50 ^Iv. A. Dcmly on the History of the 



to a distinct subspccii-s. That ninderii American zoologists 

 -vvouUl i)iobably separate tliis local form as a distinct species 

 I am quite aware ; but such a procedure would, as iii other 

 cases, have the great disadvantage of suppressing all signs of 

 the evident relationship existing between the two forms, 

 without gaining any greater local exactness than may be 

 obtained by tiie free use of trinomial nomcnchiture. 



Sciurns Aherti durangi, subsp. n. 



Size and general characters of S. A. tijpicus'^. Sides of 

 nose from muzzle to eye rufous, as opposed to the " grey- 

 cheeks " of tt/2nciis ; a ring round eye paler rufous. Ears 

 entirely Avithout tufts (type killed in middle of October) ; no 

 chestnut or rufous sp.ots round or behind tlieir bases. Hairs 

 of chest and belly slaty grey basally, as compared to " pure 

 white " in ti/pi'cus. \A'hole under surface of tail inwards of 

 the submarginal black band coarsely grizzled grey, each hair 

 being broadly banded with black and white; \n typiciis tlie 

 under surface of the tail is " wholly white." Median part of 

 dorsal surface of metatarsus dark-coloured, proximally like 

 the lower leg, terminally with a rufous tinge ; inner side of 

 metatarsus and tops of toes white. Descriptions of ti/picus 

 simply say *' feet white." 



J/ab. Ciudad, Durango, Central Mexico; alt. 8100 feet, 

 on the Sierra Madre. 



Type B. M. 82. 3. 20. 16. Female, killed Oct. U, 1881 ; 

 a second specimen killed Aug. 7. Coll. A. Forrer. 



XI. — Note on the History of the so-called Family Teichonidae. 

 By Arthur Dendy, D.Sc, F.L.S., Melbourne University. 



In reply to my note on " The Discovery of tlie True Nature 

 of the so-called Family Teichonidae," published in tlie 

 ' Zoologi-^cher Anzciger' (no. 39o), Dr. li. von Lendenfold, in 

 no. 402 of the same journal, endeavours to prove that he 



* It appears tome equally simple and exact, while far more euplionious, 

 to use the word typicus for the typical subspecies, instead of doubling the 

 specific name, as is commonly done. The original author's name should 

 of course he appended after typicus. The ugly sound of a double specific 

 name is always bad enou;.di ; but if that method is adhi-red to, we may in 

 some cases have to employ three n-petitionsnf the san)e word, e. (/. Lutra 

 lutra lutra, Linn., instead of (if line generic and specific are admitted) 

 Lvtra Ultra typica, 1^., or, most euphonious of all, Liitra vulyaris tyjiica, 

 Erxl. This ])ossibility of a treble repetition may well make us hesitate 

 before insisting on the same word being used for both species and typical 

 subspecies 



