592 MONOGRAPHS OF NORTH AMERICAN RODENTIA. 



ellel, should be retained; for, however faulty the characterization of the 



genus may have been, this in no way invalidates the specific designation. 

 The name rufa, in Fact, lias been adopted by at least two writers, Harlan, in 

 L82£, and Griffith (1827), who transferred the animal to the genus Arctomys. 

 Professor Baird* uses the following language respecting this matter: — 



<r It is perhaps a question whether the true name of this species be not 

 Aplodontia rufa, after Rafinesque. Although his description is incorrect, it 

 was based on tlie Sewellel of Lewis and Clarke, which is unquestionably the 

 Aplodontia leporina of Richardson. As, however, Rafinesque asserts posi- 

 tively that certain characters apply to his Anisonyx rufa, which really do not 

 exist in Aplodontia leporina, we may be warranted in avoiding the use of his 

 specific name for Richardson's animal. It may, perhaps, be well to repeat 

 that Rafinesque bases his description entirely upon a partly erroneous inter- 

 pretation of the article of Lewis and Clarke." 



Although this is perfectly just criticism, it should nevertheless be borne 

 in mind that Anisonyx rufa has a definite and well known basis, whatever the 

 inapplicability, insufficiency, or other fault of the accompanying diagnosis may 

 be; and, consequently, a rigid constructionist cannot well avoid the use of 

 the specific term rufa. Naturalists constantly adopt and retain scientific 

 names given upon a known basis, even when such names are unqualified 

 by diagnosis; and it seems to me that the admitted flaws of Rafinesque's 

 description are scarcely valid cause for the rejection of his name. Anisonyx 

 itself is to be thrown out rather upon consideration of the fact that it is 

 chiefly a synonym of the same author's Cynomys than on account of its own 

 intrinsic demerits. 



The second period in the history of the species began in 1829, upon the 

 introduction of the Aplodontia leporina of Richardson, characterized in the 

 Zoological Journal, and the same year more fully described, with figures of 

 tin' skull and teeth, in the Fauna .Boreali-Americana. These were the first 

 full and accurate accounts of the genus and species under a scientific designa- 

 tion, and long remained the source of inspiration to the compilers and other 

 second-hand writers. Sir John Richardson's material was received, like 

 many other specimens of mammals and birds described by him, from Mr. 

 David Douglass (or Douglas — I find the name thus differently spelled), and 

 is supposed to be that upon which Audubon's subsequent description and 



"Mamm.N. Amer. 1857, 354, 



