BLE PES. Ce NE ah ct Te Dali Capa Pet ta DOLE LAR EE LB No VO SE OOO en A Nn ls OO Fas tad Nid
. 5 OU Pei et SA alt) Real Gath ae © Ms bea, * = & ‘3
Se et A rn: vs at Snot. a getind >and eee Eb aMcscuect nertele urcmevemee,

a Orie bm atta eae ser tadanion cas *

Saeed etm he ia Tega
. inne ml di La nk ee a ee
~ Rt PESE V nein, ‘se CRG Pee o Penne mein,
oP Tee) 0, Pa dg Rig WN MT Kes eave

I ba ee ae ae eee
PED Eo Ny Feng pe) en ee

CRS Em oS mse nine -—-

sen NE EL 8m ope WRC one

ornare 0 te OSA en ae!
2 ee we te SR SE ert cael ents 5%
We eee SLA ty rhe Ss INS

. - es - Ei ie ape rAd eae 7 “ Od oer othto nk Setgu cae Ae
tala a OP Re New arin“ a Sat ae - . - . sy recFags ‘an RE ge PIAS BSE a SA OMA STATA oo ON he RAL, WAR te
OP a oe tT ts OD haat Mh oman < , oe : ; 7 Power! mplentpbietatins Cate a ree a ee re Sica ners mate SMR ATS rey

oe SA Oe iGo > ange Fo
Sete eee Ce

DA BOND Fel Se wn at
“enh tet hey aot ot",

Ne P TIN ote iste
We areeaeta sae ot
eee wee
™ : = B ren = . . ” 7 eA Le
ew a SEE men * ; inte Petters arma ~ 3 Soho Nee Gee NIST ee et rg teal

DNS ng Awe

“pt Sete ee a a are a

Fo ee MOSS.
ee hn ae ae ec eet
ae RAR OS Flr 8 s

Ns healt Oty RI Set ee 2 el
So mee APT aR ce Be te eee
+ OO
Seek ed ee
Sema? Viate? he ek
Vleet eS MN we SSR oR won hal
aa heels ater nee Behl ie
" arbres 6 et
Te RS ahaha BOS

hy ee

PnP ag ng Oyo
—

ese a eae

Sige ences
Bete Da eh Get
A CTA Noam eee ae fee oe pene
Pe ORE Tae Et Re Se
Se SE ee way eee SF Me va”

eS Ay Pine

a

taal
ee em em oe

ee eee

ede SS Ate ae
Ngaio

Digitized by the Internet Archive
In 2011 with funding from
University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/notesonbobcatslyOOpete

TA
3176

WT
1 05013 59

Vit |
95

CONTRIBUTIONS
OF THE
ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY AND PALAEONTOLOGY

No. 33

NOTES ON THE BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS) OF EASTERN
NORTH AMERICA WITH THE DESCRIPTION
OF A NEW RACE

By

Randolph L. Peterson and Stuart C. Downing

TORONTO
APRIL 8, 1952

NOTES ON THE BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS)
OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA WITH
THE DESCRIPTION OF A NEW RACE

CONTRIBUTIONS
OF THE
ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY AND PALAEONTOLOGY

No. 33

NOTES ON THE BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS) OF EASTERN
NORTH AMERICA WITH THE DESCRIPTION
OF A NEW RACE

By

Randolph L. Peterson and Stuart C. Downing

TORONTO
APRIL 8, 1952

alee
eae

ee

A j i . p Pe . . i Srl ae sine I 3 er Virals
\ etcner th, Seve ; ; : 7 Fae ; ar 5 Uieeee
~. : ; a : ‘ , if i f " i 1 , k ie
Rs / re ere se £ ;
nie
ey r ay ae ty hes ae
mae si + F F ca rs “a % i a

bie

NOTES ON THE BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS)
OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA WITH
THE DESCRIPTION OF A NEW RACE

by

~

RANDOLPH L. PETERSON AND STUART C. DOWNING

IN THE course of reviewing the distribution and taxonomic
status of bobcats in eastern Canada, it has become apparent
that a hitherto undescribed subspecies exists in the western
Great Lakes region which may be known as:

Lynx rufus superiorensis subsp. noy.

Type specimen. Middle-aged adult male (skin and complete
skeleton) No. 20947, Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology and
Palaeontology, collected on April 4, 1951.

Type locality. McIntyre Township, near Port Arthur, Ontario.

Geographic distribution. In Ontario, it now extends into south-
western Algoma and western Manitoulin Island districts and
from southeastern Manitoba across the western portion of the
Province to at least as far north and east as the Kenogami River.
In the United States, it occurs in the upper peninsula of Michi-
gan, west across Wisconsin and Minnesota (see fig. 2). The
western and southern limits, both past and present, are as yet
unknown.

Skull characters. In adults, Lynx rufus superiorensts differs
from L. r. rufus in the shape of the dorsal contour of the cranium,
that of rufus being a more-or-less symmetrical curve, while
in the new race the symmetry is usually interrupted by a more
inflated supra-orbital region. When fully adult skulls of the
two races are placed on their dorsal surfaces on a flat, level
table, the palate of superiorensis usually lies in a horizontal
plane while that of rufus inclines forward (see fig. 4).

It also differs from rufus in having a relatively smaller upper
third premolar. When the greatest width of PM* was expressed
as a percentage of the greatest width of the palate (including
toothrows) a statistically significant difference was found in
the specimens examined (fig. 1, A and B). In 11 adult males of
superiorensis the width of PM®# averaged 9.49 + .168 per cent

]

'
6 ll sgnigesG.s 38,9212 <8
|
x

|
|
|
I
|
!
t
|
I
]
]
!
|
I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

ZBL .r rufus L.r.superiorensis be Giga Sheer floridanus

Fic. 1. Variation in skull characters of eastern bobcats. Median horizontal
bars represent the mean, the central enclosed areas represent two standard errors

Ss : a Reh
(se = Vain’ the median vertical lines represent two standard deviations

: : DX N:

on either side of the mean (s = 4/ N ) -Piguee above indicate number of
specimens in each sample and X represents observed limits.

Relative width of PM®* expressed as percentage of the greatest width of the palate
(including toothrows), in adult males only.

The same ratio as A but including both sexes of all specimens with fully erupted
permanent teeth.

Shape of PM® expressed as a ratio of its greatest width to its greatest length,
which includes both sexes of all specimens examined with fully erupted dentition.
Ratio of the zygomatic breadth to the condylobasal length including both sexes
with adult dentition.

Ratio of the length of the palate to the greatest width of the palate (including
toothrows) in adult males only.

Ratio of the length of the maxillary toothrow (including canines) to the width
of the palate in fully adult specimens of both sexes.

Pe Cele ee Se

a

PETERSON AND DOWNING: BOBCATS 3

Wp Lynx rufus rufus

ae L.r, Superiorensis
\ .

\ L.r gigas

= Lr. floridanus

® specimen

2 present status
unknown.

