!("!() ^Ir. R. I. Pocock on .so?/?e of the 



specialised derivative of Hcmi()alus\% justified. The position 

 of Dijilogale is more doubtful. The absence of pattern 

 precludes the possibility of drawing any inference from that 

 source. Possibly the newly-born young might supply the 

 clue as to whether this genus is descended from a form with 

 the ) attern of Hemigalus or from one with a more generalised 

 pattern such as is seen in Llnsang or Genetta, from which, 

 as explained above, the pattern of Hemigalus was probably 

 derived. 



If the pattern is shown in the young and proves to be of 

 the Hemigalus type, the fact will attest that, in this respect 

 at all events, Diplogale is a moditication of that type. On 

 the other hand, if the pattern should be like that of Genetta 

 or Linsang, the inference will be that Diplogale is descended 

 fiom an aucestor common to it and Hemigalus. But, with 

 our present knowledge, the only information we have to go 

 upon is that supplied by the dentition ; and since a large 

 double-rooted upper first premolar i)robably preceded in 

 evolution a small oue-rooted homologous tooth, Diplogale 

 must, I think, be regarded provisionally as a more primitive 

 type than Hemigalus '^. 



Note upon the Name Hemigalus derbyanus. 



The species described in this paper is commonly quoted 

 as Hemigale hardvnekii. There are reasons, however, for 

 regarding this specific title as inadmissible. 



In 1827, Lesson (Man. Mamm. p. 172) described under 

 the name Viverra hunhvichii a species which, in Trouessart's 

 Catalogue, is regarded as the same as Linsang linsang 

 [=1 gracilis). However that may be, the name certainly 

 belongs to a species quite distinct from the one that 

 currently passes as H. harchvickii, Gray, which was also 

 assigned originally to Viverra ; and since the two forms 

 were obviously dedicated to the same man, General Hard- 

 Avicke, the name employed by Gray (Spic. Zool. p. 9, 1830) 

 is not available for the species to which Gray applied it, 

 according to the old-fashioned and commonsense system of 

 )iomeDclature. Ne\ertheless, those who maintain that a 

 difference between two names of one letter, of whatever kind, 

 where no misprint is involved, renders both valid, must con- 

 sistently admit /iardwichii, Lesson, and hardivickii, Gray, 

 provided the species arc, as api)ears, distinct. That Lesson^s 



• For descriptions of the muzzle, ears, feet, and glands of the Viverrinoe 

 and Paradoxurina?, see P. Z. S. 1915, pi^. 131-149 & pp. 3ti7-412 ; and of 

 the Cynogalinse, Ann. & -Mag. Nat. Hi&t. (8) xv. pp. 351-300 (1910). 



