Nomenclature of some European Bafs. 381 



neiie Folge, ii. pp. 131, 1G7-160 (included Ni/ssoni, discolor, ■SrnvV, 



lettcipjH', and aristippe). 

 1878. t'eg/H-iiit/o, I>()l)S()n, C'atftl. C'hiioptora Brit. Mus. p. 183 (part.). 

 1802. A(hhm}<tn-i<, II. Allen, Pruc. Acad. \ut. Sci. I'hilad. (iHUl) 



p. 4(>(;, .lamiary li), 1802. Proposed as a substitute for Vesjjeriis, 



preoccupied in entomology. 



Tlie exact identification of the species murinus among the 

 Scandinavian nicnibeis of the genus Vesperti/io, ahhoiigh a 

 matter of considerable difficulty, does not affect the use of 

 the generic name. Kil^son*, after a careful review of the 

 facts, decided that the animal must have been the bat to 

 which batterer afterward applied the name discolor. He 

 therefore very properly placed the latter in the synonymy of 

 V. murinus, Linnaeus, and reinstated Bechstein's name w^o^^'s 

 for the Vespertilio murinus of Schreber. Nilsson did not 

 recognize " Vesperugo^' as distinct from " Vespertilio.^'' Hence 

 lie said nothing in regard to the tenability of the generic 

 names. Ten years later, Blasius f, though admitting that 

 the Vespertilio murinus of Linnajus could not be the bat 

 commonly known by that name, considered the species un- 

 determinable, and therefore reasoned that the name first 

 applied to it might afterward be properly used by Schreber 

 in a different sense. It is not surprising, then, that Blasius 

 continued to ap])ly the name Vespertilio, Linnteus, to the 

 genus to which he had restricted it eigiiteen years before, 

 notwithstanding the fact that, according to his own statement, 

 it could not be made to include any of the Linnaian species. 

 In these rulings Blasius was followed by Lilljeborgj, who 

 gave detailed reasons for his belief that it is impossible to 

 determine whether Linnaus's bat is the species afterwards 

 called Vespertilio discolor by Natterer, or that called Vesper- 

 tilio Nilsso7ii by Keyserling and Blasius. In his opinion, 

 contrary to that of Nilsson, the odds are in favour of the 

 latter. Lilljeborg calls attention to Blasius's mistake in 

 applying the generic name Vespertilio to a group containing 

 no species knoAvn to Linnaius, but concludes that since this 

 error has become time honoured, it were better uncorrected. 



Notwithstanding the inconvenience to which such a course 

 leads, there can scarcely be any valid reason for rejecting 

 the identification of Linnteus's Vespertilio murinus made by 

 Nilsson. The doubt admittedly lies between two species, 

 one of which he deliberately chose with all the facts before 

 him. As nothing in the original description is in any way 



* ykand. Fauna, Diiggdjureu, pp. 17-20 (andi-a upplagen) (1847). 

 t Fauna der Wirbelthiere Beutschlands, Saugetbiere, p. 74 (1857), 

 i Sveriges ocb Norges Ryggradsdjur, i. pp. 124-126, 144 (1874). 



