March 9, 191 1] 



NATURE 



with a superficial resemblance to the Arni buffalo of India, 

 but larger in size and possessing horns exceeding those of 

 :he Arni in length, while in its skeleton it evinces a greater 

 relationship to the Cape buffalo. Of course, the fossil 

 remains only give us in their most perfect examples the 

 more or less complete bony core of these horns. We owe 

 to the art of primitive man a better idea of what this 

 armature looked like as a living animal. In full-grown 

 males the horns were marked with annular corrugations, 

 not unlike those still to be seen on the horns of Asiatic 

 buffaloes (there are traces of them also in some of the 

 modern types of Central Africa). There was no con- 

 siderable development of horn boss on the forehead, and 

 ihe horas seem to have been flat rather than round. Jhey 

 were set on the skull in such a way that they were not so 

 much directed backwards, as in the Indian buffaloes of 

 to-day, but branched out from the head almost at right 

 angles to the median line of the nose, and in very 

 extravagant developments looked like the figure 3 laid on 

 its side- In some of the drawings there is the indication 

 of the buffalo having developed a considerable fringe of 

 hair along the angle of the lower jaw, in some examples 

 almost a throat mane. 



When did this large buffalo become extinct? Some of 

 the authorities I consulted thought not more than two or 

 three thousand years ago. They stated that amongst the 

 engraved rock surfaces that have been photographed there 

 are drawings of this buffalo bearing a pack-saddle. In 

 any case, the drawings 1 saw myself represented it as 

 being hunted by some form of white man (presumably of 

 Libyan race) wearing a skin garment round the loins and 

 armed with a bow and arrow, or with a spear and javelin, 

 these weapons being either Neolithic or actually within the 

 age of metal. 



So far as I know, there is no mention of this buffalo 

 existing in North Africa to be found in any of the Roman 

 writers. 



In addition to the buffaloes in these prehistoric draw- 

 ings, the African elephant is the most striking feature. 

 He is unmistakably delineated with widespread ears, but 

 seldom or never vvith very big tusks. The fore-foot of 

 these elephants is sometimes girt about by what seems to 

 be a circlet of converging spikes (unless this type of 

 elephant developed bristles on his feet). This recalls in 

 '' appearance the kind of antelope or buffalo snare which is 

 still in use in Ethiopia and East Central .Africa. Other 

 beasts illustrated on the rock, incisions of Africa north of 

 : the Sahara Desert are the lion, leopard, Mhorr gazelle, 

 i Loder's gazelle, and domestic goats and sheep. 



Among the remainder of the vanished fauna of Algeria 

 which was apparently coeval with man, but is not to be 

 'identified in any prehistoric drawing, was a species of 

 elephant closely allied to that of India, besides the Elephas 

 antiquus of Pleistocene Europe. In addition to the buffalo, 

 there was a large wild ox iBos opisthonomus) allied to the 

 aurochs of Europe, and a third form, Bos ibericus, appar- 

 ently nearly related to the Indian zebu, and, if so, in all 

 probability the parent of the modern domestic ox of negro 

 ' Africa, as well as of types preserved for us in the art of 

 ancient Egypt and of Crete. . There was also an eland 

 very like the elands of to-day, and what Prof. Pomel 

 called a nilghai {Boselaphus rayi), with longer, more 

 . circular horns than those of the existing species ; also a 

 ,gnu, apparently related to the blue gnu of tropical Africa. 

 'There were two forms of hippopotamus, one the existing 

 ! species, and the other a more primitive type with six 

 incisors. Somewhat earlier, perhaps, in period of time 

 ■was Cervus pachygenys, a remarkable form of deer with 

 n exceedingly thick lower jaw, which developed on the 

 tf^r aspect of its phalanges almost a boss of bone, the 

 rpose or advantage of which does not seem to be very 

 ar. Prof. Pomel also believed that he found in the 

 •nt deposits in .Mgeria a type of Palla antelope, besides 

 indigenous species of wild camel. As to the modern 

 tican elephant, it must have swarmed in Algeria down 

 '< the time of the Romans, say two thousand years ago. 

 Ir<; remains are discovered in nearly every watercourse in 

 1" northern littoral. The fossil remains on which the 

 • • Prof. Pomel 's treatises were based can be seen (on 

 pplication) at the museum of the University of Algiers. 



H. H. Johnston. 

 NO. 2158, VOL. 861 



The Transference of Names in Zoology. 



