472 Mr. Bennett on the Mits Barbarus, 



Art. LIX. On the Mas Barbarus of Linncbus. By E. T. 

 Bennett, Esq., F.L.S,, S^c. 



In the collection of the Zoological Society there have recently been 

 living three specimens of an animal which appears to have been hitherto 

 observed by Linnaeus alone, in the Additions to the 1 2th Edition of vi^hose 

 Systeraa Naturae occurs the only original description that has yet been 

 given of it. It is there characterized as the " Mus barbarus, cauda me- 

 " diocri, corpore fusco striis decern pallidis, palmis tridactylis, plantis 

 " pentadactylis." Its description is as follows : — " Corpus M. Musculo 

 " minus supra fuscum. Abdomen pallidum. Dorsum striis decern 

 " pallidis et saepe lineola vix manifesta inter strias laterales. Pedes an- 

 " tici digitis tribus unguiculatis ; praeterea pollice obsoleto ; sub planta 

 " ipsa rudimentum quinti digiti. Cauda nudiuscula, subverticillata^ 

 " longitudine corporis." 



So clear a description of the animal, evidently taken, as the word 

 " saepe" shows, from more than one individual, would have seemed to 

 render it impossible that confusion could have been subsequently intro- 

 duced into the history of the Mus Barbaras, and that this should have 

 gradually increased to the extent of rendering, not merely its genus, but 

 its very existence, questionable. Such, however, has been the effect pro- 

 duced by the mode in which the works of Linnaeus have been edited by 

 Gmelin, whose compilation must be rejected as a work of authority from 

 every Zoological, as it was, immediately after its appearance, from every 

 Botanical library. Gmelin, like all compilers, repeatedly described un- 

 der two or more names the same animal, and thus introduced into science 

 a considerable number of merely nominal species ; an error inseparable 

 from the plan pursued by him of looking to books alone, and not to the 

 objects in nature, to which their descriptions were meant to apply. But 

 such errors, deeply injurious as they are to the cause of science, are tri- 

 fling when compared with the mischiefs resulting from mis-quotation. 

 Gmelin did not even copy correctly. In the instance before us he took 

 from Linnaeus the words of his specific character of Mus Barbarus, and 

 translated into his own phraseology the greater part of the description : 

 but he omitted to mention the indistinct slender line noticed as frequently 



