278 Reviews — Dr. S. Filhol — Mammals of Sansan. 



names like Talpa primava (Filh.), on p. 35, such specific names are 

 new ones. This, indeed, appears to hold good for that particular 

 instance, and also for Mustela leptorhynclia on p. 105. When, how- 

 ever, we turn to Mustela larteti on p. 107, we find precisely the 

 same condition, although this specific name was applied by the 

 author in the " Bull. Soc. Philom." for 1888. A still worse instance 

 occurs on page 265, where we find the name Strogulognathus 

 sansaniensis, apparently as a new genus and species, without the 

 slightest reference to the fact that the specimens so named had 

 been described by the author in 1888 in the serial cited under the 

 name of Platuprosopos sansaniensis. This change of the generic 

 name has been rightly made on account of the preoccupation of the 

 one first applied, but this ought to have been fully notified in the 

 text. Moreover, when he was changing the name, the author might 

 have given the correct Strongylognathus . instead of the incorrect 

 Strogulognathus. It may also be mentioned that in 1888 Dr. Filhol 

 described a Mammal from Sansan under the name of Choilodon 

 elegnns, although no such specific or generic name occurs in the 

 present work. Whether the omission of these names is due to 

 inadvertence, or whether they have been replaced by others, we are 

 quite unable to say. 



Then, again, we notice some very embarrassing errors in regard 

 to references, as well as a large number of misprints. Thus, in 

 a footnote on page 133, the present writer is quoted as loc. cit. 

 without the slightest previous mention of any work to which the 

 loc. cit. could refer. As instances of carelessness in spelling, we 

 may refer to the generic name Lanthanotherium given on page 23, 

 but which appears as Lantanotheriiim on page 317 ; there being 

 here, again, not the slightest reference that this name first appeared 

 under the latter incorrect form (in which it has been quoted in 

 two Manuals) in 1888. Again, on page 73 et seq. we are some- 

 what surprised to find Pseudcelurus or Pseudailurus modified into 

 Pseudelurtis ; but when we see the author's own genus Proailurus 

 repeatedly appearing as Prailurus, our astonishment at the way 

 words are treated is still greater. In the index the appearance of 

 Myogale sansaniensis immediately after Mygale sansaniensis suggests 

 an inadvertent repetition of a name, till we turn to the text and 

 find that Myogale is a misprint for Myolagus. 



We have alluded thus at length to these omissions and errors by 

 which the work is disfigured, as they are so embarrassing to those 

 who have to record and quote from it ; but it is with pleasure that 

 we turn to notice some of the more important forms described by 

 the author. 



Among the Insectivora, the author has found out that the 

 commonly accepted name Parasorex is antedated by Galerix, which 

 is accordingly adopted. 



In the Carnivora, one of the finest specimens described (pis. ii. iii.) 

 is a nearly perfect skull of MacJicerodus palmidens, which is of 

 especial interest as showing the presence of an alisphenoid canal. 

 This canal being totally wanting in all existing Felidce, its presence 



