1 GO Mr. R. I. Pocock on some of the 



specialised derivative of Hemigalusis justified. The position 

 of Diplogale is more doubtful. The absence o£ pattern 

 precludes the possibility of drawing auy inference from that 

 source. Possibly the newly-born young might supply the 

 clue as to whether this geuus is descended from a form with 

 the pattern of Hemigalus or from one with a more generalised 

 pattern such as is seen in Linsang or Genetta, from which, 

 as explained above, the pattern of Hemigalus was probably 

 derived. 



If the pattern is shown in the young and proves to be of 

 the Hemigalus type, the fact will attest that, in this respect 

 at all events, Diplogale is a modification of that type. On 

 the other hand, if the pattern should be like that of Genetta 

 or Linsang, the inference will be that Diplogale is descended 

 from an ancestor common to it and Hemigalus. But, with 

 our present knowledge, the only information we have to go 

 upon is that supplied by the dentition ; and since a large 

 double-rooted upper first premolar probably preceded in 

 evolution a small one-rooted homologous tooth, Diplogale 

 must, I think, be regarded provisionally as a more primitive 

 type than Hemigalus*. 



Note upon the Name Hemigalus derbyanus. 



The species described in this paper is commonly quoted 

 as Hemigale hardwickii. There are reasons, however, for 

 regarding this specific title as inadmissible. 



In 1827, Lesson (Man. Mamm. p. 172) described under 

 the name Viverra hardivichii a species which, in Trouessart's 

 Catalogue, is regarded as the same as Linsang linsang 

 (= gracilis). However that may be, the name certainly 

 belongs to a species quite distinct from the one that 

 currently passes as H. hardwickii, Gray, which was also 

 assigned originally to Viverra ; and since the two forms 

 were obviously dedicated to the same man, General Hard- 

 wicke, the name employed by Gray (Spic. Zool. p. 9, 1830) 

 is not available for the species to which Gray applied it, 

 according to the old-fashioned and commonsense system of 

 nomenclature. Nevertheless, those who maintain that a 

 difference between two names of one letter, of whatever kind, 

 where no misprint is involved, renders both valid, must con- 

 sistently admit hardwichii, Lesson, and hardwickii, Gray, 

 provided the species are, as appears, distinct. That Lesson's 



* For descriptions of the rmizzle, ears, feet, and glands of the Viverrinse 

 and Paradoxurinre, see P. Z. S. 1915, pp. 131-149 & pp. 387-412 ; and of 

 the Cvnogaliuoe, Ann. & Mag. Nat, Hist. (8) xv. pp. 351-360 (1915). 



