBER STATES xxvi

HOW TO USE THIS BOOK xxvii

PART I Background1
1 Introduction 3
Daniel Kenealy, John Peterson, and Richard Corbett

Studying the EU 4

Why bother? 6

Understanding the EU: Theory and Conceptual Tools 11

International Relations (IR) approaches 12
A comparative politics approach 13
A sociological/cultural approach 14
A public policy approach 15
Different theories, different insights 16

Themes17
Experimentation and change 17
Power sharing and consensus 18
Scope and capacity 19

Chapter Layout 21
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 21
FURTHER READING 21
WEB LINKS 23
viii Detailed Contents

2 How Did We Get Here? 24

Desmond Dinan
Introduction25
Post-War Problems and Solutions 26
The Schuman Plan 28
The European Defence Community 29
The European Community 30
Consolidating the European Community 33
Crisis and compromise 35
The EC after De Gaulle 36
A difficult decade 36
The Emerging European Union 37
Economic and monetary union 38
Maastricht and beyond 38
Enlargement, constitution building, and crisis 40

Conclusion43
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 44
FURTHER READING 44
WEB LINKS 45

PART II Major Actors 47

3 The EU’s Institutions 49
Richard Corbett, John Peterson, and Daniel Kenealy
Institutions in Treaties and in Practice 50
The European Commission 50
Tasks and powers 50
How the Commission is organized 51
The Council (of Ministers) 54
Vice president of the Commission / high representative
for foreign and security policy 56
The Council presidency 58
Voting in the Council 58
Coreper59
European Council (of Heads of State or Government) 60
The European Parliament 61
The powers of the EP 62
European Court of Justice 64
Why Institutions Matter 67
Experimentation and change 68
Power sharing and consensus 68
Scope and capacity 69

Conclusion70
 Detailed Contents ix

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 72
FURTHER READING 73
WEB LINKS 73

4 Member States 75
Brigid Laffan

Introduction76
Six Determining Features 77
Entry date 77
Size80
Wealth82
State structure 84
Economic ideology 84
Integration preference 86

Member States in Action 90

Managing EU Business 91
A Community of Values 92
Explaining Member States’ Engagement 92
Conclusion95
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 95
FURTHER READING 96
WEB LINKS 97

PART III Policies and Policy-Making 99

5 Key Policies 101
John Peterson with Alberta Sbragia

Introduction: Policies in the EU 102

Key Features of EU Policies 104
Differences between national and EU policies 104
The primacy of economic integration 108

‘Market-building’ Policies 108

Competition policy 109
Commercial (trade) policy 110
Economic and Monetary Union 111

‘Market-Correcting’ and ‘-Cushioning’ Policies 113

Common Agricultural Policy 113
Cohesion policy 115
Environmental and social regulation 115
Justice and home affairs policy 116

Comparing Policy Types in the EU 117

Conclusion119
x Detailed Contents

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 120

FURTHER READING 120
WEB LINKS 121

6 How Policies Are Made 123

Daniel Kenealy with Fiona Hayes-Renshaw

Introduction124
How it Works Formally 125
The basic rules 126
The principal actors 127
The key stages 128

What Happens in Practice 128

The adapted rules 129
A variety of actors 133
Fluid stages 136

Assessing the Process 138

Is the process transparent? 138
Is the process efficient? 139

Theory and Practice 141

Conclusion142
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 143
FURTHER READING 143
WEB LINKS 144

7 Democracy in the European Union 146

Richard Corbett

Democracy Beyond the State? 147

Legislating through Representative Assemblies 149
How representative are the Parliament and the Council? 150
Involving national parliaments 152

Separation of Powers 154

Executive Accountability 155
Respecting Fundamental Rights 159
Political Parties 160
Conclusion162
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 163
FURTHER READING 163
WEB LINKS 164

PART IV The EU and the Wider World 165

8 EU Enlargement and Wider Europe 167
Ulrich Sedelmeier with Graham Avery
 Detailed Contents xi

Introduction168
Widening versus deepening 168
Enlargement as soft power 169
An institutional paradox 171

How the EU Has Expanded 172

Why countries want to join . . . 174
. . . and when the EU decides to let them in 177
Recent enlargements 178

Prospective Members 180

Balkan countries 180
Turkey181
Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland 183

Wider Europe 183

European Neighbourhood Policy 183
The Eastern Partnership 185

What Limits for EU Expansion? 185

Evaluating Enlargement 188
Leaving and Joining 189
Conclusion190
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 190
FURTHER READING 190
WEB LINKS 191

9 The EU as a Global Actor 193

John Peterson and Niklas Helwig

Introducing European Foreign Policy 194

How it developed 195
The basics 196
A National ‘System’ of Foreign Policies 200

The Community System 201

Commercial (trade) policy 202
Aid and development 204
Externalizing ‘internal’ policies 204

The CFSP and CSDP 206

Theorizing the EU as a Global Actor 210
Conclusion212
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 213
FURTHER READING 214
WEB LINKS 215

10 Brexit and the Future of Two Unions 216

Daniel Kenealy, John Peterson, and Richard Corbett
Introduction217
xii Detailed Contents

The Referendum 218

Why have a referendum? 218
The referendum campaign 220
Understanding the result 222

How to Leave the EU 223

The negotiation process 224
Can Article 50 be revoked? 226

What Might Brexit Look Like? 226

The key issues 227
Hard versus soft Brexit 228

The Future of Two Unions 232

Brexit and UK constitutional politics 232
Brexit and the EU’s future 234

Conclusion235
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 236
FURTHER READING 236
WEB LINKS 237

11 Conclusion 238
John Peterson, Daniel Kenealy, and Richard Corbett

Introduction239
Three Themes 239
Experimentation and change 239
Sharing power and seeking consensus 242
Scope and capacity 243

Explaining the EU 243

International relations approaches 244
A comparative politics approach 245
A public policy approach 246
A sociological/cultural approach 246

Where Do We Go from Here? 247

Debating the future of Europe 247
How will it work? 249

Conclusion251

APPENDIX: CHRONOLOGY OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION 253

GLOSSARY  259

REFERENCES  267

INDEX293
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Previous editions of this book have emphasized change as a constant in the world
of European Union (EU) politics and public policy. That certainly applies to the EU
since the fourth edition was published in 2015. As we concluded writing the fourth
edition the EU had seemingly emerged from the depths of the global financial crisis
that had rocked the Eurozone between 2010 and 2012. As we finalized that edition,
the global refugee crisis was emerging as the EU’s latest crisis, a reality that has crys-
tallized since 2015. Meanwhile Europe’s leaders struggled with a revanchist Russia,
under President Vladimir Putin, which intervened in the Donbass region of Ukraine
in 2014, creating a frozen conflict that persisted despite efforts by the French and
German governments to alleviate the situation.
As we approach the present fifth edition of the book our task remains a daunt-
ing one. The most challenging days of the financial crisis do seem to be behind the
EU. However, significant and complicated public policy challenges persist as the EU—
and particularly the 19 member states who use the euro as their currency—tries to
complete the project of a banking union and looks for new institutional mechanisms
to strengthen the governance of the Eurozone and its ability to absorb the effects of,
and counter, any future economic crisis. Similarly, although the refugee crisis is less
intense in 2018 than it was in 2015, significant challenges remain as EU member
states struggle to absorb those who have arrived over recent years. There remains a
pressing need for the EU to speak with a strong and coherent voice on the global stage
as Russia extends its influence in the EU’s neighbourhood, as multiple crises and con-
flicts continue to unfold in North Africa and the Middle East, and as China seeks to
extend its economic influence and leverage globally via its Belt and Road Initiative.
The policy agenda in Brussels remains a full one.
These significant policy challenges—and there are more not mentioned here—are
made even more difficult by a rising tide of populist political sentiment across the
EU and beyond. The election of Donald Trump as US president in November 2016
added yet another volatile and unpredictable element to the mix given the impor-
tance of the transatlantic relationship both economically and in terms of security. In
several member states—notably Poland and Hungary—a form of illiberal democra-
cy is taking root, which poses a challenge to some of the EU’s founding principles.
Euroscepticism, a phenomenon linked politically to populism, remains an issue for
the EU. Anti-EU parties made significant gains in the 2014 European Parliament elec-
tion. As we completed the fourth edition, we remarked on the prospect of an existing
member state—the United Kingdom (UK)—voting to leave the EU. On 23 June 2016,
citizens of the UK did vote to leave the EU. This event was a seismic one that shook
the Union to its core: the first time in the EU’s 60-year history that its membership will
shrink, from 28 to 27. Brexit—as it has come to be called—poses a major challenge for
xiv Preface and Acknowledgements

