On 
92. MONOGRAPHS OF NORTH AMERICAN RODENTIA. 
ellel, should be retained; for, however faulty the characterization of the 
genus may have been, this in no way invalidates the specifie designation. 
The name rwfa, in fact, bas been adopted by at least two writers, Harlan, in 
1825, and Griffith (1827), who transferred the animal to the genus Arctomys. 
Professor Baird* uses the following language respecting this matter :— 
“Tt is perbaps a question whether the true name of this species be not 
Aplodontia rufa, after Rafesque. Although his description is incorrect, it 
was based on the Sewellel of Lewis and Clarke, which is unquestionably the 
Aplodontia leporina of Richardson. As, however, Rafinesque asserts posi- 
tively that certain characters apply to his Anisonyx rufa, which really do not 
exist in Aplodontia leporina, we may be warranted in avoiding the use of his 
specific name for Richardson’s animal. It may, perhaps, be well to repeat 
that Rafinesque bases his description entirely upon a partly erroneous inter- 
pretation of the article of Lewis and Clarke.” 
Although this is perfectly just criticism, it should nevertheless be borne 
in mind that Anisonyx rufa has a definite and well known basis, whatever the 
inapplicability, insufficiency, or other fault of the accompanying diagnosis may 
be; and, consequently, a rigid constructionist cannot well avoid the use of 
the specific term rufa. Naturalists constantly adopt and retain scientific 
names given upon a known basis, even when such names are unqualified 
by diagnosis; and it seems to me that the admitted flaws of Rafinesque’s 
description are scarcely valid cause for the rejection of his name. Anisonyx 
itself is to be thrown out rather upon consideration of the fact that it is 
chiefly a synonym of the same author’s Cynomys than on account of its own 
intrinsic demerits. 
The second period in the history of the species began in 1829, upon the 
introduction of the Aplodontia leporina of Richardson, characterized in the 
Zodlogical Journal, and the same year more fully described, with figures of 
the skull and teeth, in the Fauna Boreali-Americana. These were the first 
full and accurate accounts of the genus and species under a scientific designa- 
tion, and long remained the source of inspiration to the compilers and other 
second-hand writers. Sir John Richardson’s material was received, like 
many other specimens of mammals and birds described by him, from Mr. 
David Douglass (or Douglas—I find the name thus differently spelled), and 
is supposed to be that upon which Audubon’s subsequent description and 
*Mamm. N. Amer, 1857, 354. 
