160 PROGRESS IN ZOOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE xn 



tion that there are still large numbers unknown to science. 

 In the list of Linnaeus, the first primary group of Dobson, the 

 Megachiroptera, now containing seventy species, is represented 

 by a single one, V. vampyrus, obviously a Pteropus, to which 

 the bloodthirsty habits of the fabulous Vampyre are attributed, 

 but which is not absolutely identified with any one of the 

 known species. The other species described by Linnaeus can 

 almost all be identified with bats at present well known. 



A curious example of the results of basing classification 

 upon a few, and those somewhat artificial characters, is afforded 

 by one of the true bats, now called Noctilio leporinus, though 

 admitted by Linnaeus to be " simillimus vespertilionibus, 

 similiter pedibus alatus, being separated from the others, not 

 only generically, but even placed in another order, that of the 

 GLIRES or Kodents, because it did not, or was supposed not to 

 fall under the definition of the order PRIMATES, which begins 

 '' Denies primores incisor es superior es IV. paralleli" In reality 

 this bat has four upper incisors, but the outer ones are so 

 small as to have been overlooked when first examined. But 

 even if this were not so, no one would now dream of basing 

 an animal's position upon such a trivial character when 

 opposed to the totality of its organisation and habits. 



The characters of the incisor teeth are placed in the first 

 rank in the definitions of all the orders in the Sy sterna Naturae, 

 and hence the next order called BRUTA, characterised by 

 " denies primores nulli superius aui inferius" contains a curious 

 mixture of heterogeneous animals, as the names of the genera 

 Jfilephas, Trichechus, Bradypus, MyrmecopJiaga, Manis, and 

 Dasypus will indicate. It contains, in fact, all the animals 

 then known comprised in the modern orders of Proloscidea, 

 Sirenia, and Edentata, together with the walrus, one of the 

 Carnivora. The name BRUTA has been revived for one of 

 these orders, that more generally called Edentata, but I think 

 very inappropriately, for it was certainly not equivalent, and 

 if retained at all, should rather belong to the Proboscidea, as 

 Elephas stands first in the list of genera which Linnaeus 

 assigned to the group. 



It is curious to find that the striking differences between 

 the African and the Indian elephants, now so well understood 



