468 The Nomenclature of certain Lorises. 



lese Slender Lemur [Loris], instead of to JVi/clicebus, as had 

 been previously done. His conclusion is based on the argu- 

 ment that Linnffius's description agrees better with Nycti- 

 cehus, whatever his references may refer to, an argument that 

 is quite natural for any one to use who has not been forced 

 by iiard experience to learn that certain formal rules are 

 necessary to be followed in such cases, and that with regard 

 to Linnean names in particular there is no hope of anything 

 like definiteness in our conclusions unless some formal routine 

 is followed. 



The only method that promises this definiteness is to trace 

 back Linnyeus's references through his own publislied works 

 until the earliest is reached, and from that the original 

 source of the name can be deduced. A description drawn up 

 from some other specimen at a later date cannot be allowed to 

 invalidate conclusions based on this formal method. 



In the case of Lemur tardigradas Messrs. Stone and Rehn 

 come to the right result, but only by the rather loose method 

 of examining all the references and judging between their 

 relative importance, a matter in which the personal equation 

 might often come in with disconcerting results. 



My conclusion would be obtained in the following way : — 



1758. Lemur tardiyradus, Linn. S. N. (10) i. p. 29. 



" 1. L. ecaudatus, Mus. Ad. Fr. i. p. 3. 



Simla ecaudata, unguibu9 indicis subulatis. Syst. nat. 5.* 



n. 2. 

 Animal cynocephalum tardigradum. Seb. mus. i. p. 55. &c. 

 Animal elegantissimum robinsoni. Rai. quadr. 161.'' 



Ignoring the other references, and taking the first of the 

 two Linnean ones, we get 



1754. Lemur tardigradus, Linn. Mus. Ad. Frid. i. p. 3. 



"Lemur ecaudattis. 

 Simia ecaudata .... Syst. Nat. 3. n. 2." 



Therefore a mere transference of the importance to the 

 second reference, which would be in full — 



1748. Linn. Syst. Nat. (6) p. 3. no. 2. 



" Simia ecaudata, unguibus indicis subulatis. Seb. thes. i. 

 t. 35. f. 1. 2." 



The reference, as with the still earlier 1740 edition, is here 



* Misprint for 3. Tliese numbers, as with all Linngeus's 10th edition 

 quotations, refer to the pages of the 6th edition. 



