General Notes. 197 



On the generic names Notophorus, Alces, Dama, and Cephalotes, 

 with remarks on the "one-letter rule" in Nomenclature. 



Since, in a matter so essentially important as nomenclature, I look upon 

 any obstinacy in upholding one's own opinions in doubtful cases as 

 both childish and criminal, I gladly adopt the view advocated by Dr. 

 Allen* that Notophorus Fisch. should be considered as a pure synonym 

 of Tayassu Fisch., and therefore Dr. Merriam's Olidosus should stand. I 

 do this mainly on the ground that Fischer's placing of Tayassu as equiva 

 lent to Notophorus, may be considered as synonymizing them ab initio, 

 without discussing the reasons given by Dr. Allen against my accept 

 ance of Sus tayassu Linn. Gmel. as a type species. 



Dr. Allen's renaming of the Elk (Moose) on the ground that Alces is 

 antedated and invalidated by Alee is of course in direct conflict with 

 the principles advocated in my own remarks on CallorJiinus versus Cal- 

 lirhinus and Stenorhinchus v. Stenorhynchu8.\ But far from thinking 

 that the Alces case is one to cause hesitation in accepting what has been 

 called the "one-letter rule," I look upon the resulting retention of so 

 well and long known a name as Alces for the Elks as an instance in its 

 favor. As Dr. Allen shows, this name has been used for the Elks for a 

 long period by naturalists of all nations, and the fact that Alee would 

 also be valid, for the fossil Irish Deer, is but a small drawback compared 

 to the advantage of retaining Alces. When we look at the retention of 

 other well known names affected by this rule, such as Macroglossus, He- 

 UophoUus, Callorhinus, &c., I think the balance of advantage will be oh 

 its side. Nor is it evident where a line is to be drawn between the ex 

 treme one-letter principle, and the confusion of such differently spelt 

 words as Prionodon and Priodontes, or even Odocoileus and Cododon.\ 

 There appear to me to be only two alternatives in any given case 

 either (1) the two names are the same and should be spelt the same (old 

 fashioned emendation combined with non-compatibility of words of like 

 origin, or (2) the names being differently spelt, are to be treated as dif 

 ferent, however nearly like (modern non-emendation, and its logical con 

 sequence the one letter rule). The position adopted by some writers of 

 stoutly opposing emendation and at the same time objecting to the one- 

 letter rule seems to me supported by neither logic nor classicality. 



But with specific names the case is different. There, far from being 

 barred, emendation, when demanded by classic correctness, is univer 

 sally practiced, and no doubt rightly so. Its consequence therefore, the 

 one letter rule, does not follow, and, while admitting both Picus and Pica 

 as valid generic names, we should not dream of admitting both picatus 

 and picata as valid specific ones in the same genus, for the reason that 

 either would be emended to agree with the gender of the generic name, 



*Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XVI, pp. 162 and 168. July 1, 1902. 

 fSupra p. 154. 



JThe earlier of these has actually been said to invalidate the use of 

 the later. 



