1902.] Allen, Nomenclatorial Notes on Mammals. l6l 



for example, Alee as the proper generic designation of a fossil 

 elk, and Alces for an allied group of living forms, for which 

 latter both Alee and Alces have been in more or less general 

 use for more than half a century, according to the predilec- 

 tions of different writers. 



II. SOME OTHER NAMES OF AMERICAN DEER. 



Mr. Osgood (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., XV, p. 87, April, 1902) 

 has recently called attention to the fact that the authority for 

 the specific name of Parolees americanus should be DeWitt 

 Clinton, 1822, instead of Jardine, 1835. In this connection 

 he says he does not admit that the alleged name "[Cervus 

 dania] americana Erxleben" is recognizable, and that there- 

 fore Cervus americanus Clinton is available for the Moose, a 

 conclusion that seems beyond question. The specific name 

 virginianus (Dama virginiana, as I prefer to call it) is thus the 

 proper name of the Common or Virginia Deer. 



I cannot, however, quite agree with Mr. Osgood (/. c.} that 

 Cervus mexicanus Lichtenstein is available, as he contends, 

 for a Mexican deer, since it is preoccupied by a Cervus mexi- 

 canus of Zimmermann, Gmelin, and other early authors, 

 which is wholly unidentifiable, except in so far as it was based 

 on some malformed antlers from an unknown locality figured 

 and described by Pennant (see antea, p. 16). These Mr. 

 Osgood thinks must have been the antlers "of some form of 

 American white-tailed deer." 



The case of Dama vs. Odocoileus (see antea, pp. 18-20) has 

 already received some attention from authors, its use being 

 opposed by some, held in abeyance by others (Bangs, Proc. 

 Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., XXXIX, p. 21, April, 1902), and 

 deemed admissible by one (Thomas, Novit. Zool., IX, 136, 

 April, 1902). The fact that its adoption in this sense will 

 prove 'inconvenient,' because used more or less currently for 

 the Fallow Deer of Europe (cf. Sclater, Ann. and Mag. Nat. 

 Hist. (7) IX, April, 1902, p. 289), is hardly to be considered. 

 It has, however, been urged against it (Miller, Proc. Biol. Soc. 

 Wash., XV, p. 39, March, 1902) that it stands on the 

 same basis as various other names used by Zimmermann. 



