Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech University Number 238 15 June 2004 The Mammals of Howard County, Texas Lynn A. Simpson and CandiceN. Cerda Howard County provides a unique opportunity Davis and Schmidly (1994) listed 29 species in for the study of mammalian distributions in Texas. The their distributional maps of Texas mammals from county is a juncture of three ecotonal regions; the north¬ Howard County. Two studies, The Mammals of the ernmost extension of the Edwards Plateau, the Llano Estacado (Choate 1997) and The Mammals of westernmost portion of the Rolling Plains, and the the Edwards Plateau (Goetze 1998) listed 19 species southernmost area of the High Plains or Llano and 25 species respectively from Howard County. Our Estacado, w ith a fourth region, the Chihuahuan Desert, study provides a more in-depth and detailed study of extending to within 50 km west of the county. Howard County. Three hundred ninety-four specimens were collected and provided a list of 48 species, of which 12 were county records and one a major range extension. Description of oward County Howard County is located at the extreme south¬ and lays predominantly in the western portion of the ern portion of the Texas High Plains (Stoner et al. 1969) county. It is characterized by undulating dunes with between 32°00' and 32°32' N latitude and between periodic drainage areas. Dominant vegetation includes 101°10l and 101 °42' W longitude (Anon. 1978). The shin oak (Quercus havardii) and grama grasses county is approximately 48 km by 48 km encompass¬ (Bouieloua spp.) with mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) ing 2334 sq. km. Elevations range from 670 m to 846 as a common invader. Sandy soil habitat is frequently m. Mean annual rainfall is 48.8 cm with a growing cultivated. The shallow soil rangeland habitat occu¬ season of 217 days and the region is classified as semi- pies 23% of the county largely to the east. The soil is arid (Stoner et al. 1969). Mean minimum temperature loamy and frequently mixed with clay and gravel. Small is -2.2° C in January with a mean maximum of 34.4° mesquite and Opuntia spp. dominate the vegetation C in July (Anon, 2001). with grama, silver bluestem (Bothriochloa saccharoidesf buffalo (Buchloe dactyloides) and other Using Stoner et al. (1969) as a guide, four prin¬ grasses giving a thin ground cover. Too shallow for ciple mammal habitats were identified; sandy soil, shal¬ cultivation, much of this habitat is grazed by livestock. low soil rangeland, limestone ledges and slopes, and Limestone ledges and slopes occupy about 5% of the riparian. Sandy soil habitat occupies 72% of the county county and is characterized by vertical ledges to un- 2 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University dulating slopes . Soils are shallow and loamy with red- with temporary water and man-made lakes and ponds. berry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii) along with an as¬ Large mesquite and hackberry (Celtis reticulata) are sortment of forbs and grasses as dominant vegetation. common trees with salt cedar (Tamarix gallica) and This limestone habitat runs east to west just south of black willow (Salix nigra) as common invader shrubs. Big Spring. Riparian areas cover less than 1% of the county's land area and are characterized by streams Methods and Materials No methodical survey of Howard County had SPR-0 890-241. For collecting rodents the county was been conducted prior to this survey, but incidental col¬ divided into 25 zones, with each zone being approxi¬ lecting of specimens had occurred. Prior to the start mately 9 km by 9 km. All zones were sampled in at of this study requests were made to ten collections for least three locations with 30 folding Sherman live traps mammal records from Howard County. We received (3x3x9 in.) set at each location. Some zones were ten responses, with four collections reporting speci¬ sampled in as many as six locations depending on the mens from the county that could be used in this study. discretion of the investigator, resulting in 89 locations Specimens collected were located in the Museum of and 2,670 trap nights. Other collecting devices used Texas Tech University (TTU), Texas Cooperative Wild¬ included Macabee gopher traps, nylon mist nets