/ 



346 ON THE NAME si/l/.'/s / /\7. \rsO\/ 



the former, aiul Tliomas liimself only infers tliis on account of l^'illi 

 being of similar size. 



The view held by Robinson and Thomas, contraiy to mine, that 

 "Siam" was used b}' Horsfield and Anderson as a term of general 

 application does not seem to me warranted, since Finlaj'son and Ander- 

 son both go out of their way to state deliberately that only one of the 

 specimens came from the island : the obvious inference being that the 

 remaining material was obtained elsewhere. Anderson's statements 

 certainly cannot be explained awa\' in the above fashion. 



I did not, as suggested, ovi^rloolc the matter of the material now 

 existing, but, accepting Anderson's statement tint a specimen came 

 from Siam proper, considered that it might have since disappeared— 

 no isolated occurrence. Tiiomas shows that only two white squirrels 

 from Finlayson's collection are in the British i\fnseuiu to-day and 

 though Anderson says he examined other specimens from Siam, they 

 might not have been of thf t3'pical series or he may have seen them 

 elsewhere, while the two he refers to specially were probablj' those 

 mentioned above: thus the question ma^- perhaps be limited to whence 

 came the example not speoilically recorded as from Ivoh Si-chang 

 (No. 79, etc.). It is, says Tli<ini;is, the specimen of which Wroughtou 

 has given measurements (with the statement that it is fully adult), so 

 the arguments now put forward certainly point to Koh Si-chang as 

 the t^'pe locality — if we are to believe that Finlaj'son only obtained 

 these two specimens, in spit" of what Anderson says and llui'slleld 

 indicates. 



Mr. Thomas reflects on Mr. Robinson's use of the word 

 "co-type" but he himself is equally at fault. There is no type of 

 Jinlaysoni: the only specimen specifically mentioned, even in<Iircctly, 

 by Horsfield is Rutherford's animal from Koh Si-chang which Mr. 

 Thomas does not accept as the type : in strict accuracy, therefore, any 

 specimen of the original series subsequently selected can only be a 

 lecto-type*. The other specimens referred to by .Mr. Robinson ,as cn- 

 types of his lurhanti would lie idiotyi>es* since they an- not of the 

 original series (Mr. Lyle's). ('. Roden Kloss]. 



*Ann. and Masj. Nnt. Hist. (7) xvi., p. 102 (1005). 