Fic. 2. Distribution of bobcats in eastern North America.

of the palate width, while in six similar rufus specimens the
average was 10.49 + .133. This character appears fairly con-
sistent in both sexes and in all ages, subsequent to the develop-
ment of the adult dentition. This difference was corroborated
when all specimens of the above classes (86 supertorensis and
20 rufus) were grouped together to provide a larger sample
(fie.1,.B).

The shape of the PM? tends to be relatively narrower in
supertorensis, the width averaging 51.7 + .42 per cent of its
length in 42 animals with adult dentition, while 21 similar rufus
averaged 55.5 + .48 per cent (fig. 1, C). Since a certain amount
of individual variation in this and the following character was
observed, particularly in upper peninsula of Michigan specimens,
these are most useful as characteristics of populations, rather
than of individual specimens.

4 THE ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY

Fic. 3. Skulls (dorsal view) of northeastern bobcats.

A. Female, L. r. rufus from Merrimack Co., N.H. (U. Kans.).

3. Female, L. 7. superiorensis from Sifton Twp., Rainy River Dist., Ont.
(R.O.M.Z.P.).

Female, L. r. gigas from Digby Co., N.S. (M.C.Z.).

Male, L. r. rufus from Merrimack Co., N.H. (M.C.Z.).

Male, L. 7. superitorensis (type). Greatest length 132.4 mm.

Male, L. 7. gigas from Cumberland Co., N.S. (N.M.C.).

Old adult male, L. 7. rufus from Warren Co., N.Y. (N.Y.S.M.).

Old adult male [?], L. 7. supertorensis from Minn. (M.M.N.H.).

Old adult male, L. 7. gigas from Bruce Co., Ont. (R.O.M.Z.P.).

“ZOmMSO

PETERSON AND DOWNING: BOBCATS vd

Fic. 4. Skulls of old adult northeastern bobcats, lateral view, illustrating
dorsal contour.
A. L. r. rufus, no. 4410; B. L. r. supertorensis, no. 2770
(greatest length 140.6mm.); C. L. 7. gigas no. 91-11-1-76.

The zygomatic width averages relatively narrower in superior-
ensis, 76.1 + .44 per cent of the condylobasal length in 32
individuals, compared to 78.4 + .25 per cent in 37 rufus (figs. 1,
ie s-and 5).

The new race differs from L. r. gzgas in having a relatively
wider and shorter palate in mature adults. The length of the
palate averaged 100.5 + 1.18 per cent of the greatest width
of the palate (including toothrows) in 10 adult males, compared
to 106.2 + 1.14 per cent for nine similar gzgas (fig. 1, E).
This difference is also demonstrated when the length of the
maxillary toothrow is compared to the greatest width of the
palate in fully adult specimens (fig. 1, F). The relative width of
PM? compared to the width of the palate is also greater in gigas
(fg. 1, A and B) although the actual shape is essentially the
same as that of superiorensts.

The new race, as well as rufus, gigas and possibly floridanus,
differs from L. r. pallescens and other western races (especially
batley1, californicus but possibly less so from fasczatus) in the
structure of the auditory bullae. As pointed out by Merriam
(1890, p. 80) in his description of bazleyi, “*...a distinct sulcus
marks the line of attachment of the septum which separates
the tympanic chamber from the inner chamber.” In the eastern
races the tympanic chamber is relatively smaller and is largely
enclosed by the capsular portion of the rest of the bulla, thus
making the line of division between the chambers indistinct
except in young animals. In pallescens the tympanic chamber
is distinctly larger than in superiorensis and projects beyond
the anterior end of the bulla proper. In the western races

6 THE ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY

Fic. 5. Anterior view of northeastern male bobcat skulls.
A. L. r. rufus, no. 42085; B. L. r. supertorensis (type) ;
C. L. r. gigas, no. 20144.

examined, this particular character approaches that of L. canad-
ensis. We have found this character to be a useful one for sepa-
rating the latter from the eastern bobcats.

Other characters. In body size, available measurements indi-
cate that, with animals of roughly comparable age, the new
race is intermediate between that of rufus and gigas. The average
total length of seven males is 948.0 mm. (890-1015) compared
with 876.3 (810-946) for six rufus and 1030.5 (937-1252) for
six gzgas (see table II). Seven females average 861.4 mm.
(800-900) while seven rufus specimens average 823.0 (800-855).
A similar trend is indicated by the weights of the heaviest
individuals among the above—males, rufus 35.0 Ibs., superzor-
ensts 41.0 lbs., gigas 68.5 Ibs.; females, rufus 21.5 Ibs. and
superitorensis 27.0 Ibs.

In pelage colour and markings we find such an extreme range
of variation in the skins available for study that we can find
no constant pelage character by which any of the eastern races
can be distinguished with certainty. Variations which may be
correlated with the age of the animal, or which may be seasonal,
sexual, individual or possibly genetic, are further complicated
by changes brought about in various tanning processes and by
aging as museum specimens.

A great range of variation is shown by our series of 35 skins
of superiorensis (see fig. 6). In this series we find that winter
and summer specimens are readily distinguishable by general

“E661
‘eT “ydag “yor “OD seurmousyy “YT “) 66F9S

‘OS6I ‘ET “AON yNoge ‘4sIq

uynoyuey “sy wanqys0yD “d°Z WOU O180Z
TC6I “qeay Ajiva “UO

“ysiq Avg sopunyy ‘suideug “q'Z'WW'O'U 60602
‘OS61

‘TE “uel “yor, “oD uoysnoH “YSTT “A 62609

a

"AL
9)

A

“TS6T ‘F dy “1uo “ysiq Aeg Jopunyy “day

asAWpW “dd ZW OU (uswtoeds 9dA}) 2F60Z
Lcor HOUR IN 424 “yO “IsIq

Aeg japunyy “day SIAe Loi dZWou L160G
‘SP6L SI YAPIN “UO

“JSIq] VIOUDY ‘SMOIIeN XNOIS “g°Z' WOM SEZ8I
‘SPEL “E YIP]

“UUTTAT O05) sIno’'y 31S ‘uoAue,) “HN WCW RCRT
‘GOBL ‘TE “uel

“Uuly, “OD UBATY ‘UPTV “IA H'N’O FEF

‘SISUadOLdAgNS SN{NA XUK'T UL UOTeULA I8RJ9G *9 ‘DIY
2) d Vv

a

nel

i

Re.
“a
WY

ra) THE ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY

coloration as well as by the texture of the fur, that of the
summer being consistently much darker and more reddish in
colour, lacking the characteristic hoary appearance of winter
specimens.

When arranged from the lightest and grayest individuals to
the darkest and reddest, we find no correlation in the coloration
of winter skins that might be attributed to degree of wear as
the season progresses (November to April). Approximately one-
half of the series falls within a grayish group and the other half
in a reddish group. The point of division, however, is not sharply
marked. The type specimen falls near the middle of the series
(fig. 6, E) but within the gray group. In the gray series four
specimens show well defined dark markings on the back, while
seven are immaculate ashy-gray in appearance. All the spotted
individuals are females while of the immaculate gray specimens
two are females, two are males, and one is unsexed. Whether or
not this observed ratio represents a predominance of spotting
in females or merely the results of chance sampling we cannot
determine at present. Rather indistinct spotting was observed
in four males taken in summer (see fig. 6, I). In the gray series
there is a preponderance of younger individuals which further
suggests the possibility that age variation may also be in-
fluencing our series. The gray end of the series approaches some
individuals of pallescens, but in general the latter is much paler.

