60 



Allen Generic Names of the Mephitince. 



description of an animal he called Putorius americanus striatus, 

 which became in 1758 the chief basis of Linnseus's Viverra pu- 

 torius. This name, with a quasi-fictitous basis, as has been 

 recognized by all modern writers on the Skunks, having been 

 introduced into systematic literature naturally held its place 

 in the writings of a long list of later indiscriminate compilers, 

 but which has been almost as uniformily rejected by more 

 critical students as having no justifiable basis. 



As Catesby's description and plate, and more especially the 

 latter, are the basis of the present controversy it may be well 

 to compare, in parallel columns, Mr. Howell's opinion and mine 

 as to how such a gross caricature of nature could have origi- 

 nated. 



ALLEN, Nov. 1901. 



"As stated by Bangs , it 



[Catesby's Putorius americanus 

 striatus} is composite, being ap- 

 parently 'a combination of Mephi- 

 tis mephitica and Spilogale ringens. ' 

 Catesby's figure, however, has lit- 

 tle resemblance to either, and may 

 fairly be considered as drawn off- 

 hand from a confused recollection 

 of these two animals, and hence 

 factitious. (L. c., p. 326, 327.) 



" they [Catesby's figure and 



description] must have been based, 

 to take the most charitable view 

 of the case, on a confused recollec- 

 tion of the little spotted skunk and 

 the common skunk, and not on any 

 animal he ever met with in na- 

 ture." (L. c., p. 333.) 



HOWELL, Feb. 1902. 



"Although neither the figure 

 nor the description furnishes an 

 accurate portrayal of either of the 

 two skunks inhabiting the region 

 where he [Catesby] travelled, the 

 reference of both plate and de- 

 scription to Spilogale seems un- 

 questionable " (L. c., p. 3.) 



"When we consider that Cates- 

 by's drawing was probably made 

 from his recollection of an animal 

 seen afield, perhaps at some dis- 

 tance, and probably in the dusk of 

 twilight, the differences between 

 the figure and the real animal be- 

 come unimportant. It must be re- 

 membered that it is not necessary 

 to show that his figure is a correct 

 representation of a Spilogale: the 

 question is simply, could it have 



been based on anything else? " 



(L. c., pp. 3 and 4.) 



As shown above, Mr. Howell admits that Catesby's figure 

 and description do not "accurately" portray either of the two 

 skunks of North Carolina, and that the "drawing was probably 

 made from his [Catesby's] recollection of an animal seen afield 



