ALLOCATION OF THE NAME >(///;/> H .\J. iVSO.M. 345 



\^ 



jinlaijuoid" referring, ai« is fvident from tlie context, to tliis 



specimen (for the other is quoted separately). \voul<i of themselves fix 

 it as the type. 



Since, as stated above, this type i.s the small islaml form, that 

 will stand as Callosdnrits fmlaysoni fiidMjgoni, with iiortus as a s}'nonym, 

 while tiie mainland squirrel will bear Ro))inson'.s appropriate name of 

 toA-liardi, the type of tiie latter, so designated b\- its auMior, being 

 B. M. Xo. 0.10.7.7. 



Ml', Robin.sou"s conclusion, therefore, is in my opinion fully 

 ju.stified, as opposed to that come to by ifr. Kloss. 



Finally as a small point I shouKl like to demur to ^Ir. Robin- 

 son's use of the word " co-types"' ( in paper (2), p. 30 ), for specimens 

 which do not form part of the series on which the nanu- concerned 

 was originally founded. Definitions of the words "co-type," -'paratype,'' 

 and '"metatype'' (which last Jlr. Robinson's specimens might possibly 

 be considered to be), will be found in P. Z. S., 180o, p. 212. 



[I doubt whetlu-r Ilor.~fifld recognised any particular sjieclmen 

 as the type : it is rather a case of what part of the material ht> referred 

 to and the question is not so much what existed in 1824. 



Contrary to Thomas' statement ( • tiieii and always the only ex- 

 ample there preserved") this nvtterial consisted at that time of two or 

 more specimens since one was ti'ansferred to the liritish Museum about 

 1830 (No. 71a) and another in 1879 (No. 70. 11. 21. 521). llors- 

 field's Catalogue, compiled in 1851, obviously does not record all the 

 specimens that the East India Compmy formerly possessed. Thus 

 there is no indication of any particular type and I do not think because 

 only one example was subsequently retained that we have, of necessity, 

 any right to consider it as such. 



No. 71. a. came from Koh Si-chang [fide Thomas) and was so 

 localised by Anderson, and since onlj- two specimens now appear to 

 have been in question in his time, the other (No. 79. etc., A of Ilors- 

 lield's Catalogue) may perhaps be that regarded by him as the type, 

 with ihe statement that it came from Siam : nowhere does it seem to 

 be definitely said that it came from Koh Si-cliang as is the case with 



VOL. II. Di:c. l'.M7, 