In our reddish winter group only one out of eleven shows
any evidence of spotting on the back. In this case (a young
female) the spots are smaller, less distinct and are brownish in
colour (see fig. 6, F). In this series, the lightest individuals have
a hoary appearance created by whitish bands on the guard
hairs all of which appear to have a fine, black, terminal tip.
Progressing toward the darker and redder specimens, the light
band of the hairs becomes more buffy in colour and the reddish
underfur shows through more conspicuously.

In our total series of superiorensis, there seems to be a corre-
lation between light-coloured feet and age. Apparently the
whitish feet of younger animals tend to become more buffy
with age. In our young animals the hind feet appear almost
silvery white, particularly in the gray series. Nevertheless these
light-coloured feet are also found in the youngest of the red
group (notice fig. 6, C, D and G). In general, both black and
white markings appear more intense in superiorensis than in
rufus, especially on the feet and legs.

Unfortunately our series of L. 7. rufus skins is too small to

PETERSON AND DOWNING: BOBCATS 9

permit critical comparison. In the small series available (8)
none approaches the gray end of the series of superiorensis and
all lack the well defined markings found in some of the latter.
One of this group appears grayer than the rest but is much
darker than the newly-described race. There is also one specimen
which shows small, indistinct markings on the back, and another
in which there is a tendency for the mid-dorsal stripe to break
up into spots. Although only one or two of our rufus series can
be considered as young individuals, none shows the whitish feet
commonly found in the young of superiorensts.

In general, however, our rufus specimens approach closely
the reddish end of our superiorensis series. The pelage of the
latter seems to have a somewhat softer texture, being longer
and thicker, although not as soft as in pallescens, nor as long
as in gigas.

In our series of 12 gigas skins we also find considerable vari-
ation in general coloration, although none shows distinct
markings on the back. This form has a more hoary appearance
than either rufus or superiorensis, and usually has a greater
admixture of black on the back. Certain individuals from Nova
Scotia can be matched quite closely with certain specimens of
rufus, while others approach superiorensts.

Cranial measurements. In table I the average and observed
limits of various skull measurements are given for the adult
males examined.

External measurements. In table If measurements and weights
of roughly comparable specimens are presented. Garnier (1882b)
records the total length and weight for ROMZP specimen
no. 91—11—1-—76 as well as 91—11—1—80 and gives additional data
for Ontario specimens of L. r. gigas. The former, listed as
68.5 pounds, seems almost incredible; however, the total length
of 1252 mm. and the size of the skull (greatest length 149.5 mm.)
seem to attest the gigantic size of this specimen (see fig. 3, I,
fig. 4, C). Specimen 91—11—1—80 is listed by Garnier (op. cit.) as
a young female from Wawanosh Township with a total length
of 38 inches (965 mm.) and weight of 30 pounds. He also records
an adult female from Culross Township with a weight of
53 pounds (total length 48 ins. or 1219 mm.); a young male
from Ashfield Twp. (27 Ibs.; 959 mm.); an adult from Kent Co.
(35 lbs.; 1022 mm.); and a young specimen from Lucknow Twp.
(25 lbs.; 965 mm.).

Remarks. Unfortunately we have not been able to add much
to the knowledge of sex and age variation in cranial characters

Table I.

Cranial measurements of northeastern adult male bobcats. The mean

is followed by the number of specimens averaged and the observed

limits are given below in brackets,

Greatest length
Condylobasal length
Length of palate
Zygomatic breadth
Mastoid breadth
Height of cranium
Interorbital breadth
Postorbital constriction
Postorbital process
Maxillary toothrow
Length PM?“

Length PM?

Width PM3

Length PM? (buccal)
Width PM?

Greatest width of palate

including toothrows

Least width of palate
between premolars

Least width between bullae

Upper canine diameter

Lf) TBFuS
131.9 (18)

(119.8-142.6)

120.4 (18)
(108. 9-130. 2)

52.9 (17)
(46 .2-58.5)

95.0 (13)
(84.3-107.1)

56.0 (18)
(49 .9-61.5)

46.0 (7)
(43.548. 2)

25.1 (16)
(21.8-27.6)

38.0 (17)
(35.441. 3)

60.1 (13)
(53.8-71.1)

38.3 (7)
(35.9-40. 5)

24.6 (7)
(22.7-26.4)

9.80 (7)
(9.1-10.4)

5 Mn
(4.9-5.8)

14.3 (18)
(13.0-16.0)

6.80 (18)
(5.6-7.9)

Si Sec)
(46. 3-57.5)

27.4 (7)
(249-30. 1)

13.8.(7)
(11.8-15.6)

OMG,

(at alveolus, anteroposteriorly) (7. 1-8. 2)

Width of rostrum across
canines

34.0 (7)
(31.0-37.6)

L. r. supertorensis

134.2 (15)
(126. 2-142 .6)

123.8 (15)
(417: t-h3369)
53.9 (13)
(51.6-59.4)
95.9 (13)
(89.4-103.7)
58.5 (14)
(55.6-61.8)

46.3 (14)
(44.6-48.7)

25.8 (14)
(22.428 .6)

38.2 (14)
(35.3-41.1)

61.7 (13)
(56. 4-66. 4)

38.9 (14)
(36. 2-40. 8)

24.6 (14)
(22. 1-26.0)

9.86 (14)
(8.8-10.7)

5.13 (14)

CROs

15.0 (15)
(13.9-16.0)
7.04 (15)

(6.1-7.8)

53.7 (12)
(51.3257 2)

28.8 (12)
(26.6-31.4)

14.6 (13)
(12.8-16.7)

7.66 (13)
(6.8-8.4)

35-1 (13)
(31 7=38c0)

L. r. gigas
137.140)
(131.7-149.5)
125.5 (9)
(121 .5-135.0)
55.4 (10)
(52.6-61.0)
94.3 (8)
(88.0—-102.3)
58.3 (9)
(55.0-61.7)
47.4 (9)
(44. 3-50.7)

26.0 (10)
(22.0-29.5)

38.0 (10)
(35.9-41.0)

64.0 (10)
(56.3-70.9)

39.8 (10)
(38.2-43.1)

25.1 (10)
(23.6-26.3)

10.2 (10)
(9.5-10.8)

5.27 (10)
(4.8-5.6)

15.3 (10)
(14.9-16.0)

7.21 (10)

(6.7-7.5)

52.9 (9)
(49.0-55.5)

27.7 (9)
(26. 8-30.0)

14.0 (9)
(12.5-15.6)

8.00 (10)
(712835)

34.8 (9)
(32.0-37.6)

Table II. Body measurements (mm.) and weights of adult bobcats.

