Osgood — Unrecognized and Misapplied Names. 51 



of Dr. Allen, and in connection with work on the genus Feronu/scux, these 

 specimens, except the two half-grown young which are not extant, were 

 examined. The skin without skull and all the spirit specimens, except 

 one, unquestionably are examples of the species called Keithrodontomys 

 co.stor/«'H.v/.s, as agreed by both Dr. Allen and myself. The remaining spirit 

 specimen is the only one from which the skull has been removed. It does 

 not essentially differ from the others externally but the skull supposed to 

 belong with it is that of a species of Pewmyscus and can readily be dupli- 

 cated among skulls of several subspecies ofPeroivyxcvs of ihe mnoriensis 

 type from the United States. No Femmyscus of this type has been found 

 elsewhere south of Mexico, so the suspicion can scarcely be avoided that 

 this case may be similar to that of " Blarlua cosiaricensis," * the type of 

 which was included in the same collection with these mice. This suspicion 

 is strengthened by the fact that in the jar containing the specimens of 

 Reit]n'odontomys was an undoubted Peromyi--nis (referred to sonoriensis by 

 Dr. Allen) from which the skull had been removed. However, Dr. Allen 

 assures me that the possibility of transposition of skulls is exceedingly 

 remote. The case is unfortunate but may be settled by selecting one of 

 the specimens as typef and confining the name to the species and genus 

 represented by that specimen. The skin from San Jose therefore may be 

 chosen, since it is mentioned first, since it is the basis of the color descrip- 

 tion, and since it is conspecific with a majority of the other specimens. 

 Under no circumstances would it appear advisable to select the specimen 

 to which the skull of a Pewviy.scvs is attributed, while any doubt remains 

 as to the association of skin and skull. 



Lepus cunicularius Waterhouse. 



Lepus cunicularius Lichtenstein, AVaterhouse, Nat. Hist. Mammalia, II, 



pp. 132-133, footnote, 1848. 

 LepuK venvcnicis Thomas, Proc. Zool. Soc, Lond., p. 74, pi. VI, 1890. 



The name Lepus euincukirUis, published by Waterhouse with a descrip- 

 tion based upon notes communicated to bim by Bachman, was credited to 

 Lichtenstein, and specimens in the Berlin Museum were mentioned. 

 These, two in number, still exist, mounted and in excellent condition. 

 Both were collected by Deppe and are accompanied by valuable data. 

 One of them, which was received at the Museum earlier than the other, 

 bears evidence of having been selected as the type. A label pasted on 

 the bottom of the exhibition stand reads : 



*Cf. Merriam, N. Am. Fauna No. 10, pp. 12-13, 1895. 



fThe right of an author to select as type of a species an individual not originally- 

 designated as such may be questioned. In this case no alternative appears unless it be 

 to restrict the name to such majority of the original specimens as are conspecific. If this 

 course is justifiable, no good reason appears why a definite type should not be selected. 

 Since the original material is not only not conspecific but not congeneric, some selection 

 and restriction is imperative or the name must be entirely rejected. 



