On Dr. Glcjer^s Mammalian Generic Names. 189 



XXII. — An Analysis of the Mammalian Generic Names given 

 in Dr. C. W. L. Gloyer's ' Naturgeschichte ' (1841).' By 

 Oldfield Thomas. 



In Gloger's work on Natural History, which, although the 

 titlepage bears the date 1842, was really published in 1841 *, 

 a large number of mammals were given new generic names ; 

 and it is the purpose of the present paper to analyze these 

 names and to see how far they demand recognition, as they 

 have hitlierto been practically overlooked by mammalogists. 



Fortunately examination proves that very few of them 

 supersede names now in use ; but in any case it seems advis- 

 able that the names should be systematically analyzed, the 

 synonyms sorted, and the valid ones put forward for the accept- 

 ance of such zoologists as, like myself, believe that the sooner 

 we reinstate, at any inconvenience to ourselves, the names 

 which are technically correct, the sooner zoological nomen- 

 clature will attain some stability. 



In the present case, although Gloger's work contains no 

 less than seventy-three new generic terms for mammals, apart 

 from those given to other animals, yet scarcely half a dozen 

 are of any importance, as will be shown below. Gray alone, 

 to whom I owe the reference, with his usual extraordinary 

 knowledge of out-of-the-way literature, has occasionally 

 quoted Gloger's generic names, but by other mammalogists 

 tliey seem to have been systematically ignored. 



The names themselves are for the most part given to each 

 genus as a whole, commonly without mention of species, and 

 often with the old generic name appended, the author, like 

 llliger and others, assuming a right to change such names as 

 he thought barbarous or unclassical. In these cases therefore 

 no further subdivision of the genera will bring Gloger's names 

 into use, as whatever species may be the type of the earlier 

 and quoted generic names will remain the type for Gloger's 

 substituted one. 



The work of preparing the present paper has been much 



* At least, so far as the mammals are concerned. This statement is 

 based on the fact that in the number of ' Isis ' for May 1841 (Heft v. 

 p. 379) there is a review of Gloger's " Hefts 1 and 2, pages 1-160," which 

 were therefore clearly published at this date. Even so far as regards the 

 remaining parts of the volume, although not criticized until May 1842 

 (Heft V. p. 394), they are there spoken of as " Hefts 3 and 4, pages 161-400, 

 ISUi^ a fact which must be borne in mind by ornithologists who may 

 be iuterested^in the question, although it may be a mere misprint. The 

 mammals extend to p. 174, but there are no names afiected by this ques- 

 tion in the fourteen last pages. 