= =

es §
. ~~ ~
Locality FS = 8 > >
a § 3 SS
» & SoS

.)
Lynx rufus rufus oo

-

v
256 Carn. M. 810

—

Forest County, Pa.
S. Sandisfield, Berkshire Co.,

Mass. 42070 M.C.Z. 817
Arden, Orange Co., N.Y. 4825 N.Y.S.M: 826
Arden, Orange Co., N.Y. 4826 N.Y.S.M. 920
Hancock, Addison Co., Vt. 42077. M.C.Z. 939
S. Sandisfield, Berkshire Co.,

Mass. 437071" M1. CoZ. 946

Lynx rufus superiorensis So
Limestone Twp., Alger Co.,
Mich. 60933 U. Mich. 890
McIntyre Twp., Thunder Bay
Dist., Ont. (type specimen) 20947. R.O.M.Z.P. 940
Silver Islet, Thunder Bay

Dist., Ont. | 13018. -RiO.MAZ:P. 940
Mizpah, Koochiching Co.,

Minn. 1369 M.M.N.H. 940
Lake-of-the-Woods Co.,

Minn. 2771. “MEM .N.H. 952

Buffalo, Wright Co., Minn. 1355 M.M.N.H. 959
Cockburn Is., Manitoulin
Dist., Ont. 21418 OR. O:M.ZEPss 1015
Lynx rufus gigas o'o'
Malagash, Cumberland Co.,

N.S. 20144 N.M.C. 937
Hants Co., N.S. 12722. -N NEC, 953
Simcoe Co., Ont. 1819 N.M.C. 1000

15 mi. back of Bear R.,
Annapolis Co., N.S.

(type specimen) B495 i> 2 M.G.Z,. 1001
West Talamagouche,

Colchester Co., N.S. 20T4S— SNe MRC; 1040
Bruce Co., Ont. 91-11-1-76 R.O.M.Z.P. 1252

Lynx rufus rufus 2 °
Clinton Co., Pa. $585 Carn. Mus? 800
Western Mass. FN3099 Cornell U. 802
White Sulphur Springs,

Greenbrier Co., W. Va. ~B5706 M.C.Z. 815
Western Mass. FN3098 Cornell U. 817
Hancock, Addison Co., Vt. 42079 M.C.Z. 824
Hancock, Addison Co., Vt. 42075 M.C.Z. 847
Debar Mt. Refuge,

Franklin Co., N.Y. 4826 N.Y.S.M. 855

Lynx rufus superiorensis 2 @
Watersmeet, Gogebic Co.,
Mich. 60932 U. Mich. 800
Canyon, St. Louis Co., Minn. 1858 M.M.N.H. 843
Sioux Lookout, Kenora Dist.,

Ont. 20905, R.O;M.Z.P, 855
Cockburn Is., Manitoulin \

Dist., Ont. 29357428, OM Z.P. 1 802
Sifton Twp., Rainy River

Dist., Ont. 18020 R.O.M.Z.P. 881

Cockburn Is., Manitoulin
Dist., Ont. 20810 , R.O.M.Z.P. 900

129

152

hind foot

172
190

223
203

200

192

143
155

160
157
157
169

165

165
156

170
180
168

178

ear

67
70
77

76

64

70

61

70
71
76

70

63
rhs

68

16.

18.

ot

22:3

41.

24.

68.

Si

16.

Zit
lig

Ono

as

12 THE ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY

-beyond that outlined by Grinnell and Dixon (1924) for western
bobcats. Our male series seems to include a normal progression
from very young to very old individuals, while our females
apparently lack any representation between what we tentatively
regard as young adults and truly old individuals, if the develop-
ment of the sagittal crest, size and suture closure are used as
age criteria.

Examination of a series of 25 skulls of pallescens and measure-
ments of over 75 additional specimens show a normal pro-
gression from quite young to very old individuals in both sexes.
In 37 adult males, the greatest length of the skull averaged
133.0 mm. (122.3-144.2) whereas 24 females averaged 126.5
(118.9-137.4). Of superiorensis females, we have a series of
11 specimens (from young adult to apparently mature indi-
viduals) with the greatest length of skull averaging 119.9 mm.
(116. 5-123. 2) and in addition a single large female of 137.4 mm.
Similarly in rufus we have 17 individuals averaging 114.2
(107.2-123.1) and three large females which measure respect-
ively 128.5, 1381.2 and 134.4. Of six gigas female skulls available,
three are juveniles, two are young adults (skull damaged in one)
and only one is a mature individual (136.4 mm. greatest length).

A larger series of specimens is required to properly define
sexual variation of eastern bobcats, especially with respect to
adult females.

Explanations. Most cranial measurements used were taken
in the conventional manner except in the case of the length of
the palate. In this case we have measured from the median
posterior extension of the palate to, and including, the median
incisors. 3

Dr. J. K. Doutt of the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh has
kindly made available to us the cranial measurements of bobcats
in most of the larger museums in eastern North America, taken
by him a few years ago. In cases where the same specimens have
been measured by Doutt and the writers, the results show
striking uniformity.

The following abbreviations have been used:
A.M.N.H.—American Museum of Natural History
B.S.C.—Biological Surveys Collection, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Depart-

ment of the Interior
Carn. M.—Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh
C.N.H.M.—Chicago Natural History Museum
Cornell U.—Cornell University, Department of Conservation

M.C.Z.—Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University
M.M.N.H.—Minnesota Museum of Natural History

PETERSON AND DOWNING: BOBCATS 13

N.M.C.—National Museum of Canada

N.Eng.M.N.H.—New England Museum of Natural History, Boston
N.Y.S.M.—New York State Museum, Albany

R.O.M.Z.P.—Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology and Palaeontology
U. Kan.—University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History

U. Mich.—University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology

Specimens examined. Bobcats from most of North America
were considered by us in this study; however, only those from
the eastern sections are listed below. Specimens measured by
Dr. Doutt and not actually seen by us are indicated by an
asterisk (*). A total of 226 specimens from the east was’ used,
124 examined by ourselves and 102 by Dr. Doutt as follows:

Alabama, 1: Clarke Co., 1 (U. Mich.).

Connecticut, 15: Litchfield Co., 13* (M.C.Z.), 1* (A.M.N.H.) and Hartland [?], 1*
(M.C;Z.):

Florida, 5: Collier Co., 2* (A.M.N.H.); Palm Beach Co., 1* (M.C.Z.); Pinellas
Co., 1* (A.M.N.H.) and no definite locality, 1* (A.M.N.H.).

Georgia, 1: Okefenokee Swamp, 1* (A.M.N.H.).

Kentucky, 1: Trigg Co., 1 (U. Mich.).

Louisiana, 10: Madison Parish, 6* (B.S.C.); near Rouge [?], 2* (M.C.Z.); Tensas
Bayou, 1* (B.S.C.) and Vermelion Parish, 1* (B.S.C.).

Maine, 31: Aroostook Co., 1* (M.C.Z.); Piscataquis Co., 1* (N.Eng.M.N.H.);
Hancock Co., 1 (C.M.N.H.), 1 plus 9* (M.C.Z.); Washington Co., 1*
(N.Eng.M.N.H.), 4 plus 9* (M.C.Z.); no definite locality, 1* (A.M.N.H.)
plus 1* (M.C.Z.); Pemberton [?], 1* (M.C.Z.) and West Otis [?], 1* (M.C.Z.)’

