98 INDEX GENERUM MAMMALIUM. 
adopt the evident misprint, 7ha/acomys, which was published with a 
description, instead of the correct and really earlier Zhylacomys. 
In Wallace's * Geographical Distribution, published in 1876, JVec- 
tomys is given by mistake as Veotomys. The accompanying species 
indicate that Vectomys is intended. Fourteen years later, in 1890, 
Thomas proposed Veotomys as a distinct genus. The question arises, 
Shall Wallace's Veotomys be recognized as preoccupying the later and 
otherwise valid generic name / 
Thomas in 1896 proposed the name Craurothrix to replace Ac- 
othrix Gray, 1867, because the latter was preoccupied by Lchinothria 
Peters, 1853. In 1898, however, he abandoned Craurothrix on the 
ground that Aeh/othrix was sufficiently distinct from Lchinothri«.“ 
Recently he has also maintained that the misspelled form in which 
Stenorhynchus was first published was sufficient to protect it against 
preoccupation. He says the "original and still well-known name 
was spelt Stenorhinchus on its first publication in 1826, and I hold 
that the name is not invalidated by the Stenorhynchus or Stenorynchus 
of earlier authors." ^ 
A striking example of the results of carrying out this theory to an 
extreme is shown in the case of the African barbets. The genus 
Pogonias was described by Illiger in 1811, based on Bucco dubius. In 
1815 Leach’ described three additional species, which he named Pogo- 
nad sulcirostris, Pogon 7 leevirostris, and Pogonius ateMloti. He also 
referred incidentally to /wvirostris as Pogonias lavirostris, thus using 
the genus in three different forms in the same volume. These three 
species now stand as Pogonorhynch us dubius (=sulcirostris), Melano- 
bucco bidentatus (=levirostris), and M. vieilloti. Pogonorhynchus, 
proposed in 1833, is now used instead of Pogonias, the latter being 
preoccupied by Pogonias Lacépéde, 1800, a genus of fishes. J/elano- 
bucco was described in 1889, the type being b/dentatus (=levirostris). 
If Stenorhinchus is sutticiently distinct from Stenorhynchus, Pogonia 
is certainly different from Pogon/as, and the various forms of the name 
published in 1815 ought to be available as valid names. It may there- 
fore be claimed that Pogonia used with swezrostris has precedence as 
an earlier name for the genus now known as Pogonorhynchus, and 
Pogonius used with v/etlloti as the earliest name applied to the group 
AM:Melanobwueco. 
If misprints are to be given such importance as indicated in these 
examples, WVeotomys Thomas, 1890, must be considered preoccupied, 
Cystophoca is barred foreyer as a generic name, and some misspelling 
found in an obscure reference is likely to become the proper designa- 
tion for each group whose name is preoccupied. 
“Trans. Zool. Soc. London, XIV, p. 397, June, 1898. 
> Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., XV, p. 154, June 20, 1902. 
¢ Zool. Miscellany, II, pp. 46, 104, 1815. 