the EU as it attempts to minimize the disruption and turbulence caused by the depar-
ture of a member state, and to maintain the integrity of the Union for its remaining
27 members.
As in previous editions, we the editors—and our authors—can offer little more
than educated guesses about what the effects of these institutional, political, and eco-
nomic changes will be. The status quo looked fragile as we went to press, suggesting
that more changes were likely to be in the offing. We (or most of us) are, by now,
battle-hardened as to how much and fast the ground can shift in European integration.
What the Union does, how it does it, and with what consequences, have all altered or
intensified in some (usually significant) ways since the fourth edition of this volume
was published.
We have tried to reflect the most important of these changes in this new edition.
Each individual chapter has been significantly updated (three years is a long time in
EU affairs), especially, but not only, to take account of the UK’s vote to leave the EU.
We have added several new authors to be sure that, even as we offer a basic introduc-
tion to the Union, our book reflects findings from the very latest and most perceptive
research on European integration. The editorial team remains the same as it was for
the fourth edition.
Our core mission remains the same: to produce a clear, concise, truly introductory
text for students and the curious general reader. No experience required. We know
the EU is important; we demonstrate why and how in the following chapters. We also
know that it can be made both comprehensible and interesting; our aim is to show
how. If we succeed, it is in great part due to our team of star contributors, and support
and publishing staff.
First, the contributors. One of the book’s most distinctive and strongest quali-
ties is its blend of academics and practitioners. All chapters were either co-authored
or reviewed by both an academic and practitioner. We thank our team of authors
for making this blend workable and even enjoyable. Special thanks are owed to
the authors or co-authors who contributed to the first four editions: Alexander
Stubb, Laura Cram, Lynn Dobson, Lykke Friis, David Martin, John D. Occhipinti,
Michael E. Smith, Michael Shackleton, Rory Watson, Albert Weale, Andrew Geddes,
Marlene Gottwald, and the late, great Sir Neil MacCormick. We also continue to be
in the debt of Elizabeth Bomberg who was the lead editor of the first three editions.
Elizabeth did more than anyone to establish this book’s credentials as the first one
to assign to inquiring minds trying to make sense of this strange and often baffling
political beast.
A second batch of thanks goes to the editorial and production team. As always,
we are in considerable debt to series editor Helen Wallace, who has offered not only
excellent substantive guidance but also unflagging and essential encouragement in the
production of this and past volumes. Thanks also to the editorial and production team
at OUP, especially Francesca Walker (née Mitchell), who demonstrated patience and
skill in seeing the project through, and Aishwarya Panday for efficiency and precisions
during the production process.
 Preface and Acknowledgements xv

Third, our readers. The advantage of doing multiple editions is that we are able
to benefit from the feedback from the last one as we plough ahead with the next one.
We’ve profited enormously from comments offered by reviewers of the first four edi-
tions, by practitioners in Brussels, and by the many EU studies colleagues who have
used this book in their teaching. An extremely useful range of comments, criticisms,
and suggestions came directly from end users themselves—including students using
the earlier editions in their courses at the University of Edinburgh.
Finally, amidst all the tumultuous change, there is always one constant: the support
offered by our partners and families, and presumably those of our authors. Like last
time, only more so: we could not have done it without you.
Daniel Kenealy, John Peterson, and Richard Corbett
Edinburgh and Leeds
LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 The three pillars of the European Union 5

4.1 ‘Onion’ Chart of EU Enlargements 78

5.1 Breakdown of EU spending commitments, 2017 114

6.1 Ordinary Legislative Procedure (OLP) flowchart  137

8.1 The Expanding European Union 181

8.2 The European Union’s Neighbourhood Policy 184

9.1 How it really works: CSDP missions 207

LIST OF BOXES

1.1 What’s in a name? 4

1.2 The three pillars of the European Union 5

1.3 The practical significance of the EU 7

1.4 Constitutional, Reform, or Lisbon Treaty? 8

1.5 Key concepts and terms 10

1.6 The treaties 18

1.7 Lost in interpretation? 20

2.1 Interpreting European integration 25

2.2 Key concepts and terms 26

2.3 How it really works 28

2.4 Compared to what? 32

2.5 How it really works 34

3.1 How it really works: Who initiates policy? 54

3.2 How it really works: Reaching decisions in the Council 56

3.3 Voting in the Council of Ministers 58

3.4 How the European Parliament ‘squeezes’ power 63

3.5 Compared to what? The ECJ and the US Supreme Court 65

3.6 How it really works: Turf wars! 67

3.7 Enlargement’s institutional impact 69

3.8 Other institutions and bodies 71

4.1 Key concepts and terms 76

4.2 Rescuing the euro 88

4.3 How it really works: Referendums 89

4.4 How it really works: Decision gridlock? 94

5.1 Key concepts and terms 103

5.2 How it really works: Budget bargaining 105

5.3 The policy competences of the EU 107

6.1 Key concepts and terms 124

6.2 A plethora of policies, processes, and procedures 125

xviii List of Boxes

6.3 How it really works: Trilogues 130

7.1 Key concepts and terms 148

7.2 Compared to what? Referenda in EU member states 150

7.3 Compared to what? The Council and the German Bundesrat 152

7.4 Compared to what? How are heads of executive chosen? 157

7.5 European political parties 160

8.1 Key concepts and terms 168

8.2 Criteria for membership 170

8.3 Chronology of enlargement 172

8.4 Prospective members 174

8.5 The path to membership 174

8.6 Compared to what? EU and NATO—a double race to

membership 176

8.7 How it really works: Joining the EU individually or together 177

8.8 Other Europeans 187

9.1 Key concepts and terms 196

9.2 How it really works: The EU and the Middle East and
North African region 201

9.3 How it really works: Making foreign policy decisions 205

9.4 Compared to what? The EU and Russia 208

9.5 Insights: The EU Global Strategy 210

10.1 Article 50: The provision meant never to be used 223

10.2 Hard versus soft Brexit: The available models 228

11.1 What’s in a name? 240

11.2 Two-speed Europe? 251

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Theories of European integration and the EU 16

4.1 Clusters of member states by size 80

4.2 Member states’ gross domestic product in 2017 83

4.3 Public attitudes to EU membership 87

5.1 CAP spending breakdown: top recipients 114

5.2 Policy types in the EU 118

6.1 Stage at which agreement has been reached on dossiers concluded

under the co-decision/Ordinary Legislative Procedure 131

6.2 Average length of time required to reach agreement under

the co-decision / Ordinary Legislative Procedure 140

7.1 Election of Commission President by the European Parliament 156

9.1 European foreign policy: Three systems 199

10.1 Mapping ‘red lines’ 230

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACP African, Caribbean, and Pacific

AECR Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists

AKP Turkey’s Justice and Development Party

ALDE Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

APEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

ASEAN Association of South-east Asian Nations

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CEPOL European Police College

CETA Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

CEU Central European University

CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy

CIA Central Intelligence Agency (US)

CoE Council of Europe

COPS European Political and Security Committee

CoR European Committee of the Regions

Coreper Committee of Permanent Representatives

CSDP Common Security and Defence Policy

DG Directorate-General (European Commission)

DUP Democratic Unionist Party

EAF European Alliance for Freedom

EaP Eastern Partnership

EC European Community

ECAS European Citizen Action Service

ECB European Central Bank

ECHO European Community Humanitarian Office

ECHR European Convention on Human Rights

ECJ European Court of Justice

ECOFIN (Council of) Economic and Financial Affairs

ECSC European Coal and Steel Community

EDC European Defence Community

EDF European Development Fund

Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
more inflated; zygomata, while nearly straight, are bowed slightly laterally;
pterygoid fossae more ovate; foramen magnum larger; pterygoid foramina smaller.
Compared with Dipodomys ordii ordii and Dipodomys ordii sennetti, D. o. medius is
larger and darker. The skull is also larger in all measurements taken.
Compared with Dipodomys ordii longipes, D. o. medius is darker and smaller.
Remarks.—This hitherto undescribed race of Dipodomys ordii can
readily be distinguished from any of its near neighbors by the
characters set forth under diagnosis and comparisons.
Intergradation is noted with D. o. ordii, D. o. longipes, D. o.
montanus and D. o. richardsoni. Among named races D. o. medius
shows closest affinities with D. o. richardsoni but the two are easily
separable. The northwestern extremity of the range of D. o. medius
is an area of intergradation in which no specimens are clearly of one
subspecies or the other. In specimens from 5 miles east of Abiquiu,
New Mexico, three-way intergradation occurs. These animals are like
D. o. medius in size, D. o. longipes in color and their cranial
proportions are as in D. o. montanus. At Deer Creek, New Mexico,
and at Monahans, Texas, the animals show intergradation in size of
body and agree with D. o. ordii in cranial proportions. In specimens
from 6 miles southwest of Muleshoe, Texas, intergradation with D. o.
richardsoni in the shape of the skull and width of the rostrum is
noted. In the sum total of characters studied, however, these
specimens are referable to D. o. medius.
Specimens examined.—Total, 129, distributed as follows:
New Mexico: Rio Arriba County: 2 mi. SE El Rito, 2 (KU); Rio Alamosa, 15 mi. N
Ojo Caliente, 1 (USBS); 6 mi. E Abiquiu, 4 (USBS); Rinconada, 5 (USBS);
Espanola, 6 (USBS). Sandoval County: 12 mi. NW Alameda, 5500 ft., 3 (MVZ).
Santa Fe County: Seton's Ranch, near Santa Fe, 1 (USBS); 8 mi. SW Santa Fe, 8
(KU); San Pedro, 3 (USBS). San Miguel County: Pecos, 2 (USBS); 3 mi. S Pecos, 2
(USBS); Rowe, 6 (LACM). Bernallilo County: Bear Canyon, Sandia Mountains, 7
(USBS); Pajarito, 3 (MVZ). Guadalupe County: Santa Rosa, 10 (USBS). Lincoln
County: 44 mi. NW Roswell, 5 (MVZ). De Baca County: 8 mi. N Fort Sumner, 9
(USBS). Roosevelt County: Kenna, 4 (LACM). Curry County: 4 mi. W and 2-3/4 mi.
N Clovis, 1 (MVZ). Chaves County: 40 mi. N Roswell, 2 (USBS); 35 mi. N Roswell,
2 (USBS); 15 mi. NE Roswell, 8 (LACM); Stinking Springs Lake, 3 (USBS).
Texas: Bailey County: 6 mi. SW Muleshoe, 5 (UM); 9 mi. SW Muleshoe, 2 (UM).
Garza County: 7 mi. E Post, 5 (UM). Martin County: Stanton, 4 (USBS). Howard
County: 6 mi. NE Coahoma, 7 (UM); 1 mi. S Coahoma, 1 (UM); 5 mi. W Big
Springs, 2400 ft., 1 (MVZ). Mitchell County: Colorado, 5 (USBS). Winkler County:
20 mi. N Monahans, 1 (USBS). Ward County: Monahans, 1 (USBS).

