30 
JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY 
The 10 genera referred to the Plantigrades follow in a single column, 
the vernacular names standing first and the technical equivalent 
following it in parenthesis, thus : 
Coati (Nasua). 
Kincajou (Potos). 
Taupe (Talpa). 
Musaraigne (Sorex). 
Herrisson (Erinaceus ) . ’ ’ 
‘‘Ours (Ursus). 
Raton (Lotor). 
Glouton (Gulo). 
Blaireaux (Taxus). 
Mangouste (Mungos). 
Four of these genera are credited to Linne; two {Gulo, Nasua) date 
from Storr (1780); the other four {Lotor, Taxus, Mungos, Potos) first 
appear here, but two of them are antedated by names given by Storr 
{Lotor by Procyon, Taxus by Meles), leaving two, Mungos and Potos, 
both in current use. Potos was monotypic, with “ Viverra caudivolvula, 
JjP as type. Mungos contained two species, Viverra ichneumon Linn4 
and Viverra mungo Gmelin. Viverra mungo is therefore automatically 
the genotype of Mungos. Furthermore, Viverra mungo is not a species 
of Herpestes Illiger (type, Viverra ichneumon Linne, by several “sub- 
sequent designations’’)? it being noncongeneric with the genotype of 
Herpestes. 
As already shown ‘La Mangouste’ of Buff on and Daubenton is the 
banded mongoose of Africa, the Crossarchus fasciatus of current nomen- 
clature, which should henceforth bear the name Mungos mungo 
(Gmelin). Ariela Gray (1864) is a synonym of Mungos, having been 
especially founded for the South African banded mongoose {Ichneu- 
mon tcenionotus A. Smith) under a misapprehension of its real char- 
acters. Mungos of Gray (Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1864, pp. 575-577), 
it singularly happens