106 
earlier than here indicated. The author could 
hardly be expected to verify all his references 
and had he done so the result might not have 
justified the labor. Nevertheless, the failure 
to find the original description may result in an 
error which will necessitate a change in the 
type of a group or may even lead to the rejec- 
tion of a valid current name as in the case of 
Cricetus. As Mr. Thomas has evidently given 
merely the references usually quoted by au- 
thors, the remarks on this part of the paper 
should be regarded as supplementary notes 
rather than criticisms. For the benefit of those 
who may use the list, the earliest references are 
given below for genera which were published 
before the dates assigned by Thomas :* 
9. Arctomys Schreber, Saugthiere, plates 
CCVII.-CCIX. 1780, text IV., pp. 721-748, 1782 
(not £17927), 
16. [Myoxus Schreber, Saéugthiere, IV., plates 
CCXXY. A-B, CCXXVII., 1782, text IV., pp. 
824-831, 1787] (not ‘1792’). 
19. Graphiurus F. Cuvier, Proc. Zool. Soc. 
London, p. 5, July, 1838 (not ‘ 1845’). 
31. Rhombomys Wagner, Gelehrte Anzeige K- 
Bay. Akad. Wiss. Munchen, XII., pp. 421, 429, 
433, March, 1841 (not ‘ 1848’). 
35. Dendromus A. Smith, Zool. Journ., IV., 
pp. 488-439, Jan.—May, 1829 (not ‘1834’). 
61. Cricetus Kerr, Anim. Kingd., I, Mamm., 
pp. 42, 242-246, 1792 (not Cuvier, ‘1817’). 
72. Rhipidomys (Wagner), Tschudi in Wiegm, 
Archiv. 1844, I., p. 252 (mot ‘ 1845’). 
96. [Cuniculus Wagler, Nat. Syst. Amphi- 
bien, p. 21, 1830] (mot ‘ 1832’), 
— Fiber G. Cuvier (Tableau Elem. d’Hist. 
Nat. Anim., p. 141, 1798), Lecons d’Anat. 
Comp., I., Tabl. 1, 1800. 
100. Tachyoryctes Ruppell, Neue Wirbelthiere 
z. Fauna yon Abyssinien, Saiugth., pp. 35-87, 
Taf. 12, 1835. 
108. Heteromys Desmarest, Nouy. Dict. d’ 
Hist. Nat., 2d ed., XIV., pp. 180-181, 1817 
(mot ‘1822 7’). 
115. Dipus Schreber, Sdaugthiere, pls. 
CCXXVIII.-CCXXXII., 1782, text IV., pp. 
842-861, 1788-89 (not ‘Gmelin, 1788 ’).+ 
*To these may be added Fiber, omitted from the 
list, and Tachyoryctes, which has no reference. 
{ Those who agree with Sherborn in not recogniz- 
SCLENCE. 
(N.S. Vou. VI. No. 133. 
1387. Echimys Cuvier, Nouy. Bull. Soe. 
Philom., p. 394, Sept., 1809 (not ‘ Echinomys 
Desmarest, 1817’). 
155. Dolichotis Desmarest, Journ. de Phys., 
LXXXYVIII., p. 211, March, 1819 (not ‘1822”’). 
But however desirable it may be to obtain 
the earliest reference, a generic name can not 
date farther back than 1758 (the year when the 
10th edition of Linnzeus’ Systema Nature was 
published) or before the time when it was used 
as a scientific and not a vernacular name. 
Brisson’s genera of 1756 must date from 1762, 
and French names should not take precedence 
over others published later, but before the 
former appeared as Latin names. The follow- 
ing genera should therefore be quoted as indi- 
cated below : 
Spermophilus Cuvier, Dents des Mamm., 1825, 
pp. 160-161, 255, pl. LY. (not 1822), Glis 
Brisson, Regn. Animale, ed. 2, 1762, pp. 13, 
1138-118 (mot 1756) ; Atherurus F. Cuvier, Dict. 
Sci. Nat., LIX., 1829, p. 483 (not G. Cuvier, 
Régne Animal, 1829); Cercolabes, Brandt, 1835, 
Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersburg, 3d ser., 
IIl., pp. 55-58 (not F. Cuvier, 1822); Hydro- 
cherus Brisson, Reg. Animale, 1762, pp. 12, 
80-81 (not 1756). 
Neither should the apparent date of publica- 
tion be accepted when there is evidence to show 
that the name actually appeared earlier or later 
than indicated by the title page of the volume 
in which it was printed. For this reason 
Anomalurus should date from January, 1843, 
not 1842; Psammomys 1828, not 1826; Orez- 
nomys 1881, not 1880; Saccostomus 1846, not 
1847; Acomys 1888, not 1840; Chiropodomys 
1868, not 1869; Zapus 1875,'not 1873; Pectina- 
tor 1856, not 1855; Schizodon March, 1842, 
not 1841; Chextomys 1843, not 1848; Lagos- 
tomus 1829, not 1828. This question of exact 
dates may seem a very trivial matter, but 
when a difference of only a year or two in 
publication has necessitated the rejection of 
such well known names as Arvicola, Isomys and 
Ochetodon, it can readily be seen that, unless 
the date of publication is fixed with precision, 
generic names will never be stable. 
ing names on plates must quote Dipus from Bod- 
daert’s Elenchus Animalium, 1785, p. 47. In either 
case the authority isnot Gmelin, as given by Thomas. 