for life Collection (TCWC) at Texas A&M University, Mid¬ bats, and pitfall traps were used to target shrews. western State University Collection of Recent Mam¬ Occasionally, Havahart traps were used for medium mals (MWSU), and the Angelo State Natural History sized mammals. Larger animals were salvaged from Collection (ASNHC). Fifty-five specimens were roadsides or supplied by the Big Spring Animal Con¬ housed in the TTU collection (representing 21 spe¬ trol office. cies), nine specimens in the TCWC (representing one species), one specimen was located in the MWSU, Most specimens were prepared as skins with and eleven specimens in the ASNHC (representing seven skeletons. Some specimens were prepared as skeleton species). only or skull only. All specimens collected in this study were deposited in the ASNHC. All locations listed un¬ Additional collecting began in 1992 and contin¬ der specimens examined and additional records in the ued to 1999 using Texas Parks and Wildlife permit accounts section are reported as recorded on skin tags. Accounts Didelphis virgin iana Kerr teau, respectively. Yanez and Simpson (2001) first re¬ Virginia Opossum ported this marsupial from Howard County, The Virginia opossum has been introduced widely All opossum specimens from Howard County in the western United States from its historical range were salvaged from roadkills or local animal control. of the eastern United States and Great Plains through This animal is seen frequently within the City of Big Mexico to Central America (McManas 1974). Davis Spring and seems to be abundant throughout all habi¬ and Schmidly (1994) reported the opossum through¬ tats in the county. out Texas but not from Howard County. Neither Choate (1997) or Goetze (1998) recorded specimens from Specimens examined (5). - 1.0 mi. S Coahoama, Howard County but both report this opossum as com¬ 1; City of Big Spring, 2; 6.7 mi. S, 2.8 E Big Spring, 2. mon on the Llano Estacado and on the Edwards Pla¬ Additional records (1). - 3.0 mi. NNE Big Spring, 1 (TTU). Simpson and Cerda—The Mammals of Howard County, Texas 3 Dasypus novemcinctus Linnaeus Of the six shrews collected in Howard County Nine-banded Armadillo during this study, three were collected in a sandy habi¬ tat, of which one was captured by a feral cat and two The nine-banded armadillo’s distribution extends were caught in a pitfall trap. The three remaining speci¬ from central South America through Panama into mens were caught by hand after the investigators turned Texas, then north to Nebraska and Iowa, and east along over weathered plywood near a dead lake at location, the Gulf of Mexico to Florida. This makes the nine- 4.9 mi. W Big Spring, on 1-20. banded armadillo the most widely distributed edentate (McBee and Baker 1982). Davis and Schmidly (1994), Specimens examined (6). - 3.2 mi. N, 9.8 E Big Choate (1997), and Goetze (1998) show Howard Spring, 1; 0.9 mi. N, 6.7 W Big Spring, 1; 2.3 mi. S, County well within the range of this mammal though 4.9 W Big Spring, 3; 1.3 mi. S, 0.5 E Coahoama, 1. nearing its western distribution limit, but report no specimens from the county. Yanez and Simpson (2001) first reported the armadillo from Howard County. Lasiurus borealis (Muller) Eastern Red Bat Armadillos are uncommon in Howard County, probably due to the small amount of preferred riparian Eastern red bats are uncommon in Howard habitat. Both armadillo specimens taken in this study County though they range widely through North and were salvaged as roadkill. Armadillos collected or ob¬ South America (Shump and Shump 1982a), This soli¬ served were in the southern portion of the county and tary arboreal bat is a year-round resident in east Texas associated with riparian or limestone ledges and slope but is thought to be a summer migrant into west Texas habitats. (Schmidly 1991). Choate (1997) reported one speci¬ men from Big Spring. Specimens examined (2). - City of Big Spring, 1; 10.0 mi. S, 4.8 E Big Spring, 1. Two specimens of this bat, a lactating female with a juvenile female attached, were collected during this study. They were found dead in a backyard in the Cryptotis parva (Say) City of Big Spring on 23 June 1995. Least Shrew Specimens examined (2). - City of Big Spring, Hall (1981) depicts the distribution of the least 2. shrew