species was obtained on July 31, 1896, at Sierra
Encarnacion, Coahuila, by Nelson and Goldman. We know of no specimens of
this subspecies from Sierra Encarnacion, Nuevo Leon, and assume that
Osgood referred to the Coahuilan specimen. Further support for this
assumption is Osgood's (_loc. cit._) note that the Sierra Encarnacion
specimen is aberrant and, to our eye, so is No. 79614 from Coahuila.

~Peromyscus merriami merriami~ Mearns

Osgood (N. Amer. Fauna, 28:239, April 17, 1909) placed _P. merriami_ in
synonymy under _Peromyscus eremicus eremicus_ (Baird). Because Seth B.
Benson, and subsequently the late Wilfred H. Osgood, told one of us
(Hall) that _Peromyscus merriami_ was specifically distinct from
_Peromyscus eremicus eremicus_, we have examined the specimens from
Sonoyta, Sonora, and Quitobaquita, Arizona, referred by Mearns (Bull. U.
S. Nat. Mus., 56:434-435, and 444, April 13, 1907) to _P. e. eremicus_
and _P. merriami_, respectively. We perceive the differences that Mearns
(_loc. cit._) described and recognize _P. merriami_ as a species
separate from _P. eremicus_.

Also we have compared the type and one topotype of _Peromyscus goldmani_
Osgood with the holotype and referred specimens mentioned above, of _P.
merriami_, and feel that the two kinds are no more than subspecifically
distinct. Accordingly, _P. goldmani_ should stand as _Peromyscus
merriami goldmani_. This arrangement is made with the knowledge that
Burt (Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool., Univ. Michigan, 39:56, February 15, 1938)
arranged _P. goldmani_ as a synonym of _Peromyscus eremicus_.

~Peromyscus truei preblei~ Bailey

Osgood (N. Amer. Fauna, 28: 171, April 17, 1909) listed two specimens
from Crooked River, 25 miles southeast of Prineville, Oregon, as
_Peromyscus truei gilberti_ with the notation "approaching _truei_?"
Subsequently, Bailey (N. Amer. Fauna, 55: 188, August 29, 1936) named
_Peromyscus truei preblei_ with type locality at Crooked River, 20 miles
southeast of Prineville, a place from which Bailey had two specimens. We
think the specimens recorded by the two authors are the same, and,
according to the specimen labels, were placed correctly as to locality
by Bailey. Our reasons are as follows: (a) The specimens mentioned by
Bailey were presumably available to Osgood, but Osgood made no mention
of specimens from "20 miles southeast of Prineville," (b) we find no
specimens nor other records pertaining thereto, of _Peromyscus truei_
f