Dipodomys ordii obscurus (Allen)

Perodipus obscurus Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 19:603, November 12,
1903.
Dipodomys ordii obscurus, Grinnell, Journ. Mamm., 2:96, May 2, 1921.
Type.—Male, adult, no. 20957, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.; Rio Sestin, northwestern
Durango, Mexico; obtained on April 13, 1903, by J. H. Batty. (Type not seen.)
Range.—Northwestern and northern Durango, Mexico; marginal localities are:
Rosario, Rio Sestin, Mt. San Gabriel, Rio del Bocas, Villa Ocampo.
Diagnosis.—Size small (see measurements). Color dark, entire dorsal surface (16")
between Pinkish Cinnamon and Cinnamon-Buff, purest on sides, flanks and
cheeks, upper parts strongly suffused with black; arietiform markings, plantar
surfaces of hind feet, pinnae of ears, dorsal and ventral stripes of tail, brownish.
Skull of medium size, nasals long and flared distally; rostrum long and narrow;
interorbital region relatively narrow; auditory bullae less inflated than in
Dipodomys ordii palmeri; interparietal region narrow; zygomatic arches heavy and
bowed laterad; pterygoid fossae ovoid; braincase but slightly vaulted.
Comparisons.—From Dipodomys ordii palmeri, D. o. obscurus differs in: Size
larger; color lighter; nasals shorter and more flared distally; interorbital width less;
lacrimal processes larger; auditory bullae less inflated; pterygoid fossae ovoid as
opposed to subcircular; zygomatic arches heavier; rostrum shorter and wider.
From Dipodomys ordii ordii, D. o. obscurus differs as follows: Size smaller; color
darker; skull smaller; nasals longer; rostrum narrower and shorter; interorbital
width greater; interparietal region narrower; narrower across auditory bullae;
zygomatic arches heavier and more bowed laterally; pterygoid fossae more ovoid;
breadth across maxillary arches greater; external auditory meatus smaller.
With Dipodomys ordii attenuatus and Dipodomys ordii sennetti, D. o. obscurus
needs no comparison since it is larger and darker than either of those subspecies
and can readily be told from the latter by the greater expansion of the auditory
bullae.
For comparison with Dipodomys ordii fuscus see account of that subspecies.
Remarks.—D. o. obscurus seemingly is not a far-ranging subspecies.
The only examples referable to it come from a relatively restricted
area of Durango, Mexico. One specimen from Rio del Bocas,
Durango, is not typical and shows the characters described for the
animals from Chihuahua City and from Casas Grandes. I have
considered the possibility that this specimen is an intergrade
between D. o. obscurus and an unnamed subspecies ranging to the
northeastward. The other specimens in the series from Rio del Bocas
are typical of D. o. obscurus.
Specimens examined.—Total, 69, all from Durango, distributed as follows: Rosario,
20 (AMNH); Villa Ocampo, 5 (AMNH); Rio Sestin, 30 (28 AMNH; 2 CNHM); Mt. San
Gabriel, 2 (AMNH); Rio del Bocas, 11 (AMNH); Rancho Santuario, 1 (AMNH).
 Fig. 24. Known occurrences and probable geographic range of the
subspecies of Dipodomys ordii in the southeastern fourth of the range
of the species.
1. D. o. richardsoni 7. D. o. obscurus 30. D. o. fuscus
2. D. o. oklahomae 14. D. o. ordii 31. D. o. longipes
3. D. o. compactus 16. D. o. extractus 35. D. o. palmeri
 4. D. o. sennetti 23. D. o. idoneus
6. D. o. medius 29. D. o. attenuatus

Dipodomys ordii terrosus Hoffmeister

Dipodomys ordii terrosus Hoffmeister, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 55:165,

December 31, 1942.
Dipodomys phillipsi ordi, Coues and Allen, Monogr. North American Rodentia, p.
541, August, 1877 (part—the part from Yellowstone River, Montana).
Perodipus montanus richardsoni, Cary, N. Amer. Fauna, 49:124, December, 1926
(part—the part from Glendive, Montana).
Type.—Male, no. 93477, Mus. Vert. Zool., Univ. California; Yellowstone River, 5 mi.
W Forsyth, 2,750 ft., Rosebud County, Montana; obtained on June 2, 1940, by J.
R. Alcorn, original no. 1528.
Range.—Extreme southwestern Saskatchewan and southeastern Alberta, eastern
half of Montana, northern Wyoming and probably extreme western North Dakota;
marginal localities are: 50 mi. W Swift Current, Saskatchewan; "near Medicine
Hat," Alberta; in Wyoming, Sheep Creek, and 23 mi. SW Newcastle; in Montana,
Medicine Rocks (14 mi. NE Ekalaka), and Glendive.
Diagnosis.—Size large (see measurements). Color dark, entire dorsal surface near
(c) Ochraceous-Buff, purest on sides and flanks; upper parts mixed with black;
arietiform markings, pinnae of ears, dorsal and ventral stripes of tail and plantar
surfaces of hind feet brownish-black. Skull large; rostrum short, wide and deep;
braincase slightly vaulted; auditory bullae markedly inflated ventrally; zygomatic
arches heavy and bowed laterad; upper incisors long and robust.
Comparisons.—From Dipodomys ordii priscus, D. o. terrosus differs as follows: Size
larger in all measurements taken, except for length of hind feet, which is less;
color darker in all pigmented areas; skull larger in all parts measured except width
of interparietal, which is less; auditory bullae more inflated ventrally; zygomatic
processes of maxillae wider; rostrum deeper and shorter.
From Dipodomys ordii richardsoni, D. o. terrosus differs as follows: Size larger;
color darker in all pigmented areas; ventral stripe of tail extending farther distally;
skull larger except in width across auditory bullae, which is the same.
For comparison with Dipodomys ordii luteolus see account of that subspecies.

Remarks.—As noted in the comparisons, D. o. terrosus is larger and

darker than D. o. priscus, D. o. luteolus or D. o. richardsoni, its
closest geographic neighbors, and does not resemble any of them,
but rather resembles D. o. longipes and D. o. evexus in size and
appearance, both of which are distantly removed geographically.
Like other subspecies of the species D. ordii, D. o. terrosus prefers
sandy soils to those of any other type. Two miles east and 1 mile
south of Forsyth, Montana, animals were trapped on lenses of sandy
soil. These lenses alternated with areas of black loam of similar size.
It was noteworthy that burrows were found only in the areas of
sandy soil, although paths used by the rats when foraging did
extend onto and several crossed the lenses of black loam. We were
not permitted to excavate any of these burrows, but conversation
with farmers of the immediate vicinity indicated that the burrows
were not deep. An eight-inch disc would frequently plow out nests
and food caches. It was said that each of several caches contained
as much as a peck of wheat.
Intergradation was noted in animals from 23 miles southwest of
Newcastle and Arvada, Wyoming. In animals from both localities the
pterygoid fossae are more as in D. o. luteolus but referable to D. o.
terrosus. The specimens from Arvada, although immature,
possessed cranial characters which were intermediate between those
of D. o. terrosus and D. o. luteolus but the specimens are referable
to the former.
Specimens examined.—Total, 74, distributed as follows:
Montana: Petroleum County: 24 mi. N Roundup, 8 mi. SW Flatwillow, 2 (UM).
Garfield County: Jordan, 10 (1 UM; 2 MVZ; 7 AMNH). Dawson County: Glendive, 9
(USNM). Musselshell County: Harvey Ranch, Melstone, 3 (MVZ). Rosebud County:
Yellowstone River, 5 mi. W Forsyth, 2750 ft., 7 (MVZ); 2 mi. E and 1 mi. S Forsyth,
2600 ft., 8 (KU). Custer County: Miles City, 1 (USBS). Yellowstone County: Billings,
2 (1 USBS; 1 MVZ). Big Horn County: Fort Custer, 1 (USBS); Crow Agency, 1
(USBS). Powder River County: Powderville, 4 (USBS). Carter County: Medicine
Rocks, 15 mi. N Ekalaka, 2 (USBS); Medicine Rocks, 14 mi. N Ekalaka, 2 (USBS);
Clark's Fork, 1 (USBS).
Wyoming: Big Horn County: Dry Creek, 10 mi. W Germania, 1 (USBS); 3 mi. E
Germania, 1 (USBS); Greybull, 2 (USBS); Bighorn Basin, 1 (USBS). Sheridan
County: Arvada, 8 (USBS). Campbell County: Little Powder River, 1 (USBS).
Weston County: Newcastle, 2 (USBS); 23 mi. SW Newcastle, 4 (USBS). Fremont
County: Wilson's Ranch, Sheep Creek, S base Owl Creek Mountains, 1 (USBS).
Additional records.—Canada (Anderson, 1946:131): Alberta: near Medicine Hat,
1; Saskatchewan: near Shackleton, 45-50 mi. NW Swift Current, 1; near Tompkins,
50 mi. W Swift Current, 1.

