290 On the Generic Term " Duma." 



that he did not thereby intend to make a new p^enus of the word 

 " 7)rjma," as the following fonr Sjiecies (8 to 11) are all called 

 " CervuSj^^ but merely to give a Latin translation of *' Virginian 

 Deer " — Pennant's name for this species. In a similar way 

 in the genus Moschus Zimmermann calls the fourth species 

 " Traguhis siirinamensis,^^ quoting from Brisson, but he by 

 r.o means thereby intended to found another genus Traguhift. 

 Again, Zimmermann gives Copra nmmon as the first species 

 of his genus " Ovis,^'' although he has likewise a genus 

 Copra, with three species, next before Ovis. It is evident 

 from this and other examples of Zimmermann's names that 

 this author was not a strict binomialist, and did not think it 

 necessary to give every species an exact generic and specific 

 name according to the custom of nomenclature at present re- 

 cognized. It is true that, as Dr. Allen says, Zimmermann on 

 his map and in other passages of his works also wrote Dania 

 virfftm'ana, but this cannot get over the fact that he has 

 deliberately classed the Duma virginiana as the seventh 

 species of his genus Cervus. I hope, therefore, that future 

 Bvstematists will not follow Dr. Allen in attempting to divert 

 the generic teim Dama to the Virginian Deer and its allies 

 from the European form to which it has been applied so long. 

 I may add a few words on a still more difficult question 

 tlian that just treated of — that is, as to what generic term 

 ought to be em})loyed for tiie American Deer, which, however 

 broad our views may be about genera, are manifestly entitled 

 to a different designation from Cervus. Mr. Lydekker has 

 discussed the same point in his work on the ' Deer of All 

 Lands,' and has finally decided to employ Mazama, *' as the 

 earliest satisfactory name." But the claims of Mazama 

 have been carefully examined and condemned by Baird 

 ('N. American Man mals,' p. 665), and more recently by 

 Dr. Allen (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. xvi. p. 16). 

 American writers, after shifting their names for this genus 

 en several occasions, have recently adopted the curious term 

 " Odocoileus,^^ said to have been established by Rafinesque * 

 in 1832 (in a journal which it is nearly impossible to refer 

 lo) ujjon a fossil tooth, which, it is presumed, must have 

 belonged to Cervus virginianus. But this is a mere hypo- 

 thesis, and on the whole I agree witli Mr. Bangs (Proc. 13iol. 

 boc. Washington, x. p. 25, 1896) that it seems advisable to 

 retain the well-kno\\n name " Cariacus''^ for the American 

 Deer until a more satisfactory decision can be arrived at. 



* "What Eatineeque meant by " Odocoilevs" is uncertain, but it is 

 prolable that the name -wns intended to be a compound of ohois, a tooth, 

 and KoiXct, hollow, ard thould theiel'ore ha^e been written Odvuivcalus. 