Massachusetts, 11: Berkshire Co., 3* (M.C.Z.); Essex Co., 1* (N.Eng.M.N.H.);
Middlesex Co., 1* (M.C.Z.); Worchester Co., 2* (M.C.Z.); Bane [?], 1*
(M.C.Z.) and Western Mass. (no def. loc.), 3 (Cornell U.).

Michigan, 41—Lower Peninsula, 5: Alcona Co., 1 (U. Mich.); Montmorencey
Co., 2 (U. Mich.); Oscoda Co., 1 (U. Mich.) and Presque Isle Co., 1 (U.
Mich.)—Upper Peninsula, 36: Alger Co., 4 (U. Mich.); Baraga Co., 3
(U. Mich.); Chippewa Co., 2 (U. Mich.) plus 2 (R.O.M.Z.P.); Dickinson
Co., 1 (U. Mich.); Gogebic Co., 8 (U. Mich.); Houghton Co., 2 (U. Mich.);
Keweenaw Co., 1 (U. Mich.); Marquette Co., 4 (U. Mich.), 1 (C.M.N.H.)
and 1* (B.S.C.); Menominee Co., 2 (U. Mich.); Ontonagon Co., 3 (U.
Mich.) ; Schoolcraft Co., 1 (U. Mich.) and Upper Peninsula (no def. loc.),
1 (U. Mich.)

Minnesota, 15: Aitkin Co., 1 (C.M.N.H.); Benton Co., 1* (B.S.C.); Koochiching
Co., 1 (M.M.N.H.); Lake-of-the-Woods Co., 1 (M.M.N.H.); Red Lake
Co., 2 (M.M.N.H.); Roseau Co., 1 (M.M.N.H.); St. Louis Co., 3*
(A.M.N.H.), 1 (U. Kans.) and 1 (M.M.N.H.); Wright Co., 1 (M.M.N.H.);
and no definite locality, 2 (M.M.N.H.).

Missouri, 4: Banner [?], 4* (B.S.C.).

Mississippi, 1: no definite locality, 1 (C.N.H.M.).

New Brunwsick, 3: York Co., 2 (N.M.C.) and 1* (A.M.N.H.).

New Hampshire, 5: Coos Co., 1 (M.C.Z.) plus 1* (N.Eng.M.N.H.); Merrimack
Co., 1 (M.C.Z.) plus 1 (U. Kans.); Sullivan Co., 1* (N.Eng.M.N.H.).
New York, 11: Adirondack Mts., 2 (Cornell U.); Dutchess Co., 1 (N.Y.S.M.);
Franklin Co., 1 (Cornell U.) plus 2 (N.Y.S.M.); Shoharie Co., 1 (N.Y.S.M.);

and Warren Co., 1 (N.Y.S.M.).

14 THE ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY

North Carolina, 5: Cumberland Co., 1* (A.M.N.H.); Montgomery Co., 1*
(M.C.Z.); near Mt. Mitchell, 2* (M.C.Z.) and no definite locality, 1*
(A.M:N.H:).

Nova Scotia, 12: Annapolis Co., 1 plus 1* (M.C.Z.); Colchester Co., 2 (N.M.C.)
and no definite locality, 2 (N.M.C.).

Ontario, 24 (unless otherwise designated specimens are in the R.O.M.Z.P.):
Southern Ontario, 5: Bruce Co., 2; Huron Co., 1; Simcoe Co., 1 (N.M.C.)
and York Co., 1—Central Ontario, 7: Algoma Dist., Twp. 22, Range 14, 1;
Manitoulin Dist., Cockburn Is., 6—Northwestern Ontario, 13: Cochrane
Dist., English River Post, 1; Kenora Dist., Sioux Narrows, 1; Rainy River
Dist.—Sifton Twp., 1, Dewart Twp., 1, Ft. Francis, 1 and Lac la Croix, 1;
Thunder Bay Dist.—MclIntyre Twp., 1, McTavish Twp., 3, Onaping, 1,
Silver Islet, 1 and Whitefish Lake, 1.

Pennsylvania, 4: Cameron Co., 1* (B.S.C.); Clinton Co., 1 (Carn. M.); Forest
Cos (Carn. M.) and northern part,i1* (M:C,Z.),

South Carolina, 2: Aiken Co., 1* (A.M.N.H.) and Richard Co. 1* (M.C.Z.).

Vermont, 16: Addison Co., 3 plus 5* (M.C.Z.); Bennington Co., 1 plus 1* (M.C.Z.);
Windsor Co., 1* (B.S.C.) plus 2* (M.C.Z.) and no definite locality, 3
(Cornell U.).

Virginia, 4: Bath Co., 1* (B.S.C.); Nansemond Co., 1* (A.M.N.H.) and Dismal
Swamp, 72 CAEN. bhs

West Virginia, 2: Greenbrier Co., 2* (M.C.Z.).

Wisconsin, 1: Villas Co., 1 (C.N.H.M.).

NOTES ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF EASTERN BOBCATS

Several authors have felt that gzgas would probably prove to
be a subspecies of rufus. Among specimens examined from
southeastern Maine, extreme northern New Hampshire and
Vermont, and southwestern New Brunswick, some seem to be
clearly referable to gigas, some to rufus, and others appear
intermediate. One specimen from Fort Covington, New York,
also approaches gzgas. All other specimens to the immediate
south of this area seem clearly assignable to rufus on the basis
of skull characters. Of eastern bobcats, rufus proves to have the
relatively widest skull and is bounded on both the north and
south by the relatively narrow-skulled races, gigas and floridanus
(see fig. 1, D). On the basis of this character, specimens from
extreme southeastern Virginia and southward along the Atlantic
seaboard all seem referable to floridanus.

Cranial measurements of four specimens from southeastern
Missouri indicate that the form of that region is not rufus.
The skulls are a relatively narrow type, more akin to floridanus
or possibly texensis. Unfortunately we have been unable to
determine by what cranial characters, if any, texensis can be
distinguished from floridanus.

Specimens from the Gulf Coast of Texas (Corpus Christi,

PETERSON AND DOWNING: BOBCATS 15

7 examined; Rockport, 2; and Brownsville area, 10) are strik-
ingly similar in basic cranial measurements to floridanus.

A single skin examined from Trigg County, Kentucky, though
not diagnostic, we tentatively regard as floridanus on the basis
of its isolation from the present known range of rufus and its
proximity to the narrow-skulled animals from southeastern
Missour1.

We have examined a single skull and a single skin without
skull from northeastern Kansas which we cannot satisfactorily
assign to any of the eastern races. The skin (from near Junction
City, Geary Co., Kansas) is in summer pelage. It has been
salted and tanned and is not sufficiently diagnostic to be identi-
fied with certainty. The skull, however (from near Lawrence,
Douglass Co., Kansas), differs markedly from any rufus speci-
men seen by us. It is not of the floridanus type; compares
favourably in dental characters with superiorensis; but its bulla
is unlike the latter, comparing more favourably with pallescens
or some related western form. The same is true of skulls examined
from both North Dakota (Billings Co., 1) and South Dakota
(Pennmeton Co., 3; Custor Co., 1; and Dewey Co.,. 3). It
appears possible that the bobcats of the plains region of the
central United States may represent an undescribed race. Dr.
W. B. Davis reaches similar conclusions (in manuscript).

