112 Palmer — Notes on the Nomenclature of the Chiroptera. 



genera Callinycteris, Eonycteris, Kiodotus, Melonycteris, Nesonycteris, 

 Notopteris, and Trygenycteris. 



The genus known as Cynonycteris by Peters and Dobson, and 

 as Xantharpyia by Lydekker, must give way to Rouseltus Gray, 

 1821,* which has more than 20 years 1 priority. Rousetlus was 

 based on Pteropus aegyptiacus; Xantharpyia Gray, 1843, in- 

 cluded P. amplexicaudatus, P. aegyptiacus, and P. sir •amine as ; and 

 Cynonycteris Peters, 1852, had for its type P. collaris. As all 

 these species are now considered congeneric, it is simply a mat- 

 ter of selecting the earliest name. 



Harpyia is preoccupied in Entomology, and in the case of 

 Cephalotes an unfortunate transfer of the name must be made 

 similar to that of Vespertilio, to which Miller has already called 

 attention. Cephalotes and Harpyia are closely related, and may 

 therefore be considered together. Cephalotes was proposed by 

 Geoffroy in 1810 f for two species, Cephalotes peronii Geoffroy, 

 from the island of Timor, and Cephalotes pallasii Geoffroy, a new 

 name for Vespertilio cephalotes Pallas. Illiger in the following 

 year, 1811. based his Harpyia, on Vespertilio cephalotes. But, as 

 already stated, Harpyia is preoccupied in Entomology, since 

 Ochsenheimer selected it in 1810 for a group of European moths 

 and gave a detailed description of the genus and several species 

 in his work entitled 'Die Schmetterlinge von Europa' (vol. Ill, 

 p. 19). Harpyia is therefore not available either for the bat or 

 the eagle, to which it has so long been applied. Even were this 

 not the case, it could hardly claim recognition, as it is in reality 

 merely a synonym of Cephalotes. 



It may be claimed that Geoffroy did not name the type of his 

 genus Cephalotes, and under the rule that the first reviser of a 

 genus has the right to fix the type when none has been desig- 

 nated by the original describer, Illiger could select Vespertilio 

 cephalotes as the type of Harpyia (thus leaving Cephalotes peronii 

 as the type of the genus Cephalotes), and his verdict would be 

 final. Certain it is that he has been followed by Temminck, 

 Gray, Dobson and others, until C. peronii has become almost 

 universally associated with Cephalotes and V. cephalotes with Har- 

 pyia. It may well be questioned whether the type of Cephalotes 

 was really left in uncertainty, and whether Illiger deliberately 



* London Medical Repository, XV, p. 299, Apr. 1, 1821, 

 f Ann. Mus. d'Hist Nat. Paris, XV, pp. 101-108. 