Dipodomys ordii fremonti Durrant and Setzer

Dipodomys ordii fremonti Durrant and Setzer, Bull. Univ. Utah, 35 (no. 26):21,
June 30, 1945.
Type.—Female, no. 15661, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Torrey,
7000 ft., Wayne County, Utah; obtained on July 19, 1938, by W. F. and F. H. Wood,
original no. 1562.
Range.—Known only from the type locality.
Diagnosis.—Size small (see measurements). Color dark, entire dorsal surface
Cinnamon-Buff, purest on sides, flanks and cheeks; upper parts strongly suffused
with black; arietiform markings, pinnae of ears, plantar surfaces of hind feet,
dorsal and ventral stripes of tail, brownish. Skull small; upper incisors long;
rostrum deep; jugal bowed laterally; diastema long; upper molariform tooth-row
long.
Comparisons.—From Dipodomys ordii panguitchensis, D. o. fremonti differs in:
Color lighter in all pigmented areas, particularly ears which are light brown in D. o.
fremonti and black in D. o. panguitchensis; skull larger in all measurements taken;
upper incisors longer; rostrum deeper; auditory bullae deeper; jugal bowed
laterally rather than straight; diastema longer.
From Dipodomys ordii cupidineus, longipes, nexilis, uintensis and sanrafaeli, D. o.
fremonti can readily be distinguished by its smaller size and generally darker color.
Remarks.—This subspecies of Dipodomys ordii inhabits the upper
reaches of the Fremont River in west-central Wayne County, Utah. D.
o. fremonti appears to be isolated and is known only from the type
locality. D. o. fremonti is so remarkably different from any other
subspecies of Dipodomys ordii that a long period of isolation from
the ancestral stock (which probably gave rise also to Dipodomys
ordii utahensis and Dipodomys ordii panguitchensis) is indicated.
Although intergradation is not known to occur with other kinds,
differentiation has not progressed far enough for these animals to be
recognized as a distinct species.
The subspecies closest, geographically, to D. o. fremonti is D. o.
cupidineus from which D. o. fremonti differs more than from any of
the other named forms.
Specimens examined.—Total, 9, from Utah, as follows: Wayne County: Torrey,
7000 ft., 9 (CM).

Dipodomys ordii uintensis Durrant and Setzer

Dipodomys ordii uintensis Durrant and Setzer, Bull. Univ. Utah, 35 (no. 26):27,
June 30, 1945.
Perodipus longipes, Allen, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 8:246, November 1896
(part—the part from Uncompahgre Indian Reservation, Utah).
Dipodomys ordii luteolus, Moore, Journ. Mamm., 11:88, February, 1930 (part—
the part from Vernal, Utah).
Type.—Male, adult, no. 11634, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Red
Creek, 6,700 ft., 2 mi. N Fruitland, Duchesne County, Utah; obtained on August
15, 1936, by J. K. and M. T. Doutt, original no. 3433.
Range.—Uinta basin of the White, Green and Duchesne river drainage in
northeastern Utah; marginal occurrences are: 2 mi. N Fruitland, 10 mi. S Ouray,
Vernal.
Diagnosis.—Size large (see measurements); hind foot short. Color dark; entire
dorsal surface, near (c) Cinnamon-Buff, purest on sides and flanks, with moderate
suffusion of black on upper parts; cheeks white; arietiform markings, pinnae of
ears, plantar surfaces of hind feet, dorsal and ventral stripes of tail, brownish.
Skull large; frontomaxillary suture convex mediad; lacrimal process large; styloid
process projects, on ventral surface of tympanic bulla, beyond middle of external
auditory meatus; nasals flared distally.
Comparisons.—From Dipodomys ordii priscus, D. o. uintensis differs in: Hind foot
shorter; color darker; styloid process projects on ventral part of tympanic bulla
well anterior to middle of external auditory meatus as opposed to projecting to
middle; depth of foramen magnum, expressed in percentage of width across
posterior margin of occipital condyles, greater (86 per cent in D. o. uintensis and
81 per cent in D. o. priscus); frontomaxillary suture convex mediad as opposed to
nearly straight; lacrimal processes larger; nasals more flared distally.
From Dipodomys ordii nexilis, D. o. uintensis differs as follows: Size smaller; color
lighter; interorbital breadth greater; frontomaxillary suture convex mediad as
opposed to concave; lacrimal processes larger; nasals more flared distally;
narrower across auditory bullae; basal length greater; zygomatic arches bowed
laterad as opposed to relatively straight.
From Dipodomys ordii longipes, D. o. uintensis differs as follows: Size smaller;
color darker; auditory bullae wider, longer and deeper; frontomaxillary suture
convex mediad as opposed to nearly straight; greatest breadth across auditory
bullae less.
For comparison with Dipodomys ordii sanrafaeli see account of that subspecies.
Remarks.—This large, rather dark race inhabits the desert valleys of
the White, Green and Duchesne rivers in northeastern Utah. The
race nearest geographically, as well as morphologically, is Dipodomys
ordii priscus. Intergradation occurs with the latter subspecies at
Vernal, Uintah County, in cranial measurements and in color. On the
basis of color alone D. o. uintensis can be distinguished from D. o.
sanrafaeli, the geographic race to the south. Specimens from Jensen
are intermediate in color and cranial measurements between
Dipodomys ordii nexilis and D. o. uintensis but are referable to the
latter.
Specimens examined.—Total, 40, all from Utah, distributed as follows: Duchesne
County: Red Creek, 6700 ft., 2 mi. N Fruitland, 4 (CM); 10 mi. S Myton, 1 (UU); 20
mi. S Myton, 1 (RH). Uintah County: Vernal, 1 (BYU); 20 mi. E Ouray, 5 (CM);
Junction Green and White rivers, 4800 ft., 2 mi. S Ouray, 5 (CM); Pariette Bench,
5000 ft., 8 mi. S Ouray, 8 (CM); Desert Springs, 10 mi. S Ouray, 4 (CM); Pariette
Bench, 12 mi. S Ouray, 2 (CM); Jensen, 5 (BYU); E side Green River, 3 mi. S
Jensen, 4 (CM).

Dipodomys ordii sanrafaeli Durrant and Setzer

Dipodomys ordii sanrafaeli Durrant and Setzer, Bull. Univ. Utah, 35 (no. 26):26,
June 30, 1945.
Dipodomys ordii longipes, Stanford, Journ. Mamm., 12:360, November, 1931
(part—the part from King's Ranch, Utah).
Type.—Female, adult, no. 4612, Museum of Zoology, University of Utah; 1-1/2 mi.
N Price, 5567 ft., Carbon County, Utah; obtained on June 5, 1940, by Ross Hardy
and H. Higgins, original no. 1901.
Range.—East-central Utah, east into west-central Colorado. Marginal occurrences
are: in Utah, 12 mi. E Price, 1-1/2 mi. N Price, Notom, King's Ranch, 12 mi. SW
Green River, 16 mi. NW Moab; in Colorado, State Line and Grand Junction.
Diagnosis.—Size large (see measurements). Color dark, entire dorsal surface
Cinnamon-Buff, purest on sides and flanks with but slight suffusion of black on
upper parts; cheeks white; arietiform markings, pinnae of ears, plantar surfaces of
hind feet, dorsal and ventral stripes of tail, brownish-black. Skull large; pterygoid
fossae ovoid; lacrimal processes small; width across maxillary arches relatively
great; auditory bullae well inflated; diastema short.
Comparisons.—From Dipodomys ordii longipes, D. o. sanrafaeli differs as follows:
Size smaller; color lighter, more cinnamon, pinnae of ears lighter; skull smaller;
auditory bullae smaller; pterygoid fossae ovoid rather than round; wider across
occipital condyles; narrower across zygomatic processes of maxillae.
From Dipodomys ordii cupidineus, D. o. sanrafaeli can be recognized by its larger
size, lighter color and larger skull.
For comparisons with Dipodomys ordii nexilis, Dipodomys ordii priscus and
Dipodomys ordii uintensis see accounts of those subspecies.
Remarks.—Intergradation between Dipodomys ordii cupidineus and
D. o. sanrafaeli is noted in the intermediate size of body in a single
specimen from Notom. Intergradation in color and cranial characters
occurs between Dipodomys ordii nexilis and D. o. sanrafaeli in
specimens from 16 miles northwest of Moab. All these specimens,
however, are referable to D. o. sanrafaeli.
Animals from that part of the range of D. o. sanrafaeli west of the
Green River are typical while those to the east of the river are all
intergrades. Animals from 16 miles northwest of Moab, Utah, and
from three localities in Colorado, even though intergrades with D. o.
nexilis, are all referable to D. o. sanrafaeli. It appears that the Green
River does not act as a complete barrier in this area since in the
winter it occasionally freezes over, thus allowing the animals to
cross. It is thought that kangaroo rats do not hibernate but remain
more or less active throughout the winter. Man-made conveniences,
such as bridges, might also serve as means of dispersal, permitting
these animals to cross otherwise prohibitive barriers. Where there
are no bridges across the Green River, farther to the south, the rats
apparently do not cross the river; steep, rocky canyon-walls and the
lack of ice on the water in winter lessen the chances of small
mammals crossing from one side to the other.
Specimens examined.—Total, 30, distributed as follows:
Utah: Carbon County: 12 mi. NE Price, 2 (CM); 3 mi. NE Price, 1 (RH); 1-1/2 mi.
N Price, 2 (1 RH; 1 UU); Wellington, 1 (RH). Emery County: "San Rafael, 21 mi.
out," 1 (USAC); 12 mi. SW Green River, 2 (CM). Grand County: 1 mi. E Green
River, 1 (MVZ); 16 mi. NW Moab, 2 (CM). Wayne County: Notom, 1 (BYU). Garfield
County: King's Ranch, 4800 ft., 3 (2 UU; 1 USAC).
Colorado: Mesa County: State Line, 11 (MVZ); Fruita, 1 (USBS); Grand Junction,
2 (USBS).

