Nomenclature of some European Bats. 381 
neue Folge, ii. pp. 131, 167-169 (included Né/ssont, discolor, Savit, 
leucippe, and aristippe). 
1878. Vesperugo, Dobson, Catal. Chiroptera Brit. Mus. p. 183 (part.). 
1892. Adelonycteris, H. Allen, Proc. Acad, Nat. Sci. Philad, (1891) 
p- 466, January 19, 1892. Proposed as a substitute for Vesperus, 
preoccupied in entomology. 
The exact identification of the species murinus among the 
Scandinavian members of the genus Vespertilio, although a 
matter of considerable difficulty, does not affect the use of 
the generic name. Nilsson *, after a careful review of the 
facts, decided that the animal must have been the bat to 
which Natterer afterward applied the name discolor. He 
therefore very properly placed the latter in the synonymy of 
V. murinus, Linneus, and reinstated Bechstein’s name myotis 
for the Vespertilio murinus of Schreber. Nilsson did not 
recognize “ Vesperugo” as distinct from “‘ Vespertilio.” Hence 
he said nothing in regard to the tenability of the generic 
names. ‘en years later, Blasius t, though admitting that 
the Vespertilio murinus of Linneus could not be the bat 
commonly known by that name, considered the species un- 
determinable, and therefore reasoned that the name first 
applied to it might afterward be properly used by Schreber 
in a different sense. It is not surprising, then, that Blasius 
continued to apply the name Vespertilio, Linneus, to the 
genus to which he had restricted it eighteen years before, 
notwithstanding the fact that, according to his own statement, 
it could not be made to include any of the Linnean species. 
In these rulings Blasius was followed by Lilljeborg {, who 
gave detailed reasons for his belief that it is impossible to 
determine whether Linneus’s bat is the species afterwards 
called Vespertilio discolor by Natterer, or that called Vesper- 
tilio Nilssont by Keyserling and Blasius. In his opinion, 
contrary to that of Nilsson, the odds are in favour of the 
latter. Lilljeborg calls attention to Blasius’s mistake in 
applying the generic name Vespertilio to a group containing 
no species known to Linnwus, but concludes that since this 
error has become time honoured, it were better uncorrected. 
Notwithstanding the inconvenience to which such a course 
leads, there can scarcely be any valid reason for rejecting 
the identification of Linneus’s Vespertilio murinus made by 
Nilsson. The doubt admittedly lies between two species, 
one of which he deliberately chose with all the facts before 
him. As nothing in the original description is in any way 
* Skand. Fauna, Digedjuren, pp. 17-20 (andra upplagen) (1847), 
+ Fauna der Wirbelthiere Deutschlands, Saugethiere, p. 74 (1857). 
{ Sveriges och Norges Ryggradsdjur, i. pp. 124-126, 144 (1874), 
