.,0^^^^ 



42 NORTH AMERICAN MUSTELID.E. 



'^ Luscus '' signifies bliud of one eye, mope-eyed ; as is said to 

 have been the unfortunate condition of a specimen imported 

 from Hudson's Bay, some time in possession of Sir Hans 

 Sloane, and described by Edwards, upon whose account Lin- 

 nteus based his Zystis luscus, Linmieus was frequently capri- 

 cious, and sometimes facetious, in bestowing names ; while 

 some of those he gave were wholly inappropriate. Thus the i 

 Paradisea apoda ("footless*'), the common bird of Paradise, 

 was so called for no other reason than that the skins imported 

 into Europe used to lack the feet, these having been removed i 

 in the preparation of the specimens by the natives. This tax- 1 

 idermal accident not only gave rise to the name, but to the 

 general belief that the bird had no feet, and to various fabu- 

 lous accounts of its habits as a consequence of such condition. 

 It is deplorable that an accidental deformity of one particular 

 individual should be thus perpetuated as the designation of a 

 species ; the more so, as it is the name which, according to 

 strict rules of nomenclature, must prevail. It may, however, 

 be fairly questioned whether it should not be set aside, under 

 the accepted ruling that i^riority shall not be entitled to prece- 

 dence when the first name involves a palpable error, or is 

 wholly inept, as in the present instance. The specific term 

 (julo being used for the genus, the name borealis would come 

 next in order, should hiscus be ignored on these considerations. 

 The foregoing synonymatic lists show that this species has. 

 not escaped subdivision into nominal ones, and that varieties 

 have been generally recognized. But the close similarity of 

 the animals from the /two continents did not escape some of 

 the earlier writers,*^ong them even those of slight scientific 

 acquirements or experience. Thus Shaw, in ISOO, states of the 

 Wolverene, of which he reproduces Edwards's figure, that " this 

 appears to be no other than a variety " of Ursus gulo. Des- 

 marest allowed varietal distinction from the animal be called 

 G. arcticus. Cuvier endorsed the specific validity which earlier 

 writers had generally admitted ; this error Grifiith perpetuated, 

 and, calling one Gulo vulgaris^ the other G. ivolverene^ introduced 

 at once two new synonyms. At least, if these names did not 

 originate with him, I have not found them in previous works. 

 A certain •' Gulo leucurus Hedenborg'', quoted by Gray, I have 

 not had an^pporfiinity of verifying. In the foregoing syn- 

 onymy I separate the American from the Old World quota- 

 tions merely for the convenience of reference, and must not be 



<P^' 



