tin- Cli ucric Sdino Tliylacomys. 223 



Mr. Palmer, "t" \\ asliiiii^ton, writes to estal)li.ili tliR n.'une 

 Tln/lacoviifH ill lieu of Perotjufe tor tlic liielliy or Uabljit- 

 JJaiKlicout, but, like iiiyselt, lie has not aecess to the ISIO 

 edition, and quotes as liis authority the two editions con- 

 sulted by me (vide his footnote). Mr. Palmer has evidently 

 not seen my note and has failed to pereeive that in the editions 

 examined the spellinuj of the word is Th<tUicomjfH, Umler 

 these eireumstanecs 1 woidd request the editors of the 

 ' Annals' to kindly examine the original (1840) edition, and 

 publish the information desired for the benefit of the be- 

 nighted workers in Washington and Sydney*. 



[This case is more diffieult of decision than Mi-. Waite 

 supposes, for although in the 1840, as well as in the later 

 editions, of his ' Animal Kingdom ' Blyth spells the name 

 Thulacomys, yet Palmer is, as I have verified, jjerfectly correct 

 in quoting the first meiition of it, in the ' Atheiueuin ' of 1838, 

 as T/ii/Iaconii/Hj and in the ' Catalogue of Marsujiials,' equally 

 anterior to Mr. Waite's rodent Thylacomys^ it is also spelt in 

 the same way. 



This being the case, I hardly think that the name Thyli- 

 coiuifs could be regarded as a name still valid in 1898 for 

 another genus, even if that form of it be not adopted for the 

 Kabbit-liandicoot. No doubt the * Atheiueuin ' reference 

 might be treated as a nonien nudum did it stand alone f ; but 

 the other references, incorrect as Blyth's was and indirect as 

 was my own, yet together seem to make it impossible that 

 Thykicoviys should be used elsewdiere in zoology. 



The following additional note by Mr. Waite is therefore 

 published at his request in case Thylacoinys were considered 

 invalid for the rodent. — O. Thomas.J 



Inquiry therefore brings out the fact that the form Tliyla- 

 comys has been used. For my present purpose it is of no 

 consequence whether the genus has been sufficiently diagnosed 

 or not. The word has been used in scientific literature, and 

 is therefore not again available in zoology. 



In place of Tliylacomys^ Waite, I propose the name Asco- 

 pharynx. 



Australian Museum, Sydney, 

 10th November, 1899. 



• [In the 18-JO edition the name is given as Thalacomrjft, Owon. — Eds.] 

 t So far as the form to be used is concerned I should do thi.^, callinjj 

 the Kabbil-Bandicoot Thalacomya lagotia. 