At present the nominate race, L. r. rufus, appears to be re-
stricted mainly to the United States, from the Appalachian
Mountains northeastward to southern Maine, southwestern
New Brunswick and possibly extreme southern Quebec with a
now isolated population in the lower peninsula of Michigan.
The unstable nature of the upper peninsula specimens suggests
the possibility of some past intergradation between the upper
and lower peninsula populations.

L. r. floridanus apparently occupies the lower coastal areas
of all the southeastern states and up the adjacent sides of the
Mississippi River, possibly as far north as southern [llinois.

L. r. gigas is presently known to occur in Nova Scotia,
northern and eastern New Brunswick and northern Maine.
We have been unable to locate any specimen of bobcats from
southern Quebec. All available specimens from southern Ontario
attest to a former connection with the present known range.
Without recent specimens (none since 1906) it seems possible
that the former gzgas population may now be extinct in southern
Ontario or that it may have been replaced by a more recent
invasion of L. r. rufus (see below).

16 THE ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY

A REVIEW OF THE DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS
OF BOBCATS IN ONTARIO

In both time and space the distribution of the bobcat (Lynx
yvufus) in Ontario presents an interesting picture. The pattern
of distribution, as we have been able to work it out from the
literature, trappers’ reports and the study of specimens, appar-
ently represents a recent northern extension of range into
Ontario which several other species have exhibited. Although
differing in detail and extent, the basic pattern of this distri-
bution is similar to that which Peterson (1950) found for the
moose in Ontario.

j!947@
19508 01948

LEGEND

® Specimens in Collections.

© Specimens recorded inthe
Literature and other records.

x Occurrence doubted,

or omitted from

extensive faunal lists.

Fic. 7. Map of Ontario showing distribution and spread of bobcats, with
dates of records.

PETERSON AND DOWNING: BOBCATS 17

Ontario, apparently, has received its bobcat populations from
two main sources and at three different times. In eastern Ontario,
south of a line from Georgian Bay to the eastern end of Lake
Ontario, the bobcat has been present since historical times. It
was of fairly regular occurrence up to the end of the last century.
Since then it has apparently declined steadily and our attempts
to secure current specimens have met with failure, although
persistent reports of their presence have been received.

It was unknown in the western half of the Province until
thirty or forty years ago when trappers first reported this
strange new cat in the southern part of the Rainy River District.
Since then it has spread north and east, at least as far as twenty
miles east of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s English River Post,
Cochrane District, where in 1946 a female was taken by local
trappers (Peterson and Crichton, 1949). The most recent event
in the invasion of Ontario by the bobcat has been the crossing
over from the upper peninsula of Michigan, to Cockburn Island
in Manitoulin District, and the southern portion of Algoma
District. This apparently has taken place within the last four
or five years. All available evidence indicates that these three
populations (see fig. 7) are not as yet in contact with each other.
Peterson and Crichton (1949) received reports of four bobcats
having been taken in the Chapleau District between 1919 and
1942, although positive identification of these animals remains
in doubt. Extensive trapping in this area since 1942 has failed
to reveal a single specimen.

With the exception of Seton’s (1925, p. 218) account of
examining several skins taken near Lake Nipissing in 1886, all
the eastern specimens and published records of occurrence are
confined to the southwestern half of southeastern Ontario,
reaching the northern limits in Bruce Peninsula (Klugh, 1912)
and the eastern limits in Peterborough County (Clementi, 1881).
Other evidence, however, seems to invalidate an assumption
that the above boundaries represent the actual range in south-
eastern Ontario. If the range was thus limited it might suggest
that the animals entered Ontario around Lake Erie from an
area occupied at the present time by L. rufus rufus. The racial
affinities of historic Ontario specimens, however, are with L. r.
gigas to the east. This suggests, that at least formerly, gzgas
extended from Nova Scotia to southern Ontario. The fact that
all the Ontario specimens of gigas were taken prior to 1906,
leaves the possibility that rufus may have moved in from the
south within the last half century and replaced gzgas in the

18 THE ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY

western part of its range. Some support for this is found in the
most northerly specimen examined from New York State.
This specimen, taken in 1946 just south of the St. Lawrence
River, shows some signs of intergradation between rufus and
gigas.

The evidence for the absence of the species in the area around
the eastern end of Lake Ontario is circumstantial, based on its
omission from several lists of mammals from areas within this
general region. Small and Lett (1888) in writing of the mammals
of the Ottawa region, state, ‘“There is great doubt if the wild-cat
is found here at all.’ Rand (1945) writing of the same region,
omits it from his list of fifty-four species, past and present.
Snyder (1941) does likewise in his faunal survey of Prince
Edward County. Downing (1944) found no records for Algon-
quin Park, and Anderson (19388, p. 70) states that in Quebec
the bobcat is found only south of the St. Lawrence River,
although we know of no actual specimen from that region.

The present status of Lynx rufus in southeastern Ontario is
not clear. ‘‘Wild-cats’”’ are reported from time to time but thus
far the identity of the animal involved was either in doubt or
definitely not bobcat. The Ontario Department of Lands and
Forests has cooperated with the Museum in an attempt to
secure specimens and authentic records of Ontario bobcats.
Many hunters and trappers were contacted and several bobcats
were secured from western Ontario, but none from the east.
An inquiry made of the larger fur dealers in eastern Ontario in-
dicated that none of these had secured a bobcat skin during the
trading season of 1950-51. On the other hand, we have had persist-
ent reports of the recent occurrence of the animal from reliable
sources which would indicate that, although rare, some form of
the bobcat persists, and may even be on the increase.

The decline of the bobcat in southeastern Ontario is chronicled
in the writings on Ontario mammals. Garnier (1882a) speaks of
it as being not uncommon in the Bruce Peninsula in the 1880's;
Miller (1897) says it still occurs at Mount Forest, Wellington
County; Fleming (1913) records it as never being common at
Toronto; Soper (1923) writing of Wellington and Waterloo
Counties records it as of probable rare occurrence; Snyder (1930)
reporting on King Township, York County, says Lynx rufus
probably occurred in earlier days; Snyder (1931) mentions a
1926-27 sight record of the species in Norfolk County; and
Saunders (1932) expresses the belief that it still persists in the
Georgian Bay area. He also records a specimen shot near Sarnia
in 1923.

