122 MR. OLDFIELD THOMAS ON THE MAMMALS 



Moreover, the Macaques are far less often dealt with or spoken 

 of by outside writers, not up to date in nomenclatural techni- 

 calities, than are the Anthropoid Apes, among whom such a change 

 has the maximum of inconvenience. 



[After the completion of the present paper, there has come into 

 my hands a copy of the " Opinions i"endered by the International 

 Commission on Zoological Nomenclature," dated July 1910, but 

 received by members of the Gratz Congress only at the end of 

 October. 



In this publication the question of Linnean Genera in general 

 Hnd Simla in pai-ticular is dealt with, certain conclusions are 

 come to not differing widely from my own, and the principle of 

 tautonymy as applied to the names in Linnteus is on the whole 

 approved of. 



Two genera {Mas and Camelus) have types definitely fixed for 

 them, twenty are mentioned as " seeming to retain as types " the 

 species I fix for them by tautonymy, though this is " not a ruling 

 by the Commission," and Dasypus is ignored. 



With regard to Simla, the Commissioners, while seeing that 

 the rule brought the type on to sylvanus, would appear to have 

 thought it a benefit for zoology that satyrus should be considered 

 as such, an opinion in which I believe but few zoologists on 

 careful consideration would be found to agree with them. Under 

 this idea a brief but rather far-fetched and unconvincing argument 

 is adduced to avoid the simple conclusion about sylvanus, viz. : — 

 that " an examination of Gesner's text shows that he did not 

 use Simla in the specific sense of ' the simia,^ and that therefore 

 Siinia Gesner, as used in the synonymy of S. sylvamcs, cannot be 

 considered as the name of a species." 



ISTow I have carefully examined Gesner (three editions, including 

 that qvioted), and can only say that his use of Simla is exactly 

 the same as his use of other names which are accepted as tau- 

 tonyms. On p. 847 he writes " de Simia," and gives a figure of 

 the Barbary Ape, and then on p. 855 he begins on other monkej's 

 under the heading " de Simiis diversis." Exactly in the same 

 way we have " de Mure" on p. 714 {Mus muscuhts) and " de 

 Muribus diversis" on p. 731; " fZe Mtistela" on p. 752, '' de 

 Mustells diversis " on p. 762. 



It is true that the Commissioners do not definitely accept as a 

 ruling of the Commission the above-mentioned twenty names on 

 the rigid basis of tautonymy, but seem to take as valid Palmer's 

 selection of the types as published in his Index (1904). 



But the latter work cannot be accepted as that of a " reviser " 

 in the true sense of the term. It is merely a bibliographical work 

 giving an indication of what species have been currently accepted 

 as types, without special revision by authors with all the facts 

 before them. In no case could I admit that it should oveixide the 

 clear case for tautonymy presented by Simia equally with the 

 twenty genera in which its results are agi'eed to both by Palmer 

 and the Commissioners ] 



