194 BibliograpTitcal Notices. 



a much higher level than the efforts of the mere compiler and biblio- 

 grapliist. In the name of our fellow students of recent and fossil 

 mammals, we beg to tender to the learned author our most hearty 

 congratulations and thanks. 



As the Ungulata happen to be a group with which the reviewer 

 has a more extensive acquaintance than he possesses of some of the 

 other mammalian orders, such critical observations as seem necessary 

 may be restricted to that group. 



One of the first points that strikes us is that the author has not 

 been sufficiently bold in relegating to the rank of synonyms names 

 which have clearl}- no right to stand by themselves. Secondly, it 

 is not quite easy to understand the method he has adopted in the 

 selection of the generic names he employs. Take the instance of the 

 true American deer, all of which are included in the genus Cariaciis, 

 with several subgeneric divisions. Xow he admits that Cariacus is 

 antedated by DorceJaplms, while he further states that both are 

 antedated by Mazama of H. Smith ; but he adds that this latter is 

 not the same as Mazama of Rafinesque, which is earlier than all. 

 And yet on page 897 the Mazama of Rafinesque is admitted as 

 identical with Coassus, which is itself one of the subgenera of 

 Cariacus. Accordingly tlie latter term has no sort of justification 

 for its retention, while if all the exclusively American groups of 

 deer, with the exception of the pudus, are to be included in a single 

 genus, that genus must, it would seem, be Mazama, if priority is to 

 be regarded at all. 



That these American deer are best included in a single genus, 

 with subgeneric divisions, we quite agree, and we also hold with 

 the author in arranging the majority of the deer of the Old World 

 in the single genus Cervus, with analogous subgenera. But when 

 this course is adopted it appears to us clear that the oxen should be 

 treated in a similar manner ; whereas we find the author employing 

 terms like Bihos and Bison in a generic instead of a subgeneric 

 sense. 



Although, as will be evident from these remarks, we have a 

 preference, and that a strong one, it is, to our thinking, a matter of 

 small moment whether generic terms are used in a broad or a 

 restricted sense. Yet it is a matter of importance that some degree 

 of uniformity in such usage should be maintained in allied groups. 

 This, we submit, is not the case with Dr. Trouessart's classification 

 of the Pecora. 



Again, he does not maintain a uniform practice with regard to 

 the "■ Scomher scomher " principle. While we have, for instance, on 

 page 829 the babirusa figuring as Bahirussa hahirussa, we find the 

 roebuck (p. 888) appearing as Capreolus caprea, in spite of the fact 

 that capreolus was the Linnean specific name of the latter. Here, 

 again, one or the other course should be adopted and uniformly 

 adhered to. 



All the foregoing instances refer to classificatory matters, which 

 are, after all, more or less dependent on individual opinion. On 

 page 881 we find, however, the author deliberately going out of his 



