— 498 Miscellaneous. 
I have thus given a summary of the principal results of my inves- 
tigations, and shall only add that in the first part of my last treatise 
I have endeavoured to maintain my diagnosis of Miastor in opposi- 
tion to Schiner, Siebold, and Loew. Whatever might appear to be 
remarkable in the fact that Miastor had only four joints in the tarsi 
and two joints in the palpi, vanishes before the circumstance that 
Oligarces has only two joints in the tarsi, and possesses no palpi at 
all. Ann. Sci. Nat. sér. 5. tome vi. pp. 16-18. 
A Last Remark on the Generic Name Potamogale. 
By Dr. A. GtnrHEr. 
Dr. Gray, in a note “ On the Use of the Genus Potamogale,” pub- 
lished in the preceding Number of this Journal, p. 426, refers to the 
following remark, in which I had expressed my view on the same 
subject :—‘‘ Since he [Dr. Gray] has adopted the specific name of 
velox, given by Du Chaillu at the same time [as Potamogale|, and 
as in this case the generic and specific names refer to the same indi- 
vidual specimen, succeeding naturalists have no other choice but to 
recognize or to reject both alike” (Zool. Record, ii. p. 33). He 
states that “the latter observation is incorrect,’ and “that the 
generic name of Potamogale and the specific one of velox do not rest 
on the same basis.” 
By this time all zoologists interested in the subject must be so 
fully acquainted with the history of this case, that the matter might 
have been safely left where it stands; however, as Dr. Gray says 
that I had come to this conclusion ‘on a very imperfect recollec- 
tion of his paper,”’ I must add a few words in further explanation. 
In questions of this kind I am guided by a rule which is adopted 
by the majority of naturalists, viz. that ‘a name which has never 
been clearly defined in some published work should be changed for 
the earliest name by which the object shall have been so defined.” 
Accordingly I asked myself, would it have been possible for a 
zoologist like Dr. Bocage or Prof. Allman to recognize Potamogale 
from Du Chaillu’s original description, if the typical specimen (a 
mutilated skin, without skull) had been lost. I thought, and am still 
inclined to think, that identification would have been, for these 
zoologists, impossible or at least a matter of uncertainty, and there- 
fore, that the first binomial name given by one of them should have 
superseded that proposed by Du Chaillu. In this respect I am so 
fortunate as to agree with Dr. Gray when he says, ‘‘ M. du Chaillu’s 
description of the Cynogale velox is so incorrect that, if the skin had 
not fortunately come into the possession of the British Museum, the 
animal must have remained .. . . one of the puzzles of zoologists” (this 
Journal, 1865, xvi. p. 426). For this reason I was and am still of 
opinion that both names might have been rejected alike, and that a 
new binomial name given by Dr. Gray would have been upheld by 
all naturalists adhering to the rule quoted above. 
But in his last note Dr. Gray states, ‘‘ The animal is described in 
