THE GENERIC NAMES MYRMECOPHAGA AND 
DIDELPHIS. 
OLDFIELD THOMAS. 
THERE have recently appeared in America two papers on 
these generic names, the one in this journal, by Mr. J. A. G. 
Rehn,! and the other, criticising the first, by Dr. J. A. Allen? 
The points raised in both appear to me to need further dis- 
cussion, especially with regard to the somewhat ready manner 
in which the species usually quoted as the type of each name 
is thrown aside as unrecognizable. 
I. MYRMECOPHAGA. 
With regard to Myrmecophaga tridactyla, which, if determi- 
nable, would admittedly be the type of the generic name, Mr. 
Rehn, while discussing Linnzeus’s references to Seba and Ray, 
altogether ignores the very first quotation of all, that to Marc- 
grave (* Tamandua-guacu, Marcgr. bras. 225"). On examina- 
tion Marcgrave's animal proves to be beyond all question the 
great ant-eater of Brazil, and on the general principle of taking 
the first important reference as the basis for Linnaeus's names 
we must clearly accept the great ant-eater as the type of the 
genus Myrmecophaga. 
Linnaus's words, “ macula nigra a pectore versus latus ducta 
.and “cauda lata,” are also diagnostic of the great ant-eater, 
mistaken as are his statements about the digits and mammary 
formula. 
It is unfortunate that the specific name, dating from the 
tenth instead of the twelfth edition of the Systema Nature, 
must be zridacty/a instead of the familiar jubata; but even this 
1 Am. Nat., vol. xxxiv, p. 575, July, 1900. 
2 Bull. Am. Mus. N. H., vol. xiii, p. 185. October, 1900. 
143 " 