through all the eastern United States and Great Plains, then southward to Panama. An unusual gap in Additional records (1). - Big Spring, 1 (TTU) central Texas is present in this distribution and that of (Choate 1997). Davis and Schmidly (1994). Simpson and Maxwell (1989) and Dowler and Boyd (1996) reported C. parva from Coke and Tom Green counties, extending this Lasiurus cinereus (Palisot de Beauvois) shrew’s range northward through the Edwards Pla¬ Hoaiy Bat teau. Southward range extensions were reported by Jones et al. (1993), Yancey et al. (1996), and Choate Though rare in Howard County, this solitary ar¬ (1997) into Yoakum and Garza counties on the Llano boreal bat is wide-spread throughout the Americas Estacado. During this survey, six specimens of the (Shump and Shump 1982b). The hoary bat is migra¬ least shrew were collected from Howard County, ex¬ tory, with females moving through Texas in the spring tending its range into west-central Texas (Simpson and fall, whereas males appear to be spring and sum¬ 1999). These specimens fill the large area of west- mer residents (Schmidly 1991), Choate (1997) and central Texas left blank on Hall (1981) and Davis and Goetze (1998) reported this bat scattered throughout Schmidly5s (1994) distributional maps. their study areas, though small in numbers. 4 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University No specimens of this bat were collected during wide. These colonial bats were noted utilizing numer¬ this study, however one hoary bat specimen was lo¬ ous manmade structures as roosts throughout the Big cated in the TTU collection. Spring area. Additional records (1). - 2.0 mi. N, 2.0 W Forsan, Specimens examined (5). - City of Big Spring, l(TTU). 2; Big Spring (Howard College Campus), 3. Myotis velifer (J. A. Allen) Can is latrans Say Cave Myotis Coyote This colonial, cave-dwelling bat occurs from The coyote is widely distributed through all North Arizona and Kansas south through Texas and Mexico America and has become highly adapted to human to Honduras (Fitch et al. 1981), Schmidly (1991) con¬ habitation (Bekoff 1977). Davis and Schmidly (1994) siders this bat to be a year-round resident of Texas. show a specimen from Howard County, whereas Choate (1997) reported the cave bat only from the Choate (1997) and Goetze (1998) reported no coyotes northeastern portion of the Llano Estacado. Goetze from the county. This animal is reported frequently in (1998) reported this bat throughout the Edwards Pla¬ all mammalian studies of Texas and seems common in teau. West Texas. Two badly decomposed specimens of the cave Two specimens of the coyote were collected myotis were brought in by a Howard College student during this study. The coyote commonly was seen as after a local resident had discovered them in an open nonsalvagable roadkills. Additional sightings of live mailbox. No specific gender was determined. These animals occurred during all seasons and in all habitats. two specimens constitute the first records of this bat from Howard County (Yanez and Simpson 2001). Specimens examined (2). - 7.0 mi. S, 1.5 E Big Spring, 2. Specimens examined (2). - City of Big Spring, 2. Urocyon cinereoargenteus (Schreber) Common Gray Fox Tadarida brasiliensis (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire) Brazilian Free-tailed Bat Distribution of the common gray fox extends over most of the United States through Central America The Brazilian free-tailed bat is one of the most to Colombia (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982). Howard widely distributed bats studied in this survey. Its range County is well within the range of this fox but neither extends from central South America north along the Davis and Schmidly (1994), Choate (1997), Goetze Pacific coast through Central America to the southern (1998) or Yanez and Simpson (2001) reported it from half of the United States (Wilkins 1989). This species Howard County. is highly migratory, arriving in Texas in early spring and fonning large concentrated colonies where they Specimens of the common gray fox collected raise their young before departing in late fall (Schmidly during this study are the first known specimens from 1991). Records of this bat are scattered throughout Howard County. Specimens were collected