LONNBERG, MAMMALS. 43 



that it simply displayed a variation with regard to the colour and I think he was right 

 in that. 



But if such >nifescens -varieties are produced by several different species, it is 

 very uncertain, to say the least, to which species just that specimen belonged to 

 which HAMILTON SMITH first attached the name rufescens* if it is not explained by 

 other characters or by the origin of the actual specimen. By this I have not denied 

 that JENTINK'S rufesce.ns may be a very good species, I have only offered some 

 doubts concerning the correctness of placing this name on it. Unfortunately the 

 literature which I have been able to consult does not give any exact information 

 about the locality whence HAMILTON SMITH'S rufescens originated. 



As has been alluded to above, JENTINK has said that it is uncertain to which antelope 

 THUNBEEG has given the specific name >campestris. JENTINK assumes that the type was 

 lost, and he means that the description is too short to prove anything with certainty, 

 as it is, according to his opinion, applicable to several other species of Antelopes*. 

 This is, I think, to be too rigorous. Even if for instance the descriptive notes could 

 be applied to some other species, as well, there is some other valuable information 

 given by THUNBERG which makes this more than improbable viz. the quoting of 

 the name Steenbok, and the statement that the antelope in question lived near 

 Capetown. These two facts appear to make every misunderstanding impossible even 

 if the type had been lost. There is, however, a specimen of this kind still kept in 

 the zoological museum of the R. University at Upsala, and it appears to have been 

 there since THUNBERG'S time. The label indicates that it is from the old museum 

 academic-urn* and it was even believed once that it was from the time of LINNAEUS. 

 This is however not true, but it is more probable that it is a member of THUNBERG'S 

 collection although it for some reason or the other has been omitted from his pu- 

 blished list. In a by THUNBERG written catalogue of the animals of the Zool. Mu- 

 seum of the R. University at Upsala it is entered as Antilope grimmia? It is well 

 known that THUNBERG to begin with erroneously used this Linnean specific name 

 just for the species which he afterwards named Antilope campestris. In such a case 

 1 think that it is reasonable to assume this specimen still kept in Upsala as the 

 type of THUNBERG'S ^Antilope campestris*, and it is the more gratifying to do so as 

 by such a proceeding nothing is altered in the nomenclature, but everything is in 

 agreement with the general opinion among zoologists before JENTINK published the 

 new name. 



Some measurements of the Upsala specimen may be of interest and are there- 

 fore recorded. 



Length of ear 12,6 cm. 



> head 15,3 



horns 7,3 



hoofs of foreleg, above 2,s 2,ycm. 



Crown of the same 1,8 cm. 



The hoofs are accordingly of the longish type. 



