HISTORY OF THE SEA OTTEK. 337 



searching the literature of the species 5 but we have still to 

 consider the several designations resulting from their combina- 

 tion with various generic designations, some of which are old, 

 and belong to other groups, while others were newly invented 

 for this particular species. The former are, in the order of 

 their successive use, Lutrd^ Mnsiela^ and Phoca, after Steller, 

 Linn?eus, and Pallas respectively; these need not detain us. It 

 was three quarters of a century, nearly, from its original intro- 

 duction to the system, before the strongly marked characters 

 of the species were made typical of a new genus — Pusa of Oken, 

 already mentioned, being the first-named of this sort. Pusa 

 had, however, already been used by another writer in connection 

 with a genus of Seals now commonly known as Salichcenis, 

 but in such a peculiar way as to raise one of those technical 

 questions of synonymy w^hich authors interpret differently, in 

 absence of fixed rule. Scopoli based his Pusa upon a figure of 

 Salomon Miiller's, recognizable with certainty as Halichcerus, and 

 gave characters utterly irreconcilable with those of this animal. 

 This is the whole case. Now it may be argued that there being 

 no such animal whatever as Scopoli says his Pusa was, his 

 name drops out of the system, and Pusa of Oken, virtually an 

 entirely new term, is tenable for something else, namely, for 

 the Sea Otter. On the other hand, Scopoli's quotations sho\v^ 

 exactly what he meant, in spite of his inept diagnosis ; his name 

 Pusa therefore holds, and cannot be subsequently used by Oken 

 in a different connection. This is the view I take in this and 

 all similar cases, when a name can be identified by any means 

 whatsoever, intrinsic or circumstantial, no matter how wide of 

 the mark the ascribed characters may be. And even if it be not 

 the first tenahle name of a genus — in other words, if it be only 

 a synonym of a prior name— it cannot be used again as a tenable 

 name for a different genus. This name Pusa thus disposed of, 

 another to be similarly treated is Latax of Gloger. Though 

 applied by some authors, particularly J. E. Gray {more suo, with 

 little regard for the obvious requirements of the case), to species 

 of Lutra proper, Latax was nevertheless based by its founder 

 upon the Sea Otter, Lutra marina^ in the xiiith vol. (1827) of 

 the K Act. Nat. Curios, p. 511 (reprinted in the Isis for 1829, 

 and in Ferussac's Bulletin). This well-identified name* is, how- 



* It is, however, doubtful whether Laiax can be considered' as established 

 at all; for Gloger, treating of the Sea Otter under the nsiUiQ Lutra marina, 

 simply takes occasion to criticise the fitness of Oken's term Pusa, and to 

 suggest that Latax might be a more apt designation. 

 22 M 