from all the Llano Estacado (Choate 1997) and Edwards Pla¬ habitats except riparian but gray foxes are suspected teau with Goetze (1998) reporting five Howard County to utilize that habitat. This fox is considered common specimens within the ASNHC from one location. for the county. Brazilian free-tailed bats are the most common Specimens examined (7), - 4.5 mi. N, 2.6 E Big bat collected in Howard County and are abundant state¬ Spring, 3; 3.2 mi. N, 4.5 E Big Spring, 1; 2.0 mi. S Big Spring, 2; 0.8 mi. S, 2.4 E Big Spring, 1. Simpson and Cerda— The Mammals of Howard County, Texas 5 Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus) Puma concolor (Linnaeus) Red Fox Mountain Lion The red fox is the most widely distributed carni¬ No specimen of the mountain lion was collected vore in the world (LariviPre and Pasitsehniak-Arts during this study but Hall (1981) places Howard County 1996). Howard County is well within the range of the in the middle of its North American range. Numerous red fox which covers most of North America, but we residents of Howard County claim to have seen this consider it rare in Howard County. Choate (1997) large cat in recent years, but no physical evidence was reported a specimen from Howard County in his study collected. Reports of the mountain lion by Engstrom from the TTU, and Goetze (1998) reported two from and Maxwell (1988), Boyd et al. (1997), and Goetze theASNHC. (1998) from the Edwards Plateau, Choate (1997) from the Llano Estacado, and Dalquest and Homer (1984) No specimens of the red fox were collected dur¬ from north-central Texas make the reports of this cat ing this study, but two specimens were located in sur¬ in Howard County plausible. veyed collections; one each in the TTU and the ASNHC. Collecting localities of both specimens were in the Lynx rufus (Schreber) rangeland habitat of the south and east portions of the Bobcat county. This medium-sized felid ranges across southern Additional records (2). - 5.6 mi. E Big Spring, 1 Canada through most of the United States and central (TTU); 5.0 mi. S Coahoama, 1 (ASNHC). Mexico (LariviPre and Watson 1997). Davis and Schmidly (1994) report specimens of the bobcat from every county in Texas. Both Choate (1997) and Goetze Vulpes velox (Say) (1998) reported this cat throughout their study areas Swift or Kit Fox and in Howard County, The taxonomy of this species has been discussed Four salvaged specimens were collected during in numerous publications (Mercure et al. 1993; Dragoo this study and numerous nonsalvagable roadkills and et al. 1990; Egosque 1979; McGrew 1979; Creel and sightings were noted in all habitats. Twice during this Thornton 1971; Thornton et al. 1971). Davis and study bobcats were sighted at midday crossing dead Schmidly (1994) recognize the swift fox and the kit lakes west of Big Spring. The bobcat is common in fox as a single species with two subspecies Vulpes Howard County and its population appears to be on velox velox and V velox macrotis. In our study, the the increase. swift and kit foxes will be considered one species. Combining Egosque (1979) and McGrew*s (1979) dis¬ Specimens examined (4). - 18.4 mi. N, 4.1 W tributions of V. velox and V macrotis, this fox ranges Big Spring, l;18.3mi.N,5,7WBig Spring, 2; 8.3 mi. throughout the Great Plains and the southwestern S, 1.5 E Big Spring, 1. United States. Additional records (10). - 1.0 mi. N Big Spring, Howard County is on the eastern edge of the 1 (TTU); Howard County, 9 (TCWC). range of V. velox, where it is considered rare. No specimens were collected of this small fox during this study, but two specimens collected in 1970 were found Conepatus mesoleucus (Lichtenstein) in the ASNHC. Hog-nosed Skunk Additional records (2). - 5.0 mi. S Coahoama, 2 Hall (1981) shows the hog-nosed skunk’s range (ASNHC). extending from Arizona and Colorado south through Mexico into Honduras with no presence in north Texas 6 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University or in the northern panhandle of Texas. Maiming et al. Spilogale gracilis (Merriam) (1986) and Davis and Schmidly (1994) depicted a simi¬ Western Spotted Skunk lar distribution in Texas. Goetze (1998) shows a num¬ ber of records from the Edwards Plateau, whereas Verts et al. (2001) place this small skunk in Brit¬ Choate (1997) reports only two records from the ish Columbia then south through the western United Llano Estacado. Yanez and Simpson (2001) first re¬ States into central Mexico. Davis and Schmidly (1994) ported this animal from Howard County. and Goetze (1998) depicted the western spotted skunk from Howard County, which is at the eastern distribu¬ Howard County is shown to be on the northern tional limits. Choate (1997) reported no occurrence edge of the current Texas range. No specific attempt of $. gracilis on the Llano Estacado but does report S. to trap the hog-nosed skunk was made during this putorius, the eastern spotted skunk. study, but one specimen was salvaged as roadkill and a few nonsalvagable animals were noted. We con¬ Local Howard County residents have reported sider this skunk uncommon in the county. spotted skunks in recent years, but no animals were taken during this study. Hollander et al. (1987) re¬ Specimens examined (1). - 9.9 mi. S, 4.8 E Big ported a male S. gracilis found dead on U.S. Highway Spring, 1. 87, 11.0 mi. SE of Big Spring in 1986. This skunk is expected but uncommon in Howard County. Additional records (1). - 5.0 mi. S Big Spring, 1 (ASNHC). Additional records (1). - 11.0 mi. SE Big Spring, 1 (TTU). Mephitis mephitis (Schreber) Striped Skunk Taxidea taxus (Schreber) American Badger The striped skunk’s range runs throughout south¬ ern Canada, all the United States and into northern The badger’s range extends from the northeast¬ Mexico (Wade-Smith and Verts 1982). Both Choate ern United States across southern Canada south through Texas into central Mexico (Long 1973). Choate (1997) (1997) and Goetze (1998) reported this skunk from Howard County and throughout their study areas. reported a specimen from Howard County and nu¬ merous specimens throughout the Llano Estacado. Although only three striped skunks were salvaged Goetze (1998) reported no specimens from Howard during this study, this animal is considered common in County and few from the Edwards Plateau. all habitats of Howard County. Frequently this noctur¬ Two salvaged specimens were collected during nal animal causes disturbances within the city limits of this study. Badger burrows noted during routine trap¬ Big Spring due to their frequent habitation of man¬ ping provide additional information on the presence of made structures. this robust animal. The badger inhabits sandy soil but Specimens examined (3). - 5.2 mi. N Big Spring, seems to prefer the rangeland habitat within Howard 1; City of Big Spring, 1; Big Spring (Howard College County. This mammal is considered a rare inhabitant Campus), 1. of the county. Additional records (1). - 1.0 mi. N Big Spring, 1 Specimens examined (2). - 16.6 mi, N, 16.8 E (TTU). Big Spring, 1; 3.0 mi. E Big Spring, 1. Additional records (1). - 10.0 mi. N Big Spring, 1 (TTU). Simpson and Cerda— The Mammals of Howard County, Texas 7 Bassariscus astutus (Lichtenstein) Pecari tajacu (Linnaeus) Ringtail Collared Peccary The ringtail’s distribution extends from southern Wilson and Reader (1993) place the collared Mexico north through Texas, California and most of peccary’s range from central South America extend¬ the southwestern United States (Poglayen-Neuwall and ing northward into central Mexico whereas Hall (1981) Toweill 1988). Choate (1997) reported one Howard shows the range splitting east into Texas and west into County specimen from the MWSU but few from the Arizona. Davis and Schmidly (1994) depicted Howard Llano Estacado, whereas Goetze (1998) reported a County at the northern edge of the peccary’s range. specimen from Howard County and numerous addi¬ Neither Choate (1997) or Goetze (1998) reported this tional records throughout the Edwards Plateau. species from Howard County, however Goetze re¬ ported several accounts from the western Edwrards The ringtail is considered uncommon in Howard Plateau. County due to the small amount of limestone ledge and slope habitat. No ringtail specimens were col¬ One specimen of the collared peccary was sal¬ lected during this study, but the specimen reported in vaged during this study from a rangeland habitat in the MWSU by Choate (1997) and Goetze (1998) is Howard County. This was the first reported occur¬ presumed from a limestone ledges and slope habitat rence of the