A LETTER on the above subject addressed to Nature of 

 January 26 by my friend, Dr. Caiman, has appeafed also 

 in the American journal Science: This appeal to the Old 

 World and the New evidently invites discussion. The 

 letter apparently has in mind the man in the street and 

 the natural history specialist, each of whom is to be pro- 

 tected from " moral and intellectual damage," which some 

 applications erf the law of priority might inflict upon him. 



So far as the general public is concerned, two things 

 should be borne in mind, first, that for popular books on 

 natural history the publisher thinks one Latin nartie as 

 bad as another, or a great deal worse, and, secondly, that 

 the casual inquirer, when told the technical denomination 

 of an animal, straightway forgetteth what has been told 

 him, be it right or wrong, time-honoured or brand-new. 

 Some handy little names might be kept in stock to gratify 

 these incurious curious persons, as, for example, Meto- 

 ponanaphrissontes, probably applicable to quite a crowd of 

 creatures from annelids to monkeys. Tears seem to mingle 

 with the ink when Dr. Caiman tells us that " at pre- 

 sent, a writer who mentions Trichechus may be referring 

 either to the walrus or the manatee." Yet what sort of 

 a writer could have the ingenuity to leave it an open 

 question which of the two animals he was discussing? 

 " The great possibility of confusion " to which Dr. Caiman 

 refers appears to me' to be simply a nightmare, by which 

 he himself is one of the last men in the world to be 

 terrified. 



Incidentally, I would beg Dr. Caiman and others not 

 to be scared into using Carcinides (Rathbun, 1897) as, the 

 generic name of the common shore-crab, assigned to 

 Carcinus by Leach in 1814. It is quite true that Latreille 

 in 1796 named a genus Carcinus in the Amphipoda, but 

 this ought to be considered a nomen nudum, since no 

 species was designated as belonging to the genus, and in 

 the course of 115 years no one has fitted the definition to 

 anv amphipod in particular. 



the conclusion of Dr. Caiman's letter reopens a con- 

 troversy which I will now make one more effort to close. 



No crustacean, perhaps, is better known than the 

 common lobster. May I earnestly ask leave here to set 

 forth in full the credentials of its proper scientific name? 



1758. Cancer gainmarus, Linn., Systema Natura?, tenth 

 edition, p. 631. 



1758. Astacus verus, Borlase, Natural History of Corn- 

 wall, p. 274. _ 



1777. Astacus gammarus, Pennant, British Zoology, 

 vol. iv., p. 9- 



1 79 1. Cancer {Astacus) gammarus, Herbst, Krabben und 

 Krebse, vol. ii., part i., p. 42. 



1798. Astacus marinus, J. C. Fabricius, Suppl. Entom. 

 Systematicje, p. 406. 



1813. Astacus gammarus, Leach, Edinburgh EncycK, 

 vol. vii., p. 398. 



181 V Astacus gammarus. Leach, in Trans. Linn. Soc., 



vol. ii., p. 344. , 



1819. Astacus gammarus. Leach, in Samouelle s Entom- 

 ologist's Comp., p. 95- ,,_ , . 

 1 83 1. Astacus marinus, Latreille, Cours d Entomologve, 



1836. Astacus gammarus,- Westwood, in Partington s 

 Brit. Cycl. Nat. Hist., vol. ii., p. 167. , . , 



1838. Astacus gammarus, Westwood, The Entomologist s 



Text-book, p. loi. . ■ d a c • 



1844. Astacus marinus. O. d. Costa, Atti K. Ace. Set.. 

 vol. 5, part ii., p. 72. . 



1850. Astacus gammarus. White. Catal. Brit. Crust., 

 p IS,. With the imprimatur of John Edward Gray. 



1857. Astacus gammarus. White, Popular History of 

 Brit. Crust., p. loi. r. j u 



1875. Astacus gammarus, Sowerby, Malac. Podoph. 

 Brit., text to pi. 35. m * 



189V Astacus gammarus, Stebbing, Hist. L-rust., 

 Internat. Sci. Ser., vol. Ixxiv., p. 203. 



1897. Astacus gammarus. A. O. \\ alker, Kep- tJnt. 



Assoc. (1906), p. 437. c- ,.,_• A XT . tf * 



1897. Astacus gammarus. Stebbing. Ann. N.at. Hist., 

 ser. 6, vol. xix., pp. 120, 355. 



1900. A:.tacus gammarus, Stebbing. South African 

 1 Crust., part i., p. 34 



