1 8 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVI, 



analysis, to differ in the inclusion by Zimmermann of the 

 Tarsier, which is omitted by Erxleben. Jerboa also is prac- 

 tically equivalent to Yerboa of Forster, 1778, and of Dipus 

 Schreber, 1782, the type by elimination being in each case 

 the same, Mus jaculus Linn. 



Of the 33 new specific names published in the 'Zoologiae 

 Geographies,' four of the accepted names are accredited to 

 Zimmermann 's later ' Geographische Geschichte* and one to 

 Pallas; 1 17 (including a number of Zimmermann- Erxleben 

 names) are synonyms of earlier names given by Schreber, 

 Miiller, Pallas, and Phipps, and three others are not identifi- 

 able. The remaining eight names are of even date with names 

 given by Erxleben to the same species, five of them being 

 identical with Erxleben's names and three different. 



The question now arises, What is to be done with the rival 

 tenable Zimmermann- Erxleben names? A comparison of the 

 two works shows that in each case they have practically the 

 same basis, the same date, and equal claims to recognition. 

 As Erxleben's names have long been current, while Zim- 

 mermann's have been overlooked, there is no reason for now 

 giving Zimmermann preference over Erxleben, except where 

 Erxleben's names are of doubtful tenability, as in the case of 

 the Virginia Deer considered below. This disposes of the 

 case of Jerboa vs. Jaculus, as well as the rival specific names. 



Some of Zimmermann's other names, however, seem to call 

 for special remark, namely, his Dama virginiana and his 

 " Piloris," as well as his use of the names Dama and 

 Capreolus. 



DAMA VIRGINIANA Zimmermann. 



Zimmermann, in treating of the Virginia Deer of Pennant in 

 Section VII of his Cap. II (p. 3 5 1 ) , claims its specific distinctness 

 from Cervus dama of Linnaeus, and refers to it in the body of 

 the text as "dama virginiana," in possibly a non-nomenclatural 

 sense ; but in Section X of Cap. Ill, where in III (pp. 531- 

 535) he treats systematically the genus "Cervus Linn.," and 



1 These five names do not include the case of Dama virginiana, which is specially 

 considered below. 