Dipodomys ordii panguitchensis Hardy

Dipodomys ordii panguitchensis Hardy, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 55:90, June
25, 1942.
Type.—Male, adult, no. 4375, Museum of Zoology, University of Utah; one mile
south of Panguitch, 6666 ft., Garfield County, Utah; obtained on August 31, 1940,
by Ross Hardy, original no. 2151.
Range.—Known only from the type locality.
Diagnosis.—Size small (see measurements). Color dark, entire dorsal surface near
Olive-Brown, purest on sides and flanks, upper parts strongly suffused with black;
cheeks white; arietiform markings, pinnae of ears, plantar surfaces of hind feet,
dorsal and ventral stripes of tail which are wider than white lateral stripes,
blackish. Skull small; rostrum relatively short and wide; interorbital region wide;
interparietal region wide; foramen magnum elongate dorsoventrally; pterygoid
fossae ovoid.
Comparisons.—From Dipodomys ordii utahensis, which it closely resembles, D. o.
panguitchensis differs in: Size larger; color darker; interparietal region wider;
foramen magnum elongate dorsoventrally as opposed to nearly round; pterygoid
fossae ovoid as opposed to nearly round.
This subspecies can be distinguished from Dipodomys ordii fetosus, Dipodomys
ordii celeripes and Dipodomys ordii cupidineus by its darker color and generally
larger size.
For comparisons with Dipodomys ordii cinderensis and Dipodomys ordii fremonti
see accounts of those subspecies.
Remarks.—This geographic race inhabits the upper reaches of the
Sevier River Valley in the vicinity of Panguitch, Utah. Natural barriers
to kangaroo rats, such as the Cedar Mountains to the west, high
plateau country to the south, the Paunsaugunt Plateau to the east
and the narrow canyons of the Sevier River to the north prevent
these animals from extending their range or from coming into
physical contact with any adjacent geographic races. This isolation
has resulted in a fairly stable population. Some animals, however,
show characters, such as the width of the rostrum, and the shape
and length of the nasals which are intermediate between those of
topotypes of D. o. utahensis and the type series of D. o.
panguitchensis.
Specimens examined.—Total, 3, all from Utah, distributed as follows: Garfield
County: 1 mi. S Panguitch, 6666 ft., 3 (2 RH; 1 UU).

Dipodomys ordii monoensis (Grinnell)

Perodipus monoensis Grinnell, Univ. California Publ. Zool., 21:46, March 29,
1919.
Dipodomys ordii monoensis, Grinnell, Journ. Mamm., 2:96, May 2, 1921.
Type.—Female, adult, no. 27002, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of
California; Pellisier Ranch, 5 mi. N Benton Station, 5600 ft., Mono County,
California; obtained on September 21, 1917, by J. Dixon, original no. 6384.
Range.—Northeastern Inyo and Mono counties, California, north to southern
Pershing County and east to eastern Nye County, Nevada; marginal occurrences
are: in California, 5 mi. N Benton Station and Deep Spring Valley; in Nevada,
Arlemont, 2 mi. NW Palmetto, 1 mi. N Beatty, 5 mi. W White Rock Spring, Big
Creek at Quinn Canyon Mts., 2-1/2 mi. S Lock's Ranch, 2 mi. S Millett P. O., 13-1/2
mi. NW Goldfield, Fingerrock Wash, Eastgate, 1/2 mi. NE Toulon, 21 mi. W and 2
mi. N Lovelock, 1/2 mi. S Pyramid Lake, West Walker River in Smith's Valley, and
10 mi. S Yerington.
Diagnosis.—Size medium (see measurements). Color pale, entire dorsal surface (c)
between Pinkish Buff and Cinnamon-Buff, purest on sides, flanks and cheeks, with
but slight suffusion of black in upper parts; pinnae of ears, plantar surfaces of hind
feet, dorsal and ventral stripes of tail, brownish. Skull medium in size; rostrum
relatively long and narrow; nasals relatively short; interorbital region narrow;
interparietal region relatively wide; lacrimal processes small; auditory bullae
relatively small; pterygoid fossae circular; zygomatic arches robust and relatively
straight; foramen magnum nearly circular.
Comparisons.—From Dipodomys ordii columbianus, D. o. monoensis differs as
follows: Size larger; color lighter; skull larger; rostrum longer and narrower;
interorbital region narrower; breadth across auditory bullae less; lacrimal
processes larger; braincase less vaulted; auditory bullae more inflated ventrally;
pterygoid fossae smaller; zygomatic arches more robust; cutting edge of upper
incisors wider.
From Dipodomys ordii fetosus, D. o. monoensis differs in: Hind foot shorter; color
lighter; skull smaller; rostrum shorter and narrower; interorbital width less;
interparietal region larger; lacrimal processes smaller; auditory bullae less inflated.
For comparison with Dipodomys ordii inaquosus see account of that subspecies.

Remarks.—This subspecies retains all of its diagnostic characters

throughout nearly all parts of its geographic range. Intergradation
occurs in animals from the southern end of Pyramid Lake, Big Smoky
Valley and near Toquima Peak, Nevada; these animals, although
typical of D. o. monoensis in coloration, resemble D. o. columbianus
cranially. Three-way intergradation between D. o. columbianus, D. o.
fetosus and D. o. monoensis is noted in animals from east-central
Nye County, Nevada. These animals resemble D. o. monoensis in
size, D. o. fetosus in color and resemble D. o. columbianus in certain
cranial features. These animals are referred to D. o. monoensis.
Animals from Toulon, Nevada, in the inflation of the auditory bullae,
the vault of the braincase, the color and the total length show
intergradation with D. o. inaquosus but are referable to D. o.
monoensis.
Specimens examined.—Total, 264, distributed as follows:
California: Mono County: Pellisier Ranch, 5 mi. N Benton Station, 17 (7 DRD; 10
MVZ); Benton, 5639 ft., 2 (1 LACM; 1 MVZ); Taylor Ranch, 2 mi. S Benton Station,
5300 ft., 2 (MVZ). Inyo County: Deep Springs Valley, 1 (LACM).
Nevada: Washoe County: 1/2 mi. S Pyramid Lake, 3950 ft., 1 (MVZ); 1-1/2 mi. N
Wadsworth, 4100 ft., 2 (MVZ). Pershing County: 21 mi. W and 2 mi. N Lovelock,
4000 ft., 2 (MVZ); 3-1/4 mi. NNE Toulon, 3900 ft., 1 (MVZ); 3 mi. NNE Toulon,
3900 ft., 6 (MVZ); 1/2 mi. NE Toulon, 1 (MVZ); Toulon, 3930 ft., 5 (MVZ). Churchill
County: Truckee Canal, 2 mi. SW Hazen, 4000 ft., 1 (MVZ); 1 mi. NW Soda Lake,
4000 ft., 2 (MVZ); 1 mi. S Soda Lake, 4000 ft., 1 (MVZ); 5 mi. W Fallon, 1 (MVZ);
4 mi. W Fallon, 4000 ft., 3 (MVZ); 1 mi. W Mountain Well, 5350 ft., 3 (MVZ);
Eastgate, 4400 ft., 13 (MVZ). Lyon County: 6 mi. N Fernley, 1 (MVZ); 1 mi. SE
Wadsworth, 4200 ft., 7 (MVZ); 3/4 mi. N Fernley Underpass, Fernley, 1 (MVZ); 1/2
mi. N Fernley Underpass, Fernley, 1 (MVZ); Wilson Canyon, 8 mi. NE Wellington,
4700 ft., 1 (MVZ); West Walker River, Smith's Valley, 4700 ft., 4 (MVZ); 10 mi. S
Yerington, Mason Valley, 4500 ft., 6 (MVZ). Mineral County: 8 mi. SE Schurz, 4100
ft., 18 (MVZ); Fingerrock Wash, Stewart Valley, 5400 ft., 4 (MVZ); Cat Creek, 4 mi.
W Hawthorne, 4500 ft., 1 (MVZ); Huntoon Valley, 5700 ft., 1 (MVZ). Nye County: 2
mi. S Millett P. O., 5500 ft., 1 (MVZ); 4 mi. SE Millett P. O., 5500 ft., 11 (MVZ); 5
mi. SE Millett P. O., 5500 ft., 5 (MVZ); 4 mi. S Millett P. O., 5500 ft., 2 (MVZ);
Millman Ranch, Moore Creek, 6400 ft., 19 mi. SE Millett P. O., 9 (MVZ); Meadow
Creek Ranger Station, Toquima Mts., 2 (MVZ); Monitor Valley, 9 mi. E Toquima
Mts., 7000 ft., 19 (MVZ); Fish Spring Valley, 1/2 mi. N Fish Lake, 6500 ft., 2 (MVZ);
Railroad Valley, 2-1/2 mi. S Lock's Ranch, 5000 ft., 5 (MVZ); Hot Creek Valley 3-
1/2 mi. E Hot Creek, 5650 ft., 1 (MVZ); Hot Creek Valley, 4/5 mi. S Hot Creek,
5900 ft., 1 (MVZ); 5-1/2 mi. NE San Antonio, 5700 ft., 1 (MVZ); San Antonio, 5400
ft., 2 (MVZ); 9 mi. W and 3 mi. S Tybo, 6200 ft., 2 (MVZ); Ralston Valley, 15-1/2
mi. NE Tonopah, 5800 ft., 2 (MVZ); Railroad Valley, 2-1/2 mi. S Lock's Ranch, 5000
ft., 5 (MVZ); Hot Creek Valley Creek, 5800 ft., 1 (MVZ); Ralston Valley, 34 mi. E
and 1 mi. N Tonopah, 5650 ft., 2 (MVZ); Old Mill, N end Reveille Valley, 6200 ft., 6
(MVZ); 1-1/2 mi. S Silverbow, Kawich Mountains, 1 (MVZ); 5 7/10 mi. SE Kawich,
2 (MVZ); 5 mi. W White Rock Spring, 6950 ft., Belted Range, 2 (MVZ); 1 mi. N
Beatty, 1 (DRD). Esmeralda County: 13-1/2 mi. NW Goldfield, 4850 ft., 3 (MVZ); 7
mi. N Arlemont, 5500 ft., 6 (MVZ); Arlemont, 11 (MVZ); Mouth Palmetto Wash, 7
(DRD); 2 mi. NW Palmetto, 7 (DRD); 1 mi. NW Palmetto, 1 (DRD); Palmetto, 7
(DRD); 1 mi. SE Palmetto, 7 (DRD); Pigeon Spring, 6400 ft., 1 (MVZ); Indian
Spring, Mt. Magruder, 20 (DRD).

