88 General Notes. 



pair in the Museum of the Royal Society and now in the British, to 

 which the ticket of Mexican was attached. With this information he 

 inferred it to belong to Hernandes's Teutla Macame . . ." (Griff. 

 Cuv., IV, 130, 1827). That this was really the case there can be no 

 doubt, for Hernandez's description is evidently composite, and is ac- 

 companied by a figure of an anomalous goat-like deer-antelope not re- 

 ferable to any known species, while Pennant's description applies in 

 every particular to a deer and in nowise to an antelope, and is accom- 

 panied by a good figure of antlers which are at least those of a deer, and 

 if abnormal, of the same sort of abnormality that frequently occurs in 

 several forms of American deer. Antlers of this kind have been repeat- 

 edly figured (See Baird, Mamm. N. Am. p. G52, 1857; Baillie-Grohman, 

 Sport & Life in W. Am. & B. C, p. 136, 1900; Recreation, XII, 348, 

 1900), and Mr. E. W. Nelson informs me that he has seen similar ones 

 in Mexico. The horns figured by Pennant are perhaps still in the Brit- 

 ish Museum as Gray mentioned them as late as 1872 (Cat. Rum. Mamm. 

 B. M. p. 83, 1872). That they were really horns of some form of Amer- 

 ican whitetail deer is shown by the characteristic subbasal snags and 

 forward curving beams, in essential agreement with the horns figured 

 by Baird (loc. cit.). Moreover, J. E. Gray, and others who have made 

 reference to them, have unhesitatingly referred them to one or another 

 of the whitetail group. The exact locality from which these horns 

 came may be indeterminate, but even if this be so, the restriction of the 

 name mexicanus by Lichtenstein (Darst. pi. XVIII and text, 1827-34) 

 and the usage of subsequent authors gives abundant authority for its 

 application to the deer of the Valley of Mexico. Surely a well known, 

 current name, based, at least in part, upon an identifiable specimen, 

 should not be displaced unless there is to be a general rejection of all 

 names not based upon absokitely flawless descriptions and figures. — 

 Wilfred H. Osgood. 



The type locality of Ametrida minor H. Allen. 



In the Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History (Vol. 26, 

 p. 240-24C, May, 1894), under the title, "On a New Species of Ametri- 

 da," Dr. Harrison Allen described a new bat, giving it the name Ame- 

 trida minor. He states, on page 241, "Locality unknown. Type, a 

 male, mature individual in alcohol. . . .Museum of the Boston Society of 

 Natural History". This type specimen is still carefully preserved at 

 the Society's museum, and at the time of its description was without 

 label of name or locality. Thinking that it might be possible to obtain 

 some clue as to the history of the specimen, I recently examined it, but, 

 at first, found no data with it whatsoever, bej-ond a recent label giving 

 its name and place of description. While putting the specimen away, 

 however, a small bit of paper, rendered almost transparent through 

 long immersion in the alcohol, was discovered in the bottom of the bot- 

 tle, and on examination, it was found to bear on one side the number 



