HISTORY OF THE SEA OTTER. 335 



counts, if not the first one of any scientific pretensions, was 

 that of the celebrated navigator Steller, who described the 

 animal, in 1751, under the name of Lutra marma, a term not 

 yet wholly obsolete, though untenable under the rules of nomen- 

 clature. This may have been the first introduction of the spe- 

 cies to the notice of civilized, or at least of* scientific, men, 

 though the animal had, of course, long been known to the na- 

 tives of the countries along the shores of which it was found. 

 It was known to the Eussians as the Sea or Kamtschatkan 

 Beaver (Bobr morskoi and Kamtschatskoi Bobr), and to the 

 Kamtschatkans themselves as the Kalan j while other barbar- 

 ous nations had their own equivalent terms, or several such, to 

 indicate diiferent ages or states of pelage. Notwithstanding 

 the accuracy of Steller's account, which is quoted and some- 

 times consulted to the present day, and in spite of the numer- 

 ous striking peculiarities which the animal offers upon the 

 most casual inspection, the compilers of various systematic 

 treatises soon suffered under a confusion of ideas, and perpe- 

 trated blunders that were not for many years eradicated. 

 Linnaeus confounded it with the Saricovienne or Brazilian Ot- 

 ter, Lutra hrasiUensis; and the same mistake was even made 

 by several much more accomplished therologists, like Brisson 

 and Pennant. It would be presumed that its remarkable fea- 

 tures would have prevented this; instead, however, we find 

 that the singular construction of the hind feet, general aspect, 

 and mode of life have caused it to be classed among the 

 Seals — Pallas indeed, an eminent naturalist and observing 

 traveller, calls it a F/ioca ; and in the latest publication upon 

 the subject, Cai)t. 0. M. Scammon's Marine Mammals (1874), it 

 is located again in the midst of PinnipecUa. It is, of course, 

 unnecessary to seriously discuss a procedure which, like this, 

 is indefensible upon any but the most superficial and unscien- 

 tific considerations, drawn from the aquatic habits of the ani- 

 mal, and the modifications required for this end. Its relation- 

 ships with the Pinnipeds are entirely those of analogy. 



Linnaeus was right, according to the terms of classification 

 of his day, in placing it in the genus Mustela;, a group nearly 

 equivalent to the family Mustelidce as now understood. Over- 

 looking or ignoring Steller's name of Lutra marina, which, 

 though binomial in the letter, was merely a Latin translation 

 of a vernacular term, and not binomial upon any system, he 

 called thci species Mustela Intris, a name the specific portion of 