PETERSON AND DOWNING: BOBCATS 19

Although Anderson (1947, pp. 76-77) does not include
western Ontario or Manitoba in the range of Lynx rufus, Seton
(1925, pp. 218-220) in support of his statement that the bobcat
has been moving north with the advance of agriculture, produces
some evidence to suggest that the bobcat had moved into
southern Manitoba by the early part of the present century.
The first specimen recorded from western Ontario was one
supposedly taken near Northern Light Lake just north of the
Minnesota border in 1916 (Cahn, 1937). There are no further
reports of the species from this general area until the 1920's or
1930’s when it apparently started to increase and spread rapidly
northward. Johnson (1922) writing of Lake County, Minnesota,
reports it as present but scarce. The same author (1930) later
records it as extending its range in the eastern section of north-
western Minnesota. Snyder (1988) reporting on a faunal investi-
gation of western Rainy River District in 1929 speaks of a local
resident trapping a strange new cat which, from the description,
is almost certainly Lynx rufus. Dymond (1928) reporting on the
Lake Nipigon region (now within the range of the bobcat) for
the years 1921—24, does not mention the species in his fairly
exhaustive list.

From the 1920’s or 30’s on, the bobcat has increased steadily
in numbers in western Ontario and spread further and further
north and east. This development has been marked by reports
of trappers taking this new animal in increasing numbers in
their trap-lines. For example, Mr. Bob Howard, trapping near
Crow Lake, Kenora District, caught his first bobcat in the
winter of 1948-49. He took nine the following winter and four
in 1950-51. These reports, in the main, have been substantiated
by specimens sent to the Museum and at the present time the
extremes of this range extension as marked by specimens in the
Museum collection, are a female taken in 1946, twenty miles
east of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s English River Post,
Cochrane District, and a second female taken near Onaping,
Thunder Bay District, in 1951. Officials of the Sioux Lookout
District, Department of Lands and Forests, report that a bobcat
was caught in the vicinity of Pekangikum, northwest of Red
Lake in 1950-51, although no specimen was preserved. This
would apparently mark the northern limit in the western part
of its known range. Norris-Elye (1951) reports the first specimen
for Manitoba which seems to indicate the western limit of range
in Canada. This was again a female, taken near Mud Lake,
southeastern Manitoba, in 1951. Although this was the first

20 THE ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY

animal to reach the attention of a scientific institution, local
residents report the species as first appearing in the area about
eight years ago.

We are indebted to Dr. A. de Vos of the Department of Lands
and Forests and Mr. H. McQuarrie of Gore Bay, Ontario, for
the history of the most recent development in the range ex-
tension of the bobcat. Since January, 1951, the Museum has
received six specimens of Lynx rufus from Mr. McQuarrie, all
taken on Cockburn Island, western Manitoulin District, between
November, 1950 and October, 1951. In addition, Mr. McQuarrie
made inquiries of the local trappers from whom he received the
specimens and they are all in agreement that the bobcat was
new to the district, first appearing about 1948. That it reached
the mainland in Algoma District, Ontario, about the same time
is indicated by the trapping records of Mr. J. W. H. Taylor,
supplied by Dr. de Vos. Mr. Taylor, whose trap-line lies in
Gillmor Township about 35 miles east and north of Sault Ste.
Marie, trapped his first bobcat in the winter of 1948-49, three
the following winter, and five in 1950-51. In January, 1952, we
received our first specimen for the Algoma District, taken some
40 miles north of the above recorded locality. Circumstantial
evidence that these animals came from the west rather than
the north around Lake Superior is provided by Manville (1950),
Snyder (1942) and Clarke (1937). The former records the bobcat
as present on Drummond Island, Michigan, in 1948-49, while
the latter two authors omit the species in their respective reports
of faunal surveys conducted in the Sault Ste. Marie area by
Snyder in 1931 and the Pancake Bay area by Clarke in 1935.
Their racial affinities with upper peninsula of Michigan speci-
mens rather than with gzgas specimens from the Bruce Peninsula,
rules out an invasion from the east.

In summary, two races of bobcats have occupied three distinct
areas in Ontario. The two western populations of supertorensis
entered Ontario in recent times from Minnesota and the upper
peninsula of Michigan respectively and are apparently ex-
panding their range. If present trends continue they should
meet in the near future and probably spread to southeastern
Ontario. In the latter area, the present status of the species is
not clear. Present since historical times, it reached a very low
point by the turn of the century. Early specimens are referable
to gigas but there is the possibility a northward movement of
rufus into Ontario from the south may have taken place.

The question of the ecological relations between Lynx rufus

PETERSON AND DOWNING: BOBCATS 21

and Lynx canadensis, particularly in western Ontario and the
Sault Ste. Marie—Manitoulin region, presents an important
problem which should be studied closely. The Canada lynx,
which has remained at a precariously low population level, may
be in the process of being replaced in the southern part of its
range by these invasions of bobcats from the south.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are indebted to a great number of people for much kind
cooperation in making this study possible. We are especially
grateful to Dr. J. K. Doutt, of the Carnegie Museum in Pitts-
burgh who kindly made available to us the results of a great
effort on his part to accumulate the measurements of bobcats
taken in most of the larger museums in eastern North America.
His data has greatly facilitated the completion of this study.
We are also indebted to Dr. Doutt and the Carnegie Museum
for the loan of specimens.

We especially wish to acknowledge the assistance and co-
operation of Mr. Austin Cameron of the National Museum of
Canada who not only lent us their entire collection but also
graciously permitted us to carry out a problem that he had
anticipated on the taxonomic status of gzgas.

The Ontario Department of Lands and Forests through the
the offices of the Fish and Wildlife Division (especially Dr.
ment. we Farkness, Dr.2Ce oH. Do Clarke and br. A:*de) Vos)
greatly assisted this study through a province-wide effort to
obtain Ontario bobcat specimens, and the provision of other
data.

Dr. W. B. Davis of the Agricultural and Mechanical College
of Texas kindly provided us with an unpublished manuscript
covering a review of bobcats in the western United States.

Mr. H. McQuarrie provided an outstanding service by se-
curing for us a series of specimens from the Manitoulin District
as well as important data on the recent spread of this animal
into that area. :

We wish to acknowledge our sincere thanks to the following
persons and institutions for the loan of specimens and other
courtesies extended to us:

Mr. C. C. Sanborn, Chicago Natural History Museum

Dr. W. J. Hamilton, Cornell University

Dr. C. P. Lyman, Museum of Comparative Zoology

Dr. W. J. Breckenridge, Minnesota Museum of Natural

History

Jes THE ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY

Dr. R. S. Palmer, New York State Museum

Dr. R. H. Baker, University of Kansas

Dr. W. H. Burt, University of Michigan

Dr. Philip L. Wright, University of Montana
Dr. Don C. Quimby, Montana State College

