240 Bibliographical Notice. 



The author's great interest in geography has, we think, led 

 him to divide up some of the genera rather on geographical than 

 zoological grounds, and on this account to " split " too liberally : 

 the genera Eporaojihorus and Macror/lossHs are examples of this 

 tendency. On the other hand (presumably through want of material), 

 some forms are lumped v\ hich seem scarcely to deserve it. Thus 

 to find Pteralopex reduced to a subgenus of Pteropus, on the same 

 level as such scarcely definable subgeneric groups as Serlcomjcterls, 

 Acerodon, or Spectrum, while Pteropus WaUacei is made the type 

 of a new genus, shows to our mind rather a want in the power of 

 balancing the value of zoological characters. The mere number of 

 the teeth is of but little importance compared with their structure, 

 and the absence of an incisor in Pteropus WaUacei is surely of less 

 importance than the marked differentiation of nearly the whole 

 dentition of Pteralopex. 



In giving his lists of specimens in the collection at Berlin, Dr. 

 Matschie prefaces them by the letters B.M. : a rather unfortunate 

 choice, for " B.M." has been used for more than 60 years by a 

 multitude of authors to indicate the British Museum ; and as the two 

 Museums, of Berlin and London, possess two of the four greatest 

 collections of Bats, it seems a pity that initials which have always 

 been used for the one should now be most confusingly dragged 

 in for the other. Prof. Peters himself again and again used M.B., 

 standing of course for Musetim Berolinense. Some indication of the 

 condition of the specimens, whether in spirit or in skin, would also 

 have been of service to other workers. 



Dr. Matschie is exceedingly fond of subgenera, subdividing many 

 genera on rather slight grounds, and adding a serious number of 

 technical names to our already overburdened lists. The synopses 

 of species are placed under the respective subgenera, an arrangement 

 which does not appear to increase the facility with which specimens 

 can be determined, as compared with the more usual arrangement 

 of placing the whole synopsis of a genus together. 



The author omits to explain, nor is it possible to guess, why 

 he shifts Linnoeus's name '■^ vampyrus^' from what Dobson calls 

 Pteropus edulis to P. vulgaris. Shiftings of names are alwajs 

 unfortunate, but a shifting without explanation cannot be too 

 strongly protested against. 



We heartily commend the care Dr. Matschie has taken with the 

 nomenclature and his rigid adherence to the rules. Had Dr. Dobson 

 been equally particular, the nomenclature of Bats might have been 

 settled 30 years ago. Only we should prefer to accept Mr. Palmer's 

 ruling in the difiicult case of " Cephalotes,'' on the ground that the 

 name itself is a sufficiently clear indication of the species Geoffroy 

 had in mind when founding the genus. The restoration of the 

 familiar terms Macroglossus and Megaloglossus is a good result of 

 the newly accepted principle of the rigid adherence to the original 

 spelling of generic names in all cases. 



Altogether Dr. Matschie may be sincerely congratulated on the 

 excellent way he has risen to the great opportunity which the 

 publication of Wagner's beautiful plates has given him. O. T. 



