254 NORTH AMERICAN MUSTELID.E. 



This is entirely pertinent to both Mephitis macrxira and Cone- 

 patus mapuriio when the latter has the dorsal area undivided. 

 I do not know where to look for the parallel to this cnrious well- 

 spring of error. 



Even after the fnll recognition by Lichtenstein and Gray of 

 the different genera of Skunks, many nominal species endured, 

 upon the basis of coloration alone. In the case of Conepatufi^ 

 these have all latterly been reduced to varieties by Dr. Gray, 

 because, as he very truly says, " the differences in the colora- 

 tion appear to pass into one another". This is a step in the 

 right direction, but, as it appears to mo, does not go quite far 

 enough. The ascribed differences are not of the character to 

 which recognition by name is usually granted ; they are appar- 

 ently not characteristic of particular geographical areas ; nor 

 are they accompanied, for all that appears, by any other char- 

 acters. I see no alternative to regarding them as wholly within 

 the normal range of individual variability of the species. 



Nor are the ascribed differences, when sifted of generalities 

 and cleared of mere verbal discrepancies, anything remarkable. 

 I can make nothing more of tiiem than this : the white dorsal 

 area may be entire, or divided by a line of black of varying 

 length or width (giving the ''two" stripes of authors); it may 

 stop short of the tail, or go to its end, or may be broken up in 

 its continuity. This is the whole sum of the various accounts 

 I have seen. 



In compiling the foregoing extensive synonymy of Conepatus, 

 1 have not been unmindful of Dr. Gray's judicious caution : — 

 "When we have the power to compare the living animal and 

 the skeleton of each |of his nominal varieties], we may discover 

 that some of them are distinct species, having a peculiar geo- 

 graphical range." This is improbable, yet quite possible; aud 

 its prudence impresses me especially, as I have not inspected 

 specimens from South America. But I would urge these points 

 in defence of the synonymy I have prepared: that all the 

 supposed species whose names I have cited rest upon no other 

 basis than that variability which is proven to be merely indi- 

 vidual, and that, therefore, they are ipso facto synonymous; 

 that should the synonymy be ever shown to embrace more 

 than one species, an attempt to distribute it among two or 

 more species, and to tix upon the proper name for each, would 

 be well-nigh futile, so inextricably blended has it become ; 

 that should a second species of Conepatus be hereafter estab- 



