1 68 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVI.] 



Olidosus would thus not be required." He further adds: "But while 

 Linnaeus 's Sus tajacu was the collared Peccary, Fischer's Sus iajassu 

 was, as clearly shown by the synonymy in his Zoognosia, the white- 

 lipped species, and that, therefore, must count as the type of Noto- 

 phorus, and by elimination bring Tayassu on to the true T. tajacu." 

 In this way he retains Tayassu for the Collared Peccaries and Noto- 

 phorus for the White-lipped Peccaries. 



As already shown (antea, pp. 162-165), this is quite different from 

 my interpretation of the case, and it seems to me is a violation of the 

 principle underlying his treatment of the case of Dicotyles. As shown 

 above, Fischer, in the 'Zoognosia,' gave practically new names to the 

 two species of Peccary then known, one being entirely new and the 

 other ex Sonnini. If Fischer had mentioned either one of these 

 names under Notophorus in replacing Tayassu, Mr. Thomas's conten- 

 tion would be perfectly sound. But instead of doing this he simply 

 gave "Sus tajassu Lin. Gmel.," which means nothing in a type sense, 

 because, as shown above, it is unidentifiable. As Mr. Thomas admits, 

 it is not the Sus tajacu of Linnasus; if it is the Sus tajassu of Gmelin, it 

 is a composite, embracing all the Peccaries then known. Further- 

 more, Fischer's reference, " Syst. nat. 1 1 1 , n. 6," does not fit either. As 

 Notophorus was obviously given to replace Tayassu, as shown by the 

 references under it to both Tayassu and Dicotyles, it should be treated 

 just as Mr. Thomas treats Dicotyles. It would be, I think, contrary to 

 sound principles of nomenclature to identify the bare "Sus tajassu Lin. 

 Gmel." under Notophorus with Fischer's Tayassu pecari of the 'Zoog- 

 nosia,' simply because Fischer in the latter connection happens to cite 

 a "Sus tayassu Lin. Gmel., Syst. nat. in, n. 6," which does not occur 

 at either place indicated, and is apparently both composite and inde- 

 terminate. 



In this connection reference may be made to Mr. Thomas's remarks 

 on the names Callorhinus and Callirhinus, and Stenorhinchus , Steno- 

 rhynchus and Stenorynchus , which are considered as " ' permissible 

 variants' of one compound," each valid for use in nomenclature, but 

 only so far as to call attention to the preceding remarks (pp. 159-162) 

 under Alee and Alces. 



