458 DOBSONIA- 



Historxj of (jeneric names,— Aa already referred to above, tlie 

 earliest species of Dohsonia kiiowD are E. Geoffroy's Fteropus 

 l>aJliatu!> aud Cephahies peroni, both described in 1810. The 

 history of the technical names of the present genus is intimately 

 connected with the history of these two " species " in literature. 



Geoffroy classed the eleven species of '■'■ Pteroinis " known to him ii» 

 three sections, viz. " Eoiissettes sans queue," corresponding to the 

 genus Pteropus in modern sense, " lioussettes a queue,'' equivalent 

 to Eidolon, Mousettus, Oynopteriis, and Macroglossiis, and "lious- 

 settes h ailes sur le dos," with the single species Pi. palliatns. He 

 considered it probable that this third section, Avhich presented 

 certain striking external characters of its own, would eventually, 

 when better known, be elevated to the rank of a distinct genus 

 intermediate between Pteropus and Cephalotes-. PoUowiug tliis 

 hint Eafiiiiesque, in 1815, proposed the generic name Pieronotua for 

 the " Roussette a ailes sur le dos," and this is in fact the earliest 

 name suggested for the present genus ; the reasons for not accepting 

 it as such are purely formal ; there is no doubt that Itafinesque 

 really intended it for Pt. palliatus, but he failed to express thi« 

 intention clearlj' in words (perhaps because he regarded it un 

 sufficiently clearly indicated by the very uame, iTTtpov, " aile," 

 vuJTos, " dos," and by the place of the genus in his system, imme- 

 diately after the names of Geoiiroy's first and second sections), and 

 according to modern nomenclatural rules it is therefore a nome/i 

 nudum. Again, in 1S29, Eurnett proposed for a species of Ptetvypnx 

 styled by him " desmaresti," and which is undoubtedly Pt. palliatus, 

 the generic name Trihonophorus (i. e. mantle-bearer ; compare the 

 French name of Pt. palliatus, Eoussette mautelee), but technically 

 Pt. desmaresti is a nomen nudum, and Trihcnophorus, as based 

 without description on a nomen nudum, inadmissible. With these 

 still-born generic names the history of Geoffroy's third section of 

 Pteropus comes to an end ; already in 1825 Temrainck had declared 

 Pt. palliatus the j'oung of Cephalotes peroni, and in ]8'28 Geoffroy 

 himself adopted this view. 



Geoffroy's genus Cephalotes (1810) numbered two species, C. peroni 

 and C. pallasi, the latter being only a new name for Pallas's 

 Vespertilio cephalotes. As soon as it was realized that these two 

 species represented entirely different genera, the question arose as 

 to whether the name Cephalotes ought to staitd for the former or 

 the latter species. Temminck, in 1825, retained Cephalotes for 

 G. peroni, and adopted lUiger's Harpyia for C. pallasi ; and a 

 glance at the secondary references given above (p. 448) will show 

 that his decision was accepted hj all the principal revisers of, and 

 the large majo-rity of writers on, the genus. But as far back as 

 1828, Etienne Geofl'roy had pointed out that Cep>halotes rightly 

 belonged to the species C. pallasi, and proposed for C peroni (or 

 Y&ther jyalliatus, which he now considered the young of C. peroni) 

 the generic name Hypoderma ; he was followed only by a few 

 French writers (and their translators) and by Wagner. — According 

 to the now current nomenclatural rules the type of Cephalotes is 



