^■^'"•2-] ALLEN ON THE GENUS NASTTx\. 109 



ziiTS (ill 18G9, on the identification of Dr. Peters) and Hensel (187o) 

 recognized the Mexican Coati as specifically distinct from tlie common 

 Sontli American species, adopting for it Maximilian's name leucorlnjn- 

 chus. This name, however, is antedated by the Linniean name nnrica, 

 which mnst tali,e precedence for the species. 



In addition to the above complication of synonymy, I had the morti- 

 fying misfortnue, in 1877, to add another, by describing and figuring a 

 skin under the name Bassaricyon gabhu* supposing it at the time to be 

 the sldn belonging to the skull previously figured and described by met 

 under that name. Without going into details respecting the attenuatmg 

 circumstance of the case, or how I was led into such an egregious blunder, 

 I will merely state that the skin described and figured as that of Bansa- 

 r icy on gahhii, as above cited, has nothing whatever to do with that species, 

 but is simi)ly the Mexican Coati, JSfasua narica, and that the external 

 characters of the true Bassaricyon gahhii remain still wholly unknown. 



Geographical Distribution. — The first recent mention of the Coati 

 as an inhabitant of Mexico appears, as pre^"iously noted, to have been made 

 by Dr. Weinland in 1860, who states, on the authority of Dr. Miiller, that 

 it is common over the whole of the eastern slope of the high tablehinds, 

 or " Terra templada," but does not occur in the "Terra calienta" of the 

 coast region. He adds that, notwithstanding this, he finds no previous 

 mention of its occurrence. De Saussure, in 1862, endorses Dr. Wein- 

 land's statement that iDrevious writers had made no mention of the occur- 

 rence of the Coati in Mexico, although, he says, it is one of the com- 

 monest mammals of that country. Tomes, in 1861, gives JSfasua fuscam 

 the list of mammals collected in Guatemala by Mr. Salviu, but without 

 comment. Dr. von Frantzius, in 1869, refers to Nasiia JeucorhyncJi us as of 

 common occurrence in Costa Eica. These are the only references to its 

 distribution I have met with that I consider as of unquestionable authen- 

 ticity. As already stated, owing to the absence of all reference to the 

 occurrence. In South America, of a species of Coati with a white nose and 

 unicolored tail, except von Tschudi's statement that his N. leucorliynclms 



being fully develoioed, we found tliem still veiy different. Dr. Miiller's (now ui tLe 

 Zoological Garden of Frankfort) liad already all of the cliaracters of N. soUtaria, ^yliilo 

 mine, on the contrary, belonged to the type of N. socialis, Avhich sufficiently showed 

 that the differences are not merely those of age. 



"To show what they are the following descriptions of both types are given, based 

 on many individuals, either stuffed or in skins, which I brojight from Mexico."— Zoo- 

 logisclie Garten, Jahrgang iii, 18G2, pp. 52-5^5. 



Very detailed descriptions of both species then follow, from which it appears that 

 his " A^. socialis" is merely the lighter-colored and his "^^. soUtaria^' the darker plia.so 

 of the common X. narica; and, furthermore, that M. De Saussure could not have been 

 very familiar Avith the characters of the Brazilian species. I will hero observe that in 

 all probability the "Tejo solo" of the Mexicans, like the "Pisote solo" of the Costa 

 Ricans, and the "Coati mondeo" of the Brazilians, as shown by von Frantzius and 

 Hensel, was given to the old solitary males. 



*Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1877, p. 207, pi. ii. 



tProc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 187G. p. 20, pi. i. 

 Bull. V, 2 2 



