Boros István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 3. (Budapest 1953)

Szunyoghy, J.: The harvest mouse in Hungary, I

in the paper of Földi the habits of two mice are discussed, namely, those of the common field mouse« »which gleans together spikes of grains* »and those of Mus spicilegus«. »the gleanings of which are often met with after harvest on the stubble-fields, whereof the celebrated name: mouse-gleanings" ; and then there •are the data of its suicides, referable to the shrew ; in general, therefore, everything that Földi says of Sorex hungaricus consist of sheer contradictions to such an extent that even a slightly skillful mammalogist can see and prove that Földi himself was a very unskillful naturalist. How much he let himself be tempted and led astray by the various unproved assertions of the people and his own superficial investigations, to make of his Sorex hungaricus a veritable Hysteron-Proteron!« (Chyzer, K. : Reliquiae Petényianae, Termr. füz., 5, part il

—IV, 1882 p. 50). The two excellent zoologists, Petényi and Horváth, are therefore of a radically contradicting opinion in the case of the same description. I cannot suppose that Petényi, the keen mammalogist that he was, could not have read between the lines to find the characteristics of the harvest mouse in the description of Földi: if it be a really adequate description. After all, Petényi knew the harvest mouse intimately ; indeed, it was him who introduced into literature Mus arundinaceus instead of O c s k a y's Mus pratensis. He was also familiar with the nest-building skill of the harvest mouse. And if, even so, he had not recognized the harvest mouse in F ö 1 d i's description, its only cause can be that this description seems, to the critical eye, really rather difficult to analyse, as it includes the habits of the shrew, the harvest mouse, Mus spicilegus, and the common field mouse. The error of Földi began when he relegated the harvest mouse to the shrews. Horváth excuses this act by saying that »F ö 1 d i must have assigned this rodent to the shrews obviously because of its exceedingly small size« (op. cit. p. 3.). And, if Horváth is right in saying that Földi derived the description of Sorex hungaricus from his own experiences, Í cannot understand why he had not relegated it to the group of the mice, as its whole external habitus demands. Even the description of the animal is wrong. Földi writes, namely, that »its nose is like that of a pig, its ears short« (Földi, J. : Természeti História, 1801, p. 66). And then, he gives the same characterization for the genus of the shrews. His expression, that its nose is similar to a pig's nose, means only its elongated form which is really a shrew feature, the same âs the shortness of its ears. But I think that whoever has seen a shrew and a harvest mouse cannot doubt that the form of the nose and the ears of the two animals are very different. The nose of the harvest mouse never even approaches the narrowness and sharpness of the shrew's nose. And the ear of the harvest mouse is much larger than the small ear of the shrew, scarcely protruding out of its fur. In this regard, therefore, F Ö 1 d i endowed our mouse with shrew features. His assertions about the incisors and the color of the fur fit also Mus spicilegus. Föld i's statement that »it is a very small animal, of 2,5 inches, but very active and laborious, weighing only 50 grains, in Hungary« may refer to the harvest mouse, too ; and his further remark is also pertinent only to the harvest mouse : »it mixes together some spikes in the summer, making its nest among them, scurrying up to it on these stems without breaking them by its weight

...« (op. cit. p. 66). It is Wholly wrong, however, what he says about its life, ft is evident of the above lines of Petényi that F ö 1 d i's shrew conforms in its habits with Mus spicilegus and the common field mouse.