Mr. Bennett on the Mus Barbarus, 473 



existing between the strim ; and, which is of far greater importance, 

 he omitted altogether the description of the anterior feet. Linnseus's 

 Mus Barbarus, from the modification of the character of these organs, 

 as explained in his description, was evidently truly mutine, although 

 deviating somewhat from the typical character of the genus : but Gme- 

 hn's, owing to this gross omission, had but three toes on its anterior 

 feet ; no rudiment whatever of any other appeared in his character : he 

 was puzzled by his own blunder, which alone rendered the animal no 

 longer a Mus ; and he enquired " An forsan ad Caviam releganda ?" a 

 question propounded, be it remarked, in immediate apposition with the 

 words " Cauda — longitudine corporis," the character ofCavia, as given 

 by him a few pages before, being " Cauda abbreviata aut nulla." 



Succeeding naturalists, enjoying no opportunity of referring to spe- 

 cimens, were reduced to the necessity of consulting the works of the 

 writers who had preceded them, and they appear to have had recourse to 

 Gmelin alone, to the utter neglect of the original authority for the spe- 

 cies. They have consequently been equally puzzled with the compiler 

 himself at the singular character of the Mus Barbarus introduced by his 

 mistake. M. Desmarest, the latest writer of repute on the species of the 

 Mammalia generally, translates the character given by Linnaeus, and the 

 description furnished by Gmelin ; and evidently regarding the latter as 

 truely representing, or rather as identical with, the great naturalist of the 

 North, he prefaces his version of Gmelin's description by the words, 

 " Linne ajoute," &c. In this description, thus asserted to be quoted 

 from Linnaeus, M. Desmarest states, " que les oreilles sont courtes et 

 " nues." Whence this observation, incorrect in fact, was derived, it 

 is impossible to guess : not one word relating to the ears is to be found 

 in either edition of the Systema Naturae. 



The note of M. Desmarest on this species is as follows : — " Nous pen- 

 " sons que cette esp^ce ne pourra etre definiti vement admise que lorsqu'on 

 " aura pu 1' examiner de nouveau, et surtout lorsqu'on connoitra son 

 " systeme dentaire, qui pent la faire reporter dans un autre genre que 

 " celui des Rats." He had previously enquired, in the Nouveau Dic- 

 tionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, " Est-ce bien un Rat ?" and still later his 

 scepticism on the subject has been carried much farther, for he treats it 

 in the Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles as a species, " dont I'exist- 

 " ence merite d'etre confirmee." 



