No. 431.] NOTES AND LITERATURE. 913 
such omissions, doubtless seemingly necessary from the publishers’ 
standpoint, a matter of criticism. 
Notwithstanding the general excellence of Mr. Beddard's Mam- 
malia, there are a few slips and misstatements that should hardly 
pass without notice. While generally free from typographical errors, 
the reference on p. 415 to “Wortman and Malkens” might puzzle 
readers unprepared to recognize that * Malkens" is a misprint for 
Matthew. As a general criticism, it may be stated that the author is 
averse to the adoption of most of the recent changes in nomenclature, 
due to the enforcement of the foundation principle of nomenclature, 
the rule of priority. A few of them — and among them some of the 
most unwelcome— have been adopted, but in t inst the author 
is content to say, as in the notorious case of Trichechus for the wal- 
ruses: “This family contains but one genus, Trichechus, . . . Or 
Odobenus, as the more correct term seems to be.” And so on in 
many other instances, temporary convenience, at the cost of a 
vitiated nomenclature, being preferred to the slight inconvenience 
of introducing to the general public, and particularly to the rising 
generation of students, names recently established as the correct 
names, and which will therefore, sooner or later, become the familiar 
names in the literature of the subject. The conservatism of habit 
is thus allowed to retard progress in the attainment of a correct and 
stable nomenclature. Incidentally it may be added that the author 
recognizes only one species of walrus instead of two ; which is only 
to be explained on the ground of inertia or conservatism, and lack of 
actual investigation of the point in question; for although Mr. Bed- 
dard is almost ultra-conservative in the matter of species and genera, 
it is hardly possible to believe that he could say, ** There is but one 
species of walrus, though it has been attempted to show that the 
Pacific and Eastern forms are different," if he had actually compared 
the skulls of the two forms. : 
In his comment on the elephants he notes that (p. 22 1) the African 
elephant *has been sometimes referred to a distinct genus or sub- 
genus, Loxodon,” and later (p. 223) speaks of the Indian elephant as 
“ E-uelephas indicus, if the genus Loxodon is to be accept : "; whereas 
in reality the Indian elephant would in such case retain the name 
Elephas indicus, Euelephas being a synonym of Elephas. J udging from 
his treatment of the rhinoceroses (to pass over many other similar 
cases), the author’s conception of genera is open to revision, "e 
such groups (as well as the higher groups) are supposed to indicate 
degree of differentiation regardless of whether they consist of a 

