-HERPESTIDES ANTIQUUS 
fig. 2 The holotype of ‘Lutra’ minor Lydekker, 1885 (BMNH 25449), a 
_ partial left dentary with P, and M,; a, dorsal view; b, lateral view; c, 
medial view. 
ligocene’ of “Issoire, Puy-de-Dome [sic], France’. It is thus essen- 
tally consistent with Gervais’s (1859) statement.There is noevidence, 
1owever, to support claim that just this label accompanied the 
iolotype when it was examined by Gervais, or that the data included 
nit corresponded to those of any original but now lost label known to 
hat worker. On the contrary, it seems to be more probable that the 
yerson who wrote the present label simply followed Gervais (1859), 
specially as both the old vertebrate register at NHM (which recorded 
Ilier’ as the locality of the holotype) and Lydekker (1885: 185) (who 
lescribed it as ‘the Lower Miocene of St. Gérand-le-Puy (Allier)’) 
upport Pomel’s (1853, 1854) statement that Langy was the place 
vhere the type specimen of ‘Plesictis’ croizeti was collected. 
 Inconclusion, the correct name of the type locality of ‘Plesictis’ 
roizeti Pomel, 1847 is Langy in the department of Allier, central 
france. The accurate placement of this fossil site is vague. Its age 
_ orresponds to theAgenian, early Early Miocene, as indicated by the 
xclusively Agenian occurrence of many taxa (e.g. Herpestides 
ntiquus) attributed by Pomel (1853, 1854) to Langy. 
UTRA’ MINOR 
AXONOMIC HISTORY. 
Jame Lutra minor to a ‘[f]}ragment of the right ramus of the mandi- 
le, containing the last premolar and the carnassial; from the Lower 
iocene of Mombach, near Mayence’, purchased in ‘1850’ by the 
jritish Museum (Natural History). He referred that specimen to 
Lydekker (1885: 195) applied the specific 
5) 
register number 25440. However, as seen from the vertebrate regis- 
ters at NHM, the number 25440 has never been allocated. Instead, 
the old vertebrate register records under number 2544¢g, a ‘[f]ragment 
of lower jaw of S[tephanodon]. minor’ with ‘2 molars in situ’ from 
“Mayence’, purchased in ‘Aug[ust]. 1850’ from ‘M. Becker’. The 
specimen BMNH 25449 is accompanied by two labels. One of them, 
which is glued to the fossil, displays its register number in which the 
‘9’ is of blurred appearance (see Fig. 2a—b), which may have been 
the reason for Lydekker’s mistake. The other label, lying in the 
specimen’s box, reads as follows: ‘Fragmentary mandibular ra- 
mus[;] Potamotherium minor, Meyer sp.[;] Form" Lower Miocene[;] 
Loc’ Mombach, near Mayence[;] Purch* 1850[;] Cat. 1, p. 149[;] 
Brit. Mus. Geol. Dept. 25449. The reference to p. 149 in the first part 
of Lydekker’s catalogue (1885) is an error, of course, because this 
page is actually devoid of any mention of this fossil; instead, the 
name of the ursoid carnivoran Cephalogale minor Filhol, 1879a is 
quoted there. Another inconsistency between Lydekker’s (1885) 
account of “Lutra’ minor and the data available on BMNH 25449 is 
that the latter represents the left branch of the mandible, and not the 
right one as indicated by that author. Otherwise, BMNH 25449 fits 
Lydekker’s description exactly. Moreover, there is no other fossil in 
the collections of The Natural History Museum in London, which 
could represent Lydekker’s specimen. Accordingly, we conclude 
that BMNH 25449 must be the specimen referred by Lydekker 
(1885) to Lutra minor. 
Lydekker (1885) treated the name Lutra minor as a new combina- 
tion for Stephanodon minor, deemed by him to be erected by 
Hermann von Meyer. However, Lydekker (1885: 195, footnote 1) 
‘ha[d] been unable to find a reference to this species’. The old 
vertebrate register at NHM refers the specific name Stephanodon 
minor to specimen 25449, but without any relation to von Meyer’s 
name. Instead, this German palaeontologist is cited in the register in 
connection with number 25448 (“Stephanodon monbachensis [sic] 
V. Meyer’ ) attributed to the holotype of Stephanodon mombachensis 
von Meyer, 1847, which is indeed a junior synonym of the arctoid 
carnivoran Potamotherium valletoni (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1833). 
According to the register, that fossil and three others catalogued 
under numbers 25450-25452 were purchased in August 1850 from 
M. Becker as coming from ‘Mayence’, exactly as specimen 25449. 
In all likelihood, all these fossils had been studied by von Meyer 
before they were conveyed to the British Museum. It is thus just 
possible that H. von Meyer gave the name Stephanodon minor to 
specimen 25449. At any rate, it is very probable that a label stating 
this name accompanied the specimen originally and was known to 
Lydekker. Its existence was explicitly stated by Pohle (1920: 17; 
‘Das Stiick war von v. Meyer mit dem Namen etikettiert worden’), 
who, however, provided no evidence to support his statement. 
Regardless of this, even if von Meyer was really responsible for the 
name Stephanodon minor, as declared by Lydekker (1885) and 
followed by Trouessart (1885, 1897, 1904), Schlosser (1888), Pohle 
(1920), and Haupt (1935), he has not satisfied the criteria of avail- 
ability of that name and therefore cannot be considered its author 
according to Article 50 (a) of the JCZN. Instead, Lydekker (1885), 
who satisfied these criteria through both publishing the name of this 
taxon and stating in footnote | on his p. 195 that ‘this species [. . .] 
may be only a smaller form of [Lutra valetoni]’, is the author of the 
name whose correct original spelling is Lutra minor. 
The name-bearing type of “Lutra’ minor has never been figured or 
adequately described in the literature. The only published informa- 
tion relating to its size and morphological characteristics is that of 
Lydekker (1885: 195, footnote 1) that ‘Lutra’ minor ‘may be only a 
smaller form of’ Potamotherium valletoni. The subsequent authors 
confined themselves to following this assumption. Trouessart (1885, 
