108 INSECTIYORA. 



of tlie genus, so early as 1820, designated them under the generic name Tupaia, a 

 term derived from the Malay word Tupcd, which is applied generally by the 

 people to " various small animals which have the external form and the agility of 

 the squirrel."^ This term was strongly objected to by F. Cuvier on the ground of 

 its origin from the language of a semi-civilised people, and he proposed the name 

 Cladobates instead. I do not, however, see any very grave objection to the term 

 Tupaia, more especially as it was used by Raffles in no ambiguous sense, but 

 was accompanied by a definition of the genus. Temminck also protested against 

 the adoption of the term Tupaia, which was doubtless an unfortunate one, and 

 proposed Sy log ale in the interests of science, and under the belief tliat it wotdd 

 be accepted. 



In consequence of the rejection of the first generic term applied by the naturalist 

 who first defined the group, and had a fair knowledge for Ms time of its affinities, 

 we have this small group of animals now overbiu'dened by those generic terms, 

 Tupaia, Glisosorex, Cladobates, and Sylogale ; one body of naturalists accepting 

 Cladobates, and the English naturalists adhering to the name first appHed to it by 

 one of their own countrymen. It is much to be deplored that some common principle 

 as to the acceptance or rejection of terms, generic and specific, has not been laid 

 down for the guidance of naturahsts ; but I hold that if a classical origin is to be 

 insisted on, those naturalists who reject Tupaia on the ground of its being derived 

 from a savage tongue, should be consistent, and refuse their sanction to all specific 

 names having a similar origin. They accept, however, tana, a Malay word, and 

 reject Tupaia, a term derived from the same language. 



The term Tupaia has been adopted by Horsfield,^ Is. Geoff. St. HUaire,^ 

 Desmarest,* Eischer,^ Gray," Waterhouse,' Eeichenbach,^ Cantor,® Blyth,^" Jerdon," 

 and Mivart ;^^ whilst Cladobates, the rival term, has been used by Wagner," Giebel,'* 

 Zelebor,^^ and Eitzinger.^*^ I shall add one more to the first list of names by using 

 the original generic term Tupaia. 



The most important contributors to the history of this group are Horsfield, 

 S. Mliller and Schlegel, and Wagner, but their descriptions chiefly related to accounts 

 of the species. The first-mentioned author gave figures of the teeth, head, and 

 limbs ; and Mtiller and Schlegel figured the skulls of the species they described. 

 The skeleton, skull, and dentition of Tupaia, however, had been figured by Blainville,^' 

 and the dentition by Cuvier,^^ and, more recently, by Owen.^" The most exhaustive 



^ X. c. '° Cat, Mamm. As. Soc. Mus. 1863, p. 81. 



- L. c. " Mammals of India, 1867, p. 64. 



^ Belanger Voy. aux Indes, Vol. I, 1884, p. '- Mivart, Journ. Anat. and Phys. 1867, Vol. I, p. 293 ; Ibid 



103. 1868, Vol. II, p. 145. 



■* L. c. '3 SeJireb. Siiugeth. SuppL, vol. v. 



^ Syn. Mamm. ''' Odontographie, p. 18. 



6 Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1848, p. 23, and Br. '^ Siiugeth. Freg. Novara. 



Museum Cat., p. 76. w Sitzungsb. der k. Akad. Wien. Vol. LX, 1870. 



f Waterhouse, Ann. Nat. Hist. Sec. Ser. VI, " OsteograpHe (Insectiv.) pis. iii, vi, and x. 



1850, p. 135. '8 Dents des Mammif. No. xvii. 



* Eeichenbach Natur. 1834-36. w Odontography, pi. cxi, fig, 3. 

 3 Journ. As. Soc, Vol. XV, p. 188. 