LITERATURE CITED

ANDERSON, R. M.
1938. Mammals of the Province of Quebec. Ann. Report of the Provancher
Soc., pp. 50-103.
1947. raion of Canadian Recent mammals. Natl. Mus. Can., bull.
no. 102, biol. ser. no. 31, pp. 1-238.
Brooks, A.
1905. The mammalia of northern Wellington. Ont. Nat. Sci. Bull., no. 1,
pp. 25-26. (8 numbers, pub. annually, 1905-1913, Wellington Field
Nat. Club, Guelph, Ont.)
Cann, A. R.
1937. The mammals of the Quetico Provincial Park of Ontario. Jour.
Mamm., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 19-30.
CLARKE, CHD:
1937. A study of the mammal population of the vicinity of Pancake Bay,
Algoma District, Ontario. Natl. Mus. Can., bull. 88, pp. 141-152.
CLEMENTI, V.
1881. Rara Felis. The Canadian Sportsman and Naturalist, vol. 1, no. 4,
p. 28. (3 vols. pub. monthly at Montreal, Que., 1881-83).
DOWNING, S. C.
1944. The mammals of Algonquin Park. Mimeographed, Roy. Ont. Mus.
Zool., Toronto, pp. 1-8.
DymonpD, J. R.
1928. The mammals of the Lake Nipigon region. 7 A faunal investigation
of the Lake Nipigon region, Ontario. (by Dymond, J. R., e¢ al.).
Trans. Roy. Can. Inst., vol. 16, pt. 2, pp. 233-291 (pp. 234-250).
FLEMING, J. H.
1913. The mammals. in The natural history of the Toronto region,
Ontario, Canada. (by Faull, J. H. [ed.], e¢ al.). Can. Inst., Toronto,
pp. 1-419 (pp. 206-211).
GARNIER, J. H.
1882a. Notes on the natural history of Lucknow, Ont. The Can. Sportsman
and Nat.,-vol. 2 no“4" pp. 125-120.
1882b. Lynx “ns oathe red lynx. The Can. Sportsman and Nat., vol. 2,
no. 8, pp. 160-162.
GRINNELL, JOSEPH and JOSEPH DIXON
1924. Revision of the genus Lynx in California. Univ. Calif. Publ. in
Zool... vol. 21, no. 13; pp::339-354:
Jounson, C. E.
1922. Notes on the mammals of Northern Lake County, Minnesota. Jour.
Miamm:, vol. 3,no.-1, pp. 33-39.
1930. Recollections of the mammals of northwestern Minnesota. Jour.
Mamm., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 435-452.

PETERSON AND DOWNING: BOBCATS 23

K.uGu, A. B.
1912. Notes on the mammals of the Bruce Peninsula. Ont. Nat. Sci. Bull.,
no. 7, pp. 58-60.
MANVILLE, R. H.
1950. The mammals of Drummond Island, Michigan. Jour. Mamm.,
vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 358-359,
MERRIAM, C. H.
1890. Results of a biological survey of the San Francisco Mountain Region
and Desert of the Little Colorado, Arizona. N. Amer. Fauna no. 3,
pp. 1-101.
MILLER, G. S., JR.
1897. Notes on the mammals of Ontario. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,
vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1-44.
NorrIis-E YE, L. T. S. ,
1951. The bay lynx in Manitoba. Can. Field-Nat., vol. 65, no. 3, p. 119.
PETERSON, R. L. and V. CRICHTON
1949. The fur resources of Chapleau District, Ontario. Can. Jour. Res.,
vol. 27, sec. D, pp. 68-84.
PETERSON, R. L.
1950. A new subspecies of moose from North America. Occ. Pap. Roy.
Ont. Mus. Zool., no. 9, pp. 1-7.
RAnp, A. L.
1945. Mammals of the Ottawa District. Can. Field-Nat., vol. 59, no. 4,
pp. 141-132;
SAUNDERS, W. E.
1932. Notes on the mammals of Ontario. Trans. Roy. Can. Inst., vol. 18,
pt..2, pp. 271-309.
SETON, E. T.
1925. Lives of game animals. Doubleday, Doran and Co., Garden City,
New York, vol. 1, pp. 1-640.
SMALL, H. B. and W. P. Lett
1885. Report of the Zoological Branch. Ottawa Field-Nat. Club, Trans.
No. 6, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 280—283.
SNYDER, L. L.
1930. The mammals of King Township. zm A faunal investigation of King
Township, York County, Ontario. (by Snyder, L. L. and E. B. S.
Logier). Trans. Roy. Can. Inst., vol. 17, pt. 2, pp. 167—208 (pp. 173-
181).
1931. The mammals of Long Point and vicinity. 7m A faunal investigation
of Long Point and vicinity, Norfolk County, Ontario. (by Snyder,
Ly and E- 8. S.Logier). ‘Trans. Roy. ‘Cans Inst.;, vol 18; pte1,
pp. 117-236 (pp. 127-138).
1938. A faunal investigation of western Rainy River District, Ontario.
Trans. Roy. Can. Inst., vol. 22, pt. 1, pp. 157-213.
1941. The mammals of Prince Edward County, Ontario. i A faunal
investigation of Prince Edward County, Ontario. (by Snyder, L. L.
et al.). Univ. Tor. Studies, biol. ser., no. 48, pp. 1-123 (pp. 12-24).
1942. Mammals of the Sault Ste. Marie region. 7m A faunal investigation
of the Sault Ste. Marie region, Ontario. (by Snyder, L. L. ef al.).
Trans. Roy. Can. Inst., vol. 24, pt. 1, pp. 99-165 (pp. 105-120).
SopER, J. D.
1923. The mammals of Wellington and Waterloo Counties, Ontario.
Jour. Mamm., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 244-252.

RG ee
mere T
.
ft
ce

ee ea eT

oF 7 N a

baie SS
-

eis

; ~ wea
hry
ae

*
\e

LIBRARY
R@YAL @NTARIO MUSEUM

¥

OS aye oye A Ue

1 yee ee
_. "> PN EN oe ——_
Ste Tee ot sa

PP eee
a OP PSO. A ye egress -
I i Ah ead On da gt

s oe eS : Ste: “Se aN Bina Et cteeg seat , Pp fata s _ : :
d SE yO ee, wy se ae % x > 3 s saa ne)
ROS Nn a es *e WET ST MADE eS EP
aa ~ et >t 2. 37 < SABER Ae a
OE SEN Ng ETN TONY ee ee oe
AS Settee PEST A TL cat adie
A Sc se 9 Se aeetns
Awa Srl eet Moe 7
: ae Ares 6
ne ee er
Ne Se eee :
TET PR Swe Bais - : ~ Ke c<. 7? 2 lla”
-_= ll a = : = eee
=
wes, : : “s
SEE SS enn ee Sn eg es os S cota ae oe Nie : : : - ‘e : #5 ‘ ‘
RIG a a a = ats nen ~ 4 . = . > at > PED Set oy = oe Saye is A — af
sos —s : 7S “3 Ey : eS OT Ae Sod . 3 = ; ‘4 A ae NPE . SWE PR LOE
Sent
SCR See ray: . - os
Te nnn See ~ pera ‘ w= Lignin gees Seema
oS, Sadek ta, ‘ ais Wad apaapinsd te aa ae ETN ORS,
4 bahicecneae esate

3a = See
ee es,
Sk stein id :
WES SE ORRPS Te Ey
“ eee eae
se Sree s
MFA es

. a ee Fan : s Re Tee
bs eee A se, ries u Sorte” b i » Veiaeheve
oe Peers: at Soe fat:

EAE Fee rte
cae ce .
eecscareerese emer ee
eNO Nee ee Sew ee PLEO EY

ieee

‘oneal

fire eens
TES