Dipodomys ordii ordii Woodhouse

D(ipodomys) ordii Woodhouse, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 6:224, 1853.
Dipodomys phillipsi ordi, Coues and Allen, Monogr. North American Rodentia, p.
541, 1877 (part—the part from El Paso, Texas).
Dipodops ordii, Merriam, N. Amer. Fauna, 4:42, October, 1890 (part—the part
from El Paso, Texas).
Cricetodipus ordii, Trouessart, Catalogus Mammalium, 1:581, 1897.
Perodipus ordi, Elliot, Field Columbian Museum, Zool. Ser., 2:238, 1901.
Perodipus montanus richardsoni, Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 25:144, October, 1905
(part—the part from Carlsbad, New Mexico).
Perodipus ordii, Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 30:113, May 23, 1917.
Type.—None designated. Species characterized from specimens obtained by Dr.
Woodhouse at El Paso, Texas.
Range.—Southeastern Arizona, southern New Mexico, western Texas and north-
central Mexico; marginal occurrences are: in Arizona, 20 mi. NE Calva, Oracle and
Calabasas; in Sonora, Nogales; in Chihuahua, Casas Grandes, Corralitos and Santa
Rosalia; in Texas, 16 mi. E Van Horn and 30 mi. N Van Horn; in New Mexico, 40
mi. N Roswell, 40 mi. SE Corona and Mangos Valley.
Diagnosis.—Size small (see measurements). Color dark, entire dorsal
surface (16") between Pinkish Cinnamon and Cinnamon-Buff, purest
on sides and flanks, upper parts suffused with black; arietiform
markings, pinnae of ears, plantar surfaces of hind feet, dorsal and
ventral stripes of tail, brownish-black. Skull of medium size; rostrum
narrow and relatively long; braincase flattened; auditory bullae but
slightly inflated; zygomatic arches slender and straight; upper
incisors short and narrow.
Comparisons.—From Dipodomys ordii richardsoni, D. o. ordii differs as follows:
Size smaller; color somewhat lighter; dorsal and ventral stripes of tail brownish
instead of blackish; skull smaller in all measurements taken.
From Dipodomys ordii montanus, D. o. ordii differs in: Size smaller; color lighter;
skull narrower across bullae and rostrum; wider interorbitally; all other
measurements taken the same, thus imparting to the skull, in dorsal view, a
longer, narrower appearance.
From Dipodomys ordii chapmani, D. o. ordii differs in: Size smaller; color lighter;
skull smaller; zygomatic arches narrower at suture of jugal and zygomatic process
of maxillary; rostrum narrower; upper incisors smaller; nasals shorter; least
interorbital width less.
For comparisons with Dipodomys ordii sennetti and Dipodomys ordii compactus
see accounts of those subspecies.
Remarks.—Intergradation occurs with Dipodomys ordii chapmani,
Dipodomys ordii longipes, Dipodomys ordii medius and Dipodomys
ordii attenuatus. Only along the Rio Grande near El Paso, Texas, are
individuals of a population uniform. On the periphery of the range,
specimens from a given locality may resemble D. o. ordii or D. o.
longipes or may be intermediate between these two subspecies.
Animals from the Organ Mountains near Globe Springs, 20 miles
north of Cliff, New Mexico, and those labeled with reference to Van
Horn, Texas, on the average are darker, have a wider expanse across
the auditory bullae, a wider interorbital region and, in most
specimens, more distally flared nasals than the norm of other
populations. This deviation from the normal is interpreted not as
intergradation with any other subspecies but rather as individual
variation in a given population.
Specimens from 40 miles southeast of Corona and 10 miles
northeast of Socorro, New Mexico, show intergradation between D.
o. ordii and D. o. montanus in size of body, configuration of nasals
and cranial size. For a discussion of intergradation with D. o.
longipes, D. o. medius and D. o. chapmani see the remarks in the
accounts of those subspecies.
Specimens from Cananea and Santa Cruz, Sonora, Casas Grandes
Viejo, Chihuahua City and Colonia Diaz, Chihuahua, are not typical of
D. o. ordii but rather show the influence of some race probably to
the southeast that is as yet unknown. In a series of nine specimens
from near Casas Grandes Viejo, Chihuahua, four individuals are
typically D. o. ordii, four resemble an apparently undescribed form
and one specimen is intermediate between D. o. ordii and the
unnamed subspecies. This unnamed race differs from D. o. ordii in
having darker pelage, darker dorsal stripe on tail, larger body, wider
interorbital region, longer skull, greater breadth across the bullae,
less vaulted braincase, more robust zygomatic arches and the
foramen magnum more deeply notched on both the dorsal and
ventral rims. It seems that these animals mentioned above should
be referred to D. o. ordii at least until such time as material becomes
available from eastern Chihuahua, northern Coahuila and
northeastern Durango.
Specimens examined.—Total, 451, distributed as follows:
Arizona: Gila County: Rice, 2 (USBS). Maricopa County: Marinette, 8 (CAS). Pinal
County: Oracle, 4 (USBS). Graham County: 20 mi. NE Calva, 5 (USBS); Fort Grant,
11 (7 USBS; 4 MVZ). Pima County: Ft. Lowell, 3 (DRD); 11-1/2 mi. S Tucson, 1
(MVZ); Continental, 20 (8 USBS; 12 DRD); La Osa, 11 (USNM); Babiquivari
Mountains 10 mi. N International Boundary, 1 (DRD). Santa Cruz County: 2 mi. S
Tumacacori Mission, 1 (DRD); 7 mi. N Patagonia, 4500 ft., 12 (CAS); 3 mi. N
Patagonia, 1 (CAS); Calabasas, 7 (6 USBS; 1 USNM). Cochise County: 8 mi. W
Bowie, 1 (LACM); Wilcox, 4163 ft., 25 (12 USBS; 5 UM; 4 MVZ; 4 USNM); 12 mi.
SE Dos Cabezos, 2 (UM); 1 mi. WSW Chiricahua National Monument, 5000 ft., 1
(MVZ); Portal, 4500 ft., 2 (USBS); Fairbank, 8 (3 AMNH; 5 CNHM); Mouth Pinery
Canyon, 4 (USBS).
New Mexico: Torrance County: Gran Quivira, Mesa Jumanes, 6 (USBS). Catron
County: Mangos Valley, 3 (USBS); Alma, 3 (USBS); Pleasanton, 7 (USBS). Socorro
County: Gallina Mountains, 1 (USBS); 10 mi. NE Socorro, 2 (USBS); 3 mi. N
Socorro, 3 (MVZ); Socerro, 1 (USBS); Range, 2 mi. SW Socerro, 4700 ft., 2 (MVZ);
Lava Mesa; S Clyde, 4300 ft., 1 (MVZ); Dry Creek, 3 (USBS); San Augustine Plain,
12 mi. N Monica Springs, 2 (USBS). Lincoln County: Guyo Canyon, 40 mi. SE
Corona, 1 (USBS); 4 mi. W Carrizozo, 2 (UM). Grant County: Gila, 5 (USBS);
Cactus Flat, 20 mi. N Cliff, 3 (USBS); Cliff, Gila River, 4470 ft., 1 (USBS); Silver City,
2 (USBS); Redrock, 2 (USBS); 9 mi. N Faywood, 2 (USBS); Hachita, 1 (USBS); Dog
Spring, 11 (USNM); Deer Creek, Culberson Ranch, 2 (USBS). Sierra County:
Fairview, 6500 ft., 1 (USBS); Cuchillo, 4700 ft., 3 (USBS); Lake Valley, 5000 ft., 3
(USBS). Otero County: Tularosa, 5 (USBS); 10 mi. SW Tularosa, 2 (CNHM); Quartz
Sands, SW Tularosa, 2 (MVZ); White Sands, 12 mi. W Alamogordo, 1 (MVZ); 2 mi.
S Alamogordo, 2 (UM); 3 mi. S Alamogordo, 1 (UM); 5 mi. S Alamogordo, 1 (UM);
9 mi. SW Alamogordo, 1 (UM); 12 mi. SW Alamogordo, 2 (UM); 15 mi. SW
Alamogordo, 1 (LACM); White Sands, 18 mi. SW Alamogordo, 7 (MVZ); 19 mi. SW
Alamogordo, 3 (UM); White Sands National Monument, 24 (13 CNHM; 11 LACM);
1/2 mi. SW Escondido, 4000 ft., 2 (MVZ); Jarilla, 1 (USBS). Hidalgo County: 10 mi.
NW Lordsburg, 6 (LACM); 4 mi. NW San Luis Pass, 5200 ft., Animas Valley, 5
(MVZ). Luna County: Deming, 11 (USBS). Dona Ana County: Garfield, 4 (USBS); 6
to 8 mi. NE Las Cruces, 1 (CAS); 15 mi. W Las Cruces, 1 (LACM); 11 mi. W Las
Cruces, 2 (CAS); Las Cruces, 3 (USBS); Organ Mountains, near Globe Springs, 2
(USBS); Coe's Ranch, El Paso Road, 35 mi. N El Paso, Texas, 2 (USBS); 1/4 mi. N
Strauss, 2 (CAS); 1 mi. E Strauss, 4100 ft., 7 (MVZ); 35 mi. W El Paso, Texas, 2
(USNM); 20 mi. W El Paso, Texas, 1 (USNM); 10 mi. W El Paso, Texas, 1 (USNM);
Mexican Boundary, near monument 5, Lat. 31° 47'; Long. 30° 15', 13 (USNM).
Eddy County: 3 mi. NW Carlsbad, 7 (MVZ); 2 mi. E Carlsbad, 1 (KU); Eddy, 10
(USBS).
Texas: El Paso County: 3 mi. NE City Limits, El Paso, 3764 ft., 15 (12 MVZ; 3
TCWC); El Paso, 3 (USBS); near El Paso, 7 (USNM). Hudspeth County: 1 mi. NW
old Fort Hancock, 3900 ft., 3 (MVZ); Fort Hancock, 4 (USNM); 4 mi. NW Sierra
Blanca, 1 (LACM). Culberson County: 35 mi. N Van Horn, 5 (TCWC); 30 mi. N Van
Horn, 1 (TCWC); 16 mi. E Van Horn, 3 (TCWC); 16 mi. SE Van Horn, 5 (TCWC);
Kent, 1 (USBS). Reeves County: 5 mi. E Toyahvale, 1 (USBS). Jeff Davis County:
14-1/2 mi. S Fort Davis, 2 (UM). Presidio County: 10 mi. NE Marfa, 1 (UM).
Sonora: Nogales, 2 (USNM); Santa Cruz, 4 (USNM); 5 mi. N Cananea, 4750 ft., 4
(MVZ); Alamo Wash, 35 mi. NW Magdalena, 5 (DRD); Sonora, 2 (AMNH).
Chihuahua: 4.3 mi. W Casas Grandes Viejo, 5000 ft., 8 (MVZ); 1.5 mi. W Casas
Grandes Viejo, 1 (MVZ); Casas Grandes, 2 (USBS); Gallego, 1 (USBS); Colonia
Diaz, 6 (USBS); Las Trincheras, 9 mi. S by road Boquillos de Condios, 4 (MVZ);
Santa Rosalia, 6 (USBS); Chihuahua, 7 (USBS); 5 mi. SE Chihuahua, 5250 ft., 4
(MVZ); Corallitos, 4 (1 USBS; 3 MVZ).

Dipodomys ordii luteolus (Goldman)

Perodipus ordii luteolus Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 30:112, May 23,
1917.
Dipodomys phillipsi ordi, Coues and Allen, Monogr. of N. Amer. Rodentia, p. 541,
August, 1877 (part—the part from Niobrara River, Nebraska).
Perodipus montanus richardsoni, Cary, N. Amer. Fauna, 33:141, August 17, 1911
(part—the part from Sterling, Colorado).
Dipodomys ordii luteolus, Grinnell, Journ. Mamm., 2:96, May 2, 1921.
Type.—Male, adult, no. 160408, U. S. Nat. Mus. Biol. Surv. Coll.; Casper, Natrona
County, Wyoming; obtained on September 2, 1909, by Merritt Cary, original no.
1690.
Range.—Southeastern Wyoming, northeastern Colorado, northwestern half of
Nebraska and southwestern South Dakota; marginal occurrences are: in Wyoming,
Casper, Sun and Ft. Steele; in Colorado, Loveland, Hugo and Akron; in Nebraska,
Birdwood Creek, Neligh and Valentine; in South Dakota, Batesland and Buffalo
Gap.
Diagnosis.—Size medium (see measurements). Color light, entire dorsal surface
between Light Ochraceous-Buff and Ochraceous-Buff, purest on sides and flanks;
upper parts but lightly washed with black; arietiform markings, plantar surfaces of
hind feet, pinnae of ears and dorsal and ventral stripes of tail, blackish. Skull
medium in size; jugal weak; braincase slightly inflated; nasals slightly flared
distally.
Comparisons.—From Dipodomys ordii terrosus, D. o. luteolus differs as follows:
Size smaller, except that tail and ear are longer; color lighter in all pigmented
areas; skull smaller in every measurement taken; auditory bullae less inflated;
zygomatic processes of maxillae smaller; cutting edge of upper incisors narrower;
zygomatic arch weaker.
From Dipodomys ordii priscus, D. o. luteolus differs in: Size larger except hind foot
which is shorter; dorsal and ventral stripes of tail, plantar surfaces of hind feet,
arietiform markings and pinnae of ears, in most specimens, darker; auditory bullae
less inflated; nasals shorter; rostrum wider; total length of skull shorter; zygomatic
arch weaker; foramen magnum more ovate.
From Dipodomys ordii evexus, D. o. luteolus differs as follows: Hind foot longer;
color lighter in all pigmented areas; auditory bullae more inflated; pterygoid fossae
more expanded laterally; width across maxillary arches less; interorbital region
narrower; zygomatic arch weaker; external auditory meatus almost round as
opposed to ovoid.
Comparison with Dipodomys ordii richardsoni is made in account of that
subspecies.
Remarks.—Dipodomys ordii luteolus resembles D. o. priscus in size
and color but can readily be told from it and D. o. richardsoni when
specimens from the central portions of the ranges of the subspecies
are compared. At and near the periphery of the range, especially in
that part which adjoins the range of D. o. richardsoni, intergradation
occurs. Specimens from Kennedy, Perch and Neligh, Nebraska,
approach D. o. richardsoni in the shape of the pterygoid fossae and
nasal bones, but in all other characters they resemble D. o. luteolus
to which subspecies they are here referred. Specimens from
Loveland and 20 miles east of Avalo, Colorado, show intergradation
with D. o. richardsoni in the width of the rostrum and size of the
zygomatic arch but are referable to D. o. luteolus.
No specimens here referred to D. o. luteolus were found to
intergrade with D. o. priscus.
Specimens examined.—Total, 250, distributed as follows:
South Dakota: Perkins County: 9 mi. N Bison, 8 (MVZ). Meade County:
Smithsville, 2 (USBS). Jackson County: 20 mi. SSE Phillip, in Haakon County, 1
(MVZ). Custer County: Elk Mountain, 1 (MHS); Buffalo Gap, 2 (USNM). Bennett
County: Big Spring Canyon, Batesland, 7 (CNHM); Rosebud Indian Agency, 1
(USBS).
Wyoming: Fremont County: 2-1/2 mi. W Shoshoni, 80 (KU); Granite Mountain, 1
(UM). Natrona County: 1 mi. NE Casper, 19 (KU); Casper, 7 (USBS); Sun, 8
(USBS). Converse County: Douglas, 2 (USBS). Niobrara County: Van Tassel Creek,
1 (CM). Carbon County: Fort Steele, 1 (USBS). Goshen County: Rawhide Butte, 1
(USBS).
Nebraska: Sioux County: Warbonnet Canyon, 6 (MHS); Glen, 1 (MHS); Agate, 3
(1 UM; 2 CNHM); Jim Creek, 1 (MHS). Box Butte County: 16 mi. NE Alliance, 4
(UM). Sheridan County: 12 mi. S Gordon, 3 (MVZ); 5 mi. N Antioch, 4 (UM); 4 mi.
N Antioch, 3 (UM). Cherry County: Valentine, 9 (6 USBS; 2 USNM; 1 NU); 15 mi. E
Gordon, 1 (CNHM); Niobrara River, 3 (USBS); 18 mi. NW Kennedy, 3 (2 USBS; 1
MHS); Valentine Lake Refuge, 1 (NU); Kennedy, 10 (3 MVZ; 5 USBS; 2 USNM); 30
mi. S Wood Lake, 4 (CNHM); Cherry, 7 (NU); near Clark's Canyon, 7 (USBS). Rock
County: Perch, 12 (10 AMNH; 2 CNHM). Antelope County: Neligh, 8 (1 USBS; 7
MHS). Scotts Bluff County: Mitchell, 1 (MHS). Hooker County: Kelso, 5 (UM).
Thomas County: Halsey, 1 (MHS); Dismal River, 2 (USBS). Custer County: 1 mi.
NW Gavin, 6 (2 MVZ; 4 UM); Gavin, 3 (UM); 8 mi. NW Anselmo, 1 (UM); 7 mi. NW
Anselmo, 1 (UM). Lincoln County: Birdwood Creek, 2 (USBS); Brady, 4 (NU);
Hackberry Lake, 13 (UM).
Colorado: Larimer County: Loveland, 8 (USBS). Weld County: 20 mi. E Avalo, 3
(USBS); 8 mi. E Pawnee Buttes, 1 (USBS); Greeley, 1 (USBS). Morgan County: 30
mi. S Fort Morgan, 1 (UM). Logan County: Sterling, 8 (USBS). Adams County: Barr
Lake, 4 (CMNH); 6 mi. E and 1 mi. N Denver, 1 (CMNH); 3 mi. NE Fitzsimons, 1
(CMNH). Washington County: Akron, 2 (UM). Lincoln County: Limon, 1 (USBS);
Hugo, 1 (USBS). El Paso County: Colorado Springs, 2 (MVZ).

