General Notes. 87 



Some names of American Cervidae. 



The moose of northeastern North America was called Cervus ameri- 

 canus by Dewitt Clinton in 1822 (Letters on Nat. Hist, and Int. Re- 

 sources of N. Y. p. 193, 1822) thirteen years before the publication of 

 Alces americanus by Jardine (Nat. Lib. XXL 125, 1835). Therefore the 

 authority for the name americanus should be Clinton instead of Jardine 

 as usually quoted. The name as proposed by Clinton first appeared in 

 1820 in one of a series of newspaper articles published under the nom 

 de plume 'Hibernicus'. These letters subsequently appeared in book 

 form in 1822. The name is unequivocably given and is accompanied by 

 a diagnosis in which the moose is distinguished from the wapiti or elk. 

 A mounted specimen seen in a museum at Albany, N. Y., is mentioned, 

 which if still existing, could be considered the type of the species. 



If the nam.e Cervus dama americana Erxleben 1777, be recognizable, 

 which I do not admit, it of course preoccupies the Cervus americanus of 

 Clinton, in which case Alces muswa Richardson 1852 would stand for the 

 moose. Thus the exceedingly doubtful grounds upon which some 

 authors have recently attempted to overthrow the current name of the 

 Virginia deer, might also serve to displace the name of the moose and 

 we should have not one, but two of our most important animals bereft 

 of their well-known names, to say nothing of the establishment of an 

 uncertain precedent. The availability of Erxleben's interrogative, ad- 

 jectival 'americanus'' is admittedly and unquestionably incapable of ab- 

 solute demonstration and if it were simply ignored as a name, fixity of no- 

 menclature would be subserved and no rule violated. In fact this would 

 be quite in the spirit of canon XLV of the A. O. U. Code, which reads: 

 "Absolute identification is requisite in order to displace a modern cur- 

 rent name by an older obscure one"; that is, a current name is not to be 

 overthrown except upon absolutely convincing evidence. If conservatism 

 is ever to prevail it mvist be in such a case as this, in which it is hard to 

 conceive conditions under which the principle of giving an established 

 name the benefit of doubt would be more clearly justified. 



Another well known name of an American deer, Cervus mexicanus, has 

 been threatened recently and a new name proposed to replace it on the 

 ground that its original basis was faulty (Allen, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. 

 Hist. XVI, 20, 1902). Gmelin, who was strictly a compiler, proposed 

 Cervus mexicanns chiefly on the basis of Pennant's Mexican Deer (Hist. 

 Quad. I, 110, pi. fig. 3, 1781). Pennant, however, was not altogether a 

 compiler, and although the first citation under his Mexican deer is the 

 unidentifiable Teuthlalma(;ame of Hernandez, it is evident that this is 

 not the basis of the name, for the description which follows and the ac- 

 companying figure do not at all agree with Hernandez. This was well 

 understood by early authors. Desmarest says: "Cette espece, qui n'esi 

 encore connue que par ses bois extremement rugueux . . ." (Mamm. 

 II, 444, 1822); and Ham. Smith says: "This species not as yet figured, 

 was first noticed by Mr. Pennant, who represented the horns from a 



