Allen Generic Names of the Mephitince. 63 



fauna of Catesby's region is well-known, Mr. Howell asks us, 

 What else can Catesby's figure represent if it is not a Spilogalef 

 at the same time admitting that it does not represent any 

 known animal. 



It is a pity to waste so much ink and paper over nomencla- 

 tural details, but there are a few other points in Mr. Howell's 

 ingenious effort to make black pass for white, and vice versa, to 

 which attention should be called. He says, for instance: 

 "The name Mephitis putorius, based on Catesby's species, was 

 first used by Dr. Coues, who applied it in a broad sense to all 

 the little spotted skunks of North America. Some years later, 

 the name was definitely fixed by Dr. Merriam to the Florida 

 species. Its use by these two authors would seem to be suffi 

 cient to establish the name on a firm basis. The only way in 

 which it can now be overthrown is to show beyond question 

 that it cannot possibly apply to a Spilogale, which has not been 

 done." To take up the last point first, if it had not been done 

 before Mr. Howell wrote his last paper on the Chincha case, this 

 paper, with his admirable plate of comparative figures, and his 

 own admissions, have most effectually accomplished it. 



As Dr. Coues was the first to revive Viverra putorius (as he 

 was to revive many other untenable names), how about the 

 action of previous authors, those who, like Dr. Coues, were in 

 vestigators and not mere compilers, who repudiated the name, 

 as, for example, Gray, Lichtenstein, Wagner, and many others, 

 not to mention those who ignored it as simply uncitable, as 

 Baird, among many others. As early as 1838 Lichtenstein 

 went into the matter at length and rejected the name as unwor 

 thy of series consideration. Even Coues*, in speaking of 

 Viverra putorius Linn., says: "Diagnosis agrees sufficiently 

 with Spilogale;" but adds, "general bearing rather upon Mephi 

 tis mephitica." But the context shows that he was referring to 

 Linnaeus and not to Catesby, Linnaeus's diagnosis being "V. fusca 

 lineis quatuor albidis dorsalibus parallelis;" so that, by a 

 slip, or otherwise, Linnaeus gave four white stripes and not 

 five. His diagnosis thus does not agree with Catesby's de- 



*Fur-bearing Animals, 1877, in the synonomy at the beginning of page 

 239. 



