179 



ON THE CORRECT NAME FOR THE WHITE SQUIRREL OF SIANI. 

 By C. Bodkn Ki.oss, F. Z. ,S. 



Ill tlie (ir»t vohiiiie fif tlii.s Journal I cleaU \\\\h llie \\Iiife 

 s-quiirels of Snin and of llic Inland if Si C'liang, giving icas(iis ^^^ly 1 

 considered that tlie niaiidaiid animal tiiould be regardtd as the tyjjica! 

 form of Scianis Jinlinisoni of Hoi^field. In the Journal of the Federat- 

 ed Malay States Museums (vol. VII, p. 55) Mr. il. C. IMinson 

 traverses my coneliisinns, and is of t>])inion that the island race, nanufi 

 bj' me Sciiiras Jinlai/som porius, is the typical form, while the main- 

 land animal is in need of a name; and lie proposi s CaUosciurv.<^ 

 jiiilaysoni tcuhardi for it. 



He writes ; — " Jlr. Kloss att; iiipts to justify his contention bj' 



referring to the original dt'scri|)tion b}' Hoi^lield (Zool. lies. Java , 



1824) ill which that author states that ' this' species has hitherto been 

 mentioned by Biiffn alone fioni the following concise not'ce in 1'. 



Tachard's travels' while, in addition, Mr. Kloss also refers to 



Anderson, who states tiiat ' the type of Sc. jiiilai/soiti was obtained in 

 Siam by I)i'. Fiiilay:<oii and another was procured bj" the same travel- 

 ler in Si Chang Island. These two squirrels are exactl}' alike, being 

 white squirrels with a yellowish tinge.' The latter clause shows that 

 l)r. Anderson did not study these two specimens in any great detail. 



•' Further. Mr. Kloss quotes Horsfield (Cat. Jlamm. E. Iiid. Co. 

 Miis.. p. 154, 1851 ) as staling tli:it the locality of the specimen in the 

 Museum of the East India Company (transferred to the British 

 Museum ill 1870 ) was •■ Siain." This is, however, not strictly accu- 

 rate. The habitat of the t<jiecic.-; is given as '• Siam" while a spficimeu. 

 " A "' is mentioned •• from (I. Finlayson's Collection during Crawford's 

 Embassy to Siam and Hue." which is not quite the same thing. 



" The whole crii.x of the matter, however, is that the older authors 

 l>aid no very ])artiiular attention, either to e.xact localities of their 

 specimens or to minute subspecitic differences, and Koh Si Chang is 

 certainly near enough tn Siam to be quoted as such by Ilorsfield. The 

 conception also, of a definite sjiecimen as a type of a species when one 

 or more were available is of very much later date than Horsfield in 

 1821 or for the matter of that than 1))'. Anderson, writing in 1878. 



•• We come, therefore, to the first detailed revision of the group 

 on modern lines, that of ^Vtought(lll (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (8") ii, 

 pp. 303 et seq., 19(18). This jiajjer has been quoted by Mr. Kloss but 

 he has unfortunately omitted to note that therein the specimen fiom 

 Koh Si Chang has been definitely selected as the type, as indeed had 

 already been done by Bonhote in 1900. The dimensions given by 

 Wrouglitoii perfect Iv atrici' with those of the tvpe of -Sr. f. porhis. 

 Kloss. 



'■ I'luler the rules guveriiiiig nomenclature, as aliii06t universally 



\i>\, II. I'Ki. I'.m; 



