28 
ZOOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
Algeria ( TIrms faidhethianus)^ and on this occasion reviews the evidence re- 
garding the occurrence of one or two living species in the Atlas. Ann. Sc, 
Nat. 1867, viii. pp. 41-61. 
Ursus lasiotus is described as a new species by Dr. Gray, Ann. & Mag. Nat. 
Hist. XX. p. 801, from North China. Mr. Sclater believes that it had been 
previously named by Pucheran. 
'^Ursus piscator, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 817, with woodcut of head. 
Ursus formosanus (Swinhoe) appears to be a rather doubtful species, as 
regards external characters. Sclater, 1. c. 
Nasua. Dr. Hensel thinks that all the species should be united into one, 
N. soUtaria being established for old males. The skulls are subject to very 
great changes, dependent on sex and age. Sitzgsber. ntrf. Freund. Berl. 
f. 1867, p. 22. 
Phocidje. 
Otaria hookeri. On the cause of death of a specimen in the menagerie of 
the Zoological Society. Murie, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 243-44. 
Macroi'hinus angustirostris^ sp. n., Gill, Proc. Chicago Ac. Sc. i. pp, 33, 34,_.- 
founded on a skull from Lower California. 
Ar otocephalus f sp. ? An interesting account of the observations made by 
Capt. Th. Musgrave on a Seal very abundant on the Auckland .X^ands is 
contained in his ‘Castaway on the Auckland Isles,’ London, 1^66, 8vo, 
pp. 141-160. 
Trichechus rosmarus. Notes on a living example obtained by the Zoolo- 
gical Society of London, by Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 818-820. 
ROSORES. 
Dr. L. J. Fitzinger has written an Attempt at a Natural 
Arrangement of Rodents in Sitzgsber. Ak. Wiss. Wien, 1867, 
Iv. pp. 453-515, and Ivi. pp. 57-168. He commences by giving 
an abstract of the systems proposed by Illiger, Cuvier, Kaup, 
Milne-Edwards, Waterhouse, Wagner, and Gray (1843), adopting 
that of Wagner with some modifications. Chiromys is the type 
of the first of the fourteen families adopted by the author. He 
then proceeds to give the dignoses of the genera, adding a list of 
the species, with synonyms, but without reference to the works 
in which they are described. He proposes some generic divi- 
sions, and also changes some of the specific names, with which he 
does not appear to have been pleased. 
We abstain from giving an abstract of this paper, which, al- 
though very bulky, is quite valueless. It appears to be a mere 
compilation from some of the standard works on Mammalia, and 
shows no trace of original research. We can hardly con- 
ceive how an author who has not access to either the neces- 
sary materials or the literature can venture to undertake a 
natm'al arrangement of an order which, among Mammalia, has 
the greatest variety of types, and, yet, is in a state of “ infinite 
confusion.^^ A preliminary study of species is generally deemed 
necessary for the definition of genera; but the author is satisfied 
with giving a simple uncritical list of species. The researches of 