collared peccary from the county. One south of Big Spring. sighting of a small peccary herd occurred at Big Spring Draw in a riparian habitat during this study. Additional records (1). - Big Spring, 1 (MWSU). Specimens examined (1). - 4.0 mi. S, 3.4 E Big Spring, 1. Procyon lotor (Linnaeus) Common Raccoon Odocoileus virginianus (Zimmerman) The raccoon has a transcontinental range extend¬ White-tailed Deer ing from Panama north through the United States and across southern Canada (Lotze and Anderson 1979). The white-tailed deer is found throughout the Davis and Schmidly (1994), Choate (1997), and Goetze Americas from southern Canada across the Isthmus (1998) depicted the raccoon throughout their study of Panama to Brazil and Peru. Historically this deer areas, but none reported this species from Howard has occupied all this range but not in such abundance County. Yanez and Simpson (2001) first documented as they do today. In the late 1940’s, conservation of the raccoon from Howard County. habitat and enforcement of game laws allowed for a substantial increase in the population of this large game Just fouT raccoons were collected during this animal (Smith 1991). Though reported throughout study. With additional live sightings and numerous Texas where suitable habitat occurs (Davis and nonsalvagable animals noted, the raccoon is consid¬ Schmidly 1994; Choate 1997; Goetze 1998), Yanez ered abundant in all habitats of Howard County. and Simpson (2001) were the first to document this species from Howard County. Specimens examined (4). - 16.8 mi. N, 12.0 W Big Spring, 1; 1.8 mi. N, 9.0 E Big Spring, 1; 0.9 mi Five specimens of the white-tailed deer were N, 0.8 E Coahoama, 1; 15.0 mi. E Big Spring, 1. collected in Howard County during this study. Sev¬ eral sightings of live white-tailed deer and numerous nonsalvagable roadkills also were observed indicating it is common in all habitats. Specimens examined (5). - 1.8 mi. N, 9.9 E Big Spring, 1; 1.8 mi. N, 9.0 E Big Spring, 2; 2.3 mi. S, 0.2 E Big Spring, 1; 7.0 mi. S, 1.5 E Big Spring, 1, 8 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University Antilocapra americana (Ord) Sytvilagus audubonii (Baird) Pronghorn Desert Cottontail O’Gar a (1978) places the historical range of the Desert cottontails range from central Mexico pronghorn from southern Canada south through the north to northern California, Montana, and North Da¬ western United States into Baja and central Mexico. kota taking in the western two-thirds of Texas (Hall Davis and Schmidly (1994) place the historical range 1981; Wilson and Reeder 1993). Choate (1997) and of this animal in Texas as the western two-thirds of Goetze (1998) reported this rabbit throughout their the state, but show the current distribution to be dis¬ study areas with both reporting a Howard County speci¬ continuous and concentrated in the Trans-Pecos and men in the ASNHC, No specimens were obtained dur¬ panhandle of Texas, Howard County is well within ing this study. this historical range and the current distribution of the pronghorn, but neither Choate (1997), Goetze (1998), Sylvilagus audubonii and S.floridanus utilize the or Yanez and Simpson (2001) reported it from the same habitats, sandy and rangeland, but the desert county. cottontail occurs less frequently and is considered un¬ common in Howard County. One salvaged specimen of the pronghorn was collected from southern Howard County in sandy soil Additional Records (1). - Big Spring, 1 (ASNHC). habitat. This is the first report of the pronghorn from Howard County. It is thought to be uncommon in the county, but immediately to the north in Borden County Sylvilagus floridanus (J. A. Allen) large herds are commonly seen. Eastern Cottontail Specimens examined (1). - 9.7 mi. S, 1.2 E Big The eastern cottontaiFs range extends from Ven¬ Spring, 1. ezuela and Colombia through central America into most of Texas to the Great Plains and all the eastern United States (Hall 1981; Wilson and Reeder 1993). Choate Lepus californicus Gray (1997) reported two specimens from Howard County Black-tailed Jackrabbit with numerous other specimens from the Llano Estacado. Several specimens are reported from the This medium-sized hare inhabits most of the Edwards Plateau by Goetze (1998), with one from western United States