small Sand-Foxes of North Africa. 243 



With regard to the last-named, I have again studied the 

 account given by Skioldebrand * of the animal he calls 

 " Vulpes minimus saarensis," with a view to determining if 

 that name would have to be adopted. For, if. it would, very 

 serious results might follow as to the generic name of the 

 common foxes, owing to the fact that no earlier use is valid 

 of the genus name Vulpes, of which the fennec would there- 

 fore be the type, to the exclusion of the common fox, usually 

 called Vulpes vulpes. Palmer f has given the facts, but, 

 owing to his accepting the earlier Vulpes of Frisch, now 

 generally rejected, the importance of the status of Skiolde- 

 brand's name does not appear. 



But I think the latter may be rejected as being merely a 

 Latin rendering of "small Saharan fox," for the author says 

 he does not know which Linnean genus to put his animal 

 into, as he has not been able to examine its teeth. He there- 

 fore, by his own showing, uses no generic name, but calls it by 

 a combination which is not on the binomial system at all, and 

 is polynomial and therefore invalid. Moreover, no Vulpes 

 minimus existed, of which saarensis could have been taken as 

 a varietal or subspecific addendum, as we are accustomed to 

 do in the case of Kerr's and other early authors' trinomials. 

 Fennecus zerda, Zimm., should therefore be the name of the 

 fennec, thus leaving Vulpes, as a generic name, available for 

 the true foxes, with V. vulpes as genotype. 



Passing to the more fox-like species, the first name to be 

 considered is Schinz's Canis ruppelli \, of which Mr. de Win- 

 ton says that it has been "generally referred" (I do not 

 know by whom) to RLippell's Canis famelicus, but that he 

 " has no hesitation " in assigning it to Canis pallidus. I 

 i egret that in this conclusion I am quite unable to agree 

 with him. 



Schinz based his name on specimens sent by Ruppell from 

 Dongola, in the Nubian desert, seen by him in the Frankfort 

 Museum, so that the Cretzschmar descriptions of Kuppell's 

 animals would include the type or co-types of ruppelli. Now 

 From Cretzschmar's account it appears that famelicus was 

 represented by seven specimens which had been obtained 

 partly in the " niibischen Wiisten " (in which Dongola lies) 

 and partly in Kordofan, quite a distinct locality, while the 

 three examples of pallidus were all from Kordofan, the 



* K. Vet.-Ak. Elandl. xxxviii. p. 265 (1777). 

 t Endex Gen. Mauun. p. 708 (1904). 

 \ Cuv. Thierr. iv., Supp. p. bOS (1825). 