Dipodomys ordii extractus new subspecies

Type.—Male, adult, no. 76562, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of

California; 1 mi. E Samalayuca, 4500 ft., Chihuahua, Mexico; obtained on May 15,
1937, by William B. Richardson, original no. 2148.
Range.—Known only from the type locality.
Diagnosis.—Size medium (see measurements). Color pale, entire dorsal surface
Pinkish Buff, purest on sides and flanks, dorsal surface but slightly suffused with
black; pinnae of ears, plantar surfaces of hind feet, dorsal and ventral stripes of
tail light-brownish. Skull medium in size; nasals long; rostrum relatively as well as
actually wide; least interorbital breadth wide; auditory bullae relatively little
inflated; braincase but slightly vaulted; external auditory meatus ovoid; zygomatic
arches relatively robust and but slightly bowed laterad; pterygoid fossae
subcircular; lacrimal processes small; foramen magnum deeply notched on dorsal
border.
Comparisons.—From Dipodomys ordii ordii, D. o. extractus differs as follows: Size
larger; color lighter; arietiform marks absent in D. o. extractus but pronounced in
D. o. ordii; skull larger; rostrum wider; nasals longer; maxillary arches wider;
auditory bullae more inflated laterally; braincase less vaulted; pterygoid fossae
subcircular as opposed to circular; foramen magnum more deeply evaginated
dorsally and ventrally.

Fig. 25. Known occurrences and probable geographic range of the

subspecies of Dipodomys ordii in the northeastern fourth of the range
of the species.
1. D. o. richardsoni 8. D. o. terrosus 18. D. o. montanus
 2. D. o. oklahomae 10. D. o. uintensis 24. D. o. priscus
5. D. o. evexus 11. D. o. sanrafaeli 31. D. o. longipes
6. D. o. medius 15. D. o. luteolus 33. D. o. nexilis

From Dipodomys ordii obscurus, D. o. extractus differs as follows: Size larger;

color lighter; skull larger in all respects, notably in least interorbital width, greatest
length of skull and breadth across auditory bullae; zygomatic arches less robust
and straight as opposed to robust and bowed laterally; pterygoid fossae
subcircular as opposed to circular; auditory bullae more inflated ventrally.
From Dipodomys ordii idoneus, D. o. extractus differs in: Size larger; color lighter;
skull larger in all measurements taken except least interorbital width and breadth
across maxillary arches which are smaller; nasals longer and narrower; braincase
less vaulted; zygomatic arches less robust and more nearly straight; auditory
bullae less inflated ventrally.

Remarks.—This subspecies of Dipodomys ordii is the palest of any of

the known races from Mexico. It inhabits an area of light-colored
sandy soil at the type locality.
The only subspecies with which D. o. extractus really needs
comparison is Dipodomys ordii ordii from which it differs as
described above. The series which is herein described contains two
individuals that resemble D. o. ordii cranially and three that resemble
it in color although they are somewhat paler. One specimen, MVZ
no. 76560, is the palest of any of the series, has a short tail and in
these respects resembles the pale form of Dipodomys ordii
compactus. It is apparent from the skull of this latter individual that
it is not D. o. compactus but D. o. extractus.
Dipodomys ordii ordii inhabits, in most of its range, dark-colored
soils, whereas D. o. extractus inhabits light-colored soils. Possibly the
differentiation that has occurred is a result of an ecological
separation much as occurs with Perognathus on the white sands and
black lavas of the Tularosa Basin of New Mexico (see Benson, 1933).
Specimens examined.—Total, 14, all from Chihuahua, as follows: 1 mi. E
Samalayuca, 4500 ft., 14 (MVZ).
 Dipodomys ordii chapmani Mearns

Dipodomys chapmani Mearns, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 2:291, February 21,
1890.
Cricetodipus chapmani, Trouessart, Catalogus Mammalium, 1:581, 1897.
Perodipus chapmani, Elliot, Field Columbian Museum, Zool. Ser., 2:237, 1901.
Perodipus ordii chapmani, Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 30:113, May
23, 1917.
Dipodomys ordii chapmani, Grinnell, Journ. Mamm., 2:96, May 2, 1921.
Cotypes.—Male, no. 2400, and female, no. 2398, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.; Fort
Verde, Yavapai County, Arizona; obtained on January 26, 1887, and 49October 1,
1885, respectively, by Edgar A. Mearns. (Type not seen.)
Range.—Central Arizona from the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River,
southeastward to, and probably beyond, Fort Verde; marginal occurrences are:
lower end Prespect Valley, Kirkland, Prescott, Camp Verde, Bill Williams Mountain.
Diagnosis.—Size medium (see measurements). Color dark; entire dorsal surface
between (10") Pinkish Cinnamon and Cinnamon-Buff, purest on sides and flanks,
upper parts strongly suffused with black; arietiform markings, pinnae of ears,
plantar surfaces of hind feet, dorsal and ventral stripes of tail, blackish. Skull
medium in size; rostrum long and narrow; nasals long; auditory bullae slightly
distended; braincase vaulted.
Comparisons.—For comparisons with Dipodomys ordii cupidineus, Dipodomys ordii
longipes and Dipodomys ordii ordii see accounts of those subspecies.
Remarks.—This subspecies of Dipodomys ordii is relatively isolated
from other subspecies of the species. The Colorado River with its
deep canyons is interposed between the ranges of D. o. chapmani
and D. o. cupidineus. A high range of mountains separates D. o.
chapmani from the range of D. o. longipes. The only race with which
D. o. chapmani probably comes into contact is D. o. ordii to the
southeast. No specimens are available from the southeastern part of
the range of D. o. chapmani. Animals from the northwestern part of
the range of D. o. ordii, without exception, have dark-colored pelage
which is characteristic of D. o. chapmani. In the shape of the nasals,
vault of the braincase, interorbital width and auditory bullae, animals
from Rice, Arizona, resemble D. o. chapmani, but in other characters
resemble D. o. ordii to which subspecies they are referred. Animals
from 20 miles northeast of Calva, Arizona, are dark-colored and are
intermediate between the dark D. o. chapmani and the pale D. o.
ordii in size of the cranium and body but are referable to D. o. ordii.
In the northwestern part of the range of D. o. chapmani the animals
are not typical in that they have a shorter, wider rostrum and a
heavier zygomatic arch than topotypes.
Specimens examined.—Total, 90, all from Arizona, distributed as follows: Mohave
County: lower end Prospect Valley, 4500 ft., Grand Canyon, 7 (USBS); Kingman, 9
(LACM). Coconino County: Aubrey Valley, 10 mi. S Pine Spring, 4 (USBS); Bill
Williams Mountain, 1 (USNM). Yavapai County: 3 mi. N Fort Whipple, 11 (USBS);
Fort Whipple, 4 (2 USBS; 2 USNM); Willow Creek, 4 mi. N Prescott, 4 (MVZ); 1 mi.
W Camp Verde, 1 (MVZ); Camp Verde, 33 (15 USBS; 3 MVZ; 3 AMNH; 9 LACM; 3
DRD); 1/2 mi. S Camp Verde, 4 (MVZ); Kirkland, 9 (USBS); Turkey Creek, 3
(USBS).

Dipodomys ordii montanus Baird

Dipodomys montanus Baird, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 7:334, April,
1855.
Perodipus montanus, Merriam, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 17:140, July 14,
1904.
Perodipus ordii montanus, Goldman, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 30:113, May
23, 1917.
Dipodomys ordii montanus, Grinnell, Journ. Mamm., 2:96, May 2, 1921.
Type.—Male, no. 490/1631, U. S. Nat. Mus.; near Fort Massachusetts, Costilla
County, Colorado; obtained in 1853 by F. Kreutzfeldt (Pacific Railroad Survey).
Range.—The San Luis Valley of south-central Colorado and north-central New
Mexico; marginal occurrence are: in Colorado, 22 mi. E Mosca, Saguache, Alamosa
and Antonito; in New Mexico, 4 mi. SW Cimmaron.
Diagnosis.—Size small (see measurements). Color dark, entire dorsal surface
between (c) Vinaceous-Buff and Avellaneous, purest on sides and flanks, upper
parts strongly suffused with black; arietiform markings, pinnae of ears, plantar
surfaces of hind feet and dorsal and ventral stripes of tail, blackish. Skull small;
rostrum slender; interorbital width narrow; auditory bullae strongly inflated;
braincase but slightly vaulted; interparietal region wide; zygomatic arch bowed
laterally.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookluna.com