426 Dr. J. E. Gray on the Names of the Genus Mystomys. 



I did hope that I had clearly explained why I rejected that 

 name in my paper in the ' Annals and Magazine of Natural 

 History' for July 1861, vol. viii. p. 62. 



M. du Chaillu' s description of the Cynogale velox is so incor- 

 rect that, if the skin had not fortunately come into the posses- 

 sion of the British Museum, .the animal must have remained, 

 like the genus of Bats proposed by Bowdich because his speci- 

 men had a large Acorns affixed inside of the ears, one of the 

 puzzles of zoologists. 



M. Du Chaillu observes : — " Cynogale velox. This resembles 

 the Asiatic Cynogale Bennettii, Gray. I have now nothing but 

 the skin of the animal, the skull having been destroyed by fire. 

 The teeth resemble those of the above genus of Gray, as well as 

 the general appearance ; but the size of the animal, the length 

 and character of the tail, and the habitat indicate a distinct 

 species." Then follow the description and some observations 

 on its habits, which are succeeded by the following remarks : — 

 " Only a single species of Cynogale being described, and that a 

 native of Asia, I thought the different shape and proportion of 

 the tail, with its African habitat, were sufficient to make this 

 the representative of a different genus, for which I proposed the 

 name of Potamogale, preferring, however, to wait until I can 

 procure the skull and skeleton. I have placed it with the genus 

 Cynogale, to which it certainly bears a close resemblance." 



This is all that M. du Chaillu says upon the question. Is 

 such a general observation sufficient to establish a genus, more 

 especially when the animal described has not the slightest re- 

 semblance, either in external form, character of feet and claws, 

 or in dental character, to the animal with which it is compared ? 

 I need not say that the teeth have not the slightest resemblance 

 to those of Cynogale, though he says he had the skull, but it 

 was destroyed — and that the extremities can scarcely be called 

 " small, the first joint enclosed within the skin of the body," and 

 the fore claws are not "very slightly if at all webbed," nor are 

 the " hind claws partially webbed." With such a description you 

 had every excuse for believing that your animal was an " entirely 

 new genus," as you did when you first spoke to me about it, be- 

 fore you were shown Du Chaillu's skin of Cynogale velox in the 

 British Museum. 



I can only repeat what I said in the paper before referred to, 

 "As M. du Chaillu has not characterized his genus Potamogale, 

 and as he has given such an erroneous description of the feet of 

 the specimen that no one could recognize it, 1 do not think that 

 his name has any reason to be retained," more especially as in 

 one place he gives the same reason for considering it a species 

 of Cynogale which he gives in another for thinking that it may 

 be a different genus. 