then south through all of Texas Howard County. to central Mexico including all of Baja (Best 1996). Both Choate (1997) and Goetze (1998) reported the Three specimens were located during this study, jackrabbit to be common throughout the Llano Estacado all in the ASNHC. Despite the lack of specimens, the and Edwards Plateau. Choate (1997) reported one eastern cottontail is thought to be common in Howard specimen of L. californicus from Howard County County. Four specimens where salvaged during this study Additional Records (3). - 3.0 mi. W Luther, 1 from sandy soil and rangeland habitats. Additional live (ASNHC) (Choate 1997); S Big Spring, 2 (ASNHC). sightings and nonsalvagable animals were noted from these habitats where it is common. Riparian and lime¬ stone ledge and slopes are not desirable habitats for Cynomys ludovicianus (Ord) this hare, and it is considered rare in those areas. Black-tailed Prairie Dog Specimens examined (4). - 1.5 W Vealmoor, 2; In the late 1800’s the black-tailed prairie dog was 1.4 mi. N, 9.3 E Big Spring, 1; 9.7 mi. S, 3.6 W Big estimated to have numbered in the billions within its Spring, 1. range which covered most of the Great Plains. Due to habitat destruction this member of the squirrel family Additional records (2). - 3.0 mi. N Big Spring, 1 has experienced a great reduction in its population. (TTU); 5.0 mi. S Big Spring,! (TTU). Simpson and Cerda— The Mammals of Howard County, Texas 9 They now occur only in isolated colonies throughout Spermophilus mexicanus (Erxleben) their historical range (Hoogland 1996) , Choate (1997) Mexican Ground Squirrel reported the prairie dog throughout the Llano Estacado. Goetze (1998) depicted this species from the northern Howard County is to the northern extreme of half of the Edwards Plateau and one specimen from the range of the Mexican ground squirrel, which ex¬ Howard County. tends from central Texas west across southeastern New Mexico then south to central Mexico (Young and All specimens collected during this study were Jones 1982). Choate (1997) and Goetze (1998) re¬ from one location west of Big Spring, but “towns” at ported specimens from Howard County in their stud¬ the Big Spring Air Park and Big Spring State Park are ies, and Boyd et al. (1997) reported this species from known to exist. Three specimens (ASNHC 8508, Tom Green County to the south. 8509, and 8511) collected on the 5 and 6 of March 1993 were pregnant with 3,5, and 3 embryos respec¬ The Mexican ground squirrel is known to occur tively. in all four habitats of Howard County and is consid¬ ered common. In our study, specimen ASNHC 8519 Specimens examined (10). - 2.4 mi, S, 6.9 W was lactating when caught 27 May 1994. Specimen Big Spring, 10. ASNHC 8523, collected on 3 June 1994, was preg¬ nant with seven embryos. Additional records (1). - Big Spring Air Park, 1 (TTXJ), Specimens examined (8). - 9.0 mi. N, 3.7 E Big Spring, 1; Big Spring (Howard College Campus), 2; 4.2 mi. W Big Spring, 1; 2.4 mi. S, 6,9 W Big Spring, Sciurus niger Linnaeus 1; 9.7 mi S, 3.6 W Big Spring, 3. Eastern Fox Squirrel Additional records (1). - 8.0 mi. S Big Spring, 1 ICoprowski (1994) reports the eastern fox squir¬ (TTU). rel throughout the eastern United States and Great Plains including north and central Texas. Goetze (1998) de¬ picted the fox squirrel throughout most of the Edwards Spermophilus spilosoma Bennett Plateau. Choate (1997) reported fewer records and Spotted Ground Squirrel those were largely from the eastern and northern ca- The spotted ground squirrel ranges from Ne¬ prock of the Llano Estacado. braska south to Utah and Oklahoma through Texas One female squirrel was caught in Howard County and New Mexico and south to central Mexico (Streubel during this study. The specimen was trapped with a and Fitzgerald 1978; Hall 1981). Goetze (1998) re¬ Havahart trap in a pecan orchard in a riparian setting. ported this ground squirrel from Howard County and The 80 year-old landowner reported that fox squirrels Choate (1997) reported it to the north and west of the have been common at that location since “he was a county in Martin and Dawson counties, young boy”. This specimen constitutes a Howard S. spilosoma is uncommon in Howard County. County record (Yanez and Simpson 2001) and accord¬ One lactating female specimen (ASNHC 10207) was ing to Davis and Schmidly’s (1994) Texas distribu¬ captured during this study on 6 July 1995 from a sandy tion, a slight range extension to the north and west. soil habitat. Specimens examined (1). - 2.3 mi. S, 0.2 E Big Specimens examined (1). — 3.2 mi. N, 0.7 E Big Spring, 1. Spring, 1. Additional records (2). - Elbow, 1 (TTU); Big Spring, 1 (ASNHC). 