8 HoMoell — Generic Names of North American Skunks. 



It is evident, therefore, that the specimen on which the de- 

 scription was based came from some part of the United States 

 or Canada, and not from Mexico. The figure can be exactly 

 matched by specimens from the eastern States, and also by 

 specimens of estor from Ai'izona. It could hardly be supposed 

 to have come, however, from the latter region, and the most 

 logical conclusion is that it was taken somewhere in the east- 

 ern part of the United States or Canada. 



The amount of white on the back is excessive for the Canada 

 skunk, so far as our present limited knowledge of the species 

 indicates. The short tail, however, is strikingly diagnostic, 

 for this is a character possessed by no other eastern species. 

 In the absence of any definite knowledge of the origin of Buf- 

 fon's specimen, it seems wise therefore to fix the name mephitis 

 to the Canada skunk. If the name be rejected as unidentifiable, 

 mephitica of Shaw would have to be rejected for the same 

 reason, for Shaw's name has exactly the same basis as Schreber'e, 

 viz. BuflFon's ^chincJie'. The name mejihitis, although accred- 

 ited to Linnaeus, is not his name, for he wrote memphitis, a 

 word of quite different meaning; furthermore, Schreber's de- 

 scription, as shown by Dr. Allen, is based on Buffon, rather 

 than on Linnseus. 



Summary. 



1. The original genus Mephitis Cuvier, contained two species, 

 the first of which [JIustela putida) is a little spotted skunk, the 

 second {Mustela mejjhitis) a large two-striped skunk. 



2. Mustela jyutida Cuvier, is hHi^Qdi onViverra putorius Linn., 

 and therefore primarily on Catesby's Putorius americanus 

 striatus, which is clearly referable to the little spotted skunk of 

 the highlands of Carolina, i. e., Spilogale rinc/ens Merr. Lin- 

 naeus's reference to Kalm, since it is wholly secondary to the 

 reference to Catesby, should have little weight. 



3. Gray in naming Cotiepatus, and Lichtenstein in naming 

 Thiosmus, did not restrict the genus 3Iephitis, but simply sep- 

 arated groups which had been associated with Mephitis by 

 authors other than Cuvier. 



4. When Chincha was proposed by Lesson, the original 

 genus Mephitis had never been divided, nor had the type in any 

 way been fixed. Hence his selection of the second group, rep- 



