21ie Species described hy Gray as Galidictis vittatus. 505 



blackish brown. Wutys nearly hyaline ; the a})ical third 

 and the posterior margin slightly but distinctly inf'uscated ; 

 slignia blackish ; a brownish mark across the R— M cross- 

 vein, and another at tiie tip of the discal cell. Venation as 

 in 0. sackeni, except that Cu2 is almost straight. 



Length (without antennje) 10 mm. 



Ceylon : Pundaluoya, July 1897 {E. E. Green) ; a single 

 female. 



LXII. — The Same of the Species described by Gray as 

 Galidictis vittatus. By R. I. PocOCK, F.K.8. 



In my recent revision * of the species formerly referred to 

 the genus Galidictis, I pointed out that the form described by 

 Gray as G. vittata (F. Z. S. 1818, p. 22) may be placed in a 

 distinct genus, for which the name Mungolicits wns proposed. 

 At the same time 1 adopted for that animal the name vittata, 

 or, rathei-, vittatus, given to it by Gray. Seiior A. Cabrera, 

 of the Museo de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, has, however, 

 kindly written to inform me that that name is inadmissible, 

 because in 1844 Schinz (Sjst. Verz. feliug. i. p. 3G0) 

 employed it for the species described and figured by I. Geoffroy 

 as Galidictis striata (Mag. de Zool. 2nd ser. i. 1839, pp. 32-33, 

 pl.xviii.). Although, according to modern views, Schinz had 

 no right to make this alteration, his action, nevertheless, invali- 

 dated the use of vittata for a second species assigned to 

 Galidictis ; and this conclusion is, of course, not in any way 

 affected by the subsequent removal of vittatus. Gray, to the 

 genus Mungotictis. 



I propose, therefore, to rename the species in question 

 Mungotictis lineatus. 



Seiior Cabrera further points out to me, and quite rightly, 

 that if, as I suggested, my Galidictis omatus should prove by 

 chance to be identical with the one to which I. Geofiioy gave 

 the inadmissible name striata, then Schiuz's name vittata 

 must be adopted for that species. But the present state of 

 our knowledge of G. vittata, Schinz { = striata, GeofFr.), 

 makes such an identification impossible ; and unless 

 Geoffroy's specimen is still preserved in the Paris Museum, 

 and shows the published differences between G. vittatus and 



* Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (8) xvi. pp. 113-124 (Aug. 1915). 