10 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University Geo mys bursarius (Shaw) faced pocket gopher from Howard County and five Plains Pocket Gopher additional counties in the extreme northwestern Edwards Plateau. The plains pocket gopher’s distribution extends from southern Manitoba through the plains states to Only one male specimen was captured during southern Texas (Jones et ah 1985). Historically, Geomys this study with a Macabee trap in sandy soil habitat. bursarius was considered one wide ranging, blit mor¬ Location information from the two additional records phologically variable, species. However, recent use of from the TTU and the ASNHC also were located in biochemical technology has identified five species of sandy soil. This large gopher is considered uncom¬ Geomys in the region of Texas formerly recognized as mon in Howard County. the range of G. bursarius; the five species are G. bursarius, G. attwateri, G. breviceps, G. knoxjonesi, Specimens examined (1). - 3.1 mi. S, 6.7 W Big and G. texensis (Davis and Sehmidly 1994). Howard Spring, 1. County falls within the range of Geomys bursarius. Choate (1997) reported the plains pocket gopher from Additional records (2). - 1.5 mi. WSW Vealmoor, Howard County and northwest through the central 1 (TTU); Big Spring, 1 (ASNHC). Llano Estacado. Goetze (1998) reported this species from Howard, Nolan, and Runnels Counties in the ex¬ treme northern Edwards Plateau. Chaetodipus hispidus Baird Hispid Pocket Mouse Ail specimens caught during this study in Howard County were from the sandy soil. Additional mounds The hispid pocket mouse ranges from the Dako¬ seen in this gopher’s preferred sandy habitats through¬ tas through the Great Plains and Texas south into cen¬ out the county suggest that this gopher is common. tral Mexico (Paulson 1988). Choate (1997) reported this pocket mouse from four locations in the sandy Specimens examined (20). - 4.6 mi. N, 2.7 E habitat of Howard County and throughout most of the Big Spring, 1; 1.8 mi. N, 9.0 E Big Spring, 2; 1.6 mi. Llano Estacado. Goetze (1998) reported this mouse N, 1.25 E Big Spring, 2; 1.5 mi. N, 9.0 E Big Spring, from Howard County and throughout the northern and 1; 1.5 mi. N B ig Spring, 1; 1.0 mi. N, 1.3 E Big Spring, eastern Edwards Plateau. 1; 1.0 mi. N Big Spring on Hwy 669, 2; 7.5 mi. W Big Spring, 1; 2,8 mi S, 6.0 W Big Spring, 1; 3.1 mi. S, Eight specimens of the hispid pocket mouse were O. 6 E Big Spring, 1; 3.2 mi. S, 1.0 E Big Spring, 1; 3.2 collected in the sandy habitat and four were captured S, 1.1 EBig Spring, 3; 3.25 ini. S, 0.6 E Big Spring, 2; in the shallow soil rangeland habitat of eastern Howard 8.6 mi. S, 10.0 W Big Spring, 1. County. Two specimens, ASNHC 8537 and 8538, were captured on 2 and 3 June 1994. Both mice were preg¬ Additional records (7). - 2 mi. N Big Spring, 1 nant with two and five embryos respectively. (TTU); 2 mi. NE Big Spring, 2 (TTU); 9 mi. N Big Spring, 1 (TTU); Big Spring, 2 (TTU); Big Spring Area, Specimens examined (12). - 17.0 mi, N, 10.0 W 1 (ASNHC). Big Spring, 2; 16.6 mi. N, 4.0 E Big Spring, 1; 13.6 mi. N, 4.0 W Big Spring, 1; 9.0 mi. N, 9.5 W Big Spring, 2; 4.5 mi. N, 5.5 E Big Spring, 1; 1.3 mi. N, Cratogeomys castanops (Baird) 14.1 E Big Spring, 1; 1.2 mi. N, 13,2 E Big Spring, 1; Yellow-faced Pocket Gopher 4.8 mi. S, 3.9 E Big Spring, 1; 8.6 mi. S, 12.0 W Big Spring, 1; 10.6 mi. S, 9.9 W Big Spring, 1. The yellow-faced pocket gopher ranges from Colorado and Kansas south through eastern New Additional records (6). - 2.5 mi. WSW Vealmoor, Mexico and west Texas to northeastern Durango 1 (TTU); 2 mi. S, 0.5 W Luther, 1 (TTU); 2.5 mi. S, (Davidow-Henry et al. 1989). Choate (1997) reported 3.5 W Luther, 1 (TTU); 3.5 mi. S, 2.5 E Luther, 1 this gopher from Howard County and throughout the (TTU); 3 mi. S, 3.5 W Luther, 1 (TTU); 9 mi. S, 2.0 Llano Estacado, Goetze (1998) reported the yellow¬ W Big Spring, 1 (TTU).