JULY 16, 1897.] 
adopt Gill’s termination oidea for all these 
groups, although such a course would reduce 
the Sciuromorpha to the same rank as the Ano- 
maluride. The relation of Thomas’ super- 
families to those of Gilliland Alston isas follows : 
Anomaluri—Alston’s Anomaluridee= Gill’s 
Anomaluroidea. 
Sciuromorpha—Alston’s Sciuromorphia (mi- 
nus the Anomaluride and Aplodontie=Gill’s 
Sciuroidea- Castoroidea. 
Aplodontiz—=Alston’s Haplodontids = Gill’s 
Haploodontoidea. 
Myomorpha—Alston’s Myomorpha=Gill’s 
Lophiomyoidea + Myoidea + Myoxoidea+ Sac- 
comyoidea. 
Hystricomorpha—=Alston’s 
=Gill’s Hystricoidea. 
Two of Thomas’ subfamily names, Lonche- 
rine and Sigmodontinz are open to question on 
grounds of priority. The Loncherinze were 
separated as a distinct group by Burmeister in 
1854, but Gray had previously recognized the 
subfamily Echimyna in 1825, and Gill adopted 
the name in the form Echimyinez in 1872. 
Echimys and Loncheres both belong to the same 
subfamily, and HEchimyinz besides being more 
generally used than Loncherinze has several 
years’ priority. Sigmodontinz must give way 
to the well-known term Cricetine, the change 
having been made through a misapprehension 
as to the validity of the generic name Cricetus. 
As will be shown further on, there is no reason 
for rejecting Cricetus or the subfamily of which 
it is the type. 
The instability of generic names is strikingly 
exemplified by this list. No less than one- 
eighth of the genera have been ‘changed’ dur- 
ing recent years, and in the attempt to find 
names which have unquestioned priority and 
are not preoccupied, the author has introduced 
unfamiliar terms for about 10 per cent. of the 
genera. In all such cases, however, the com- 
monly accepted designations are added in 
brackets. But it may be questioned whether 
he has really carried this work far enough, for 
several of the names left undisturbed are open 
to objection. 
Arctomys, which is usually credited to Schre- 
ber, 1792, can be traced back to 1780, but even 
with this early date it will probably haye to 
Hystricomorpha 
SCIENCE. 
105 
give way to Marmota Blumenbach, 1779. The 
latter appeared in the first edition of the Hand- 
buch d. Naturgeschichte—a rare volume, which 
is not accessible at present, and hence it is im- 
possible to ascertain what species were origi- 
nally placed in the genus.* 
Hamster Lacépéde appeared in 1801, whereas 
Cricetus was described by Cuvier in 1798, al- 
though not named until 1800. It was, how- 
ever, defined by Kerr in 1792, and therefore 
antedates Hamster by not less than nine years. 
This is an excellent illustration of the impor- 
tance of ascertaining the first publication of a 
name. Quoting Cricetus from Cuvier, Thomas 
assumes it to date from 1817 and rejects it in 
favor of Hamster, 1801. Had he found Cuvier’s 
first use of the Cricetus in 1800 he would have 
avoided changing a name which must now be 
restored. 
Celogenus Cuvier, 1807, appeared six years 
later than Lacépéde’s Agouti, the latter having 
been published in the Mem. de 1’ Institut, Paris, 
III, p. 494, 1801. As both of these genera 
were based on the same animal, Agouti paca 
(Linn.) is the proper name for the common 
paca. : 
Lagostomus Brookes, 1829, is antedated by 
Vizcacia Schinz, 1824,; and should be replaced 
by it. 
Ellobius Fischer, 1814, may be considered 
untenable by some zoologists because of the 
prior use of Ellobium by Bolten in 1798 fora 
genus of mollusks,{ but those who reject 
Ellobius must find a substitute for it, probably 
in Chthonoergus Nordmann, 1839. 
The references to the original description of 
each genus in the list will be found very useful, 
but in a number of cases the names were 
actually published from one to twelve years 
*In the 7th edition of the same work, published in 
1803, Blumenbach included Marmota alpina, MW. 
cricetus. M. lemmus, M. typhlus and M. capensis. 
+See Scrence, New Ser., VI., July 2, 1897, pp. 
21-22: 
tMuseum Boltenianum, 1798. See Adams, Gen. 
Recent Moll., II., 1858, p. 237. Both names are de- 
rived from the same Greek word, the neuter noun 
é126Biov, an ear ring. Should it be desirable to place 
the mammal genus in a separate subfamily, as Gill 
has already done, the designation Ellobiinze becomes 
identical with that in use for a subfamily of mollusks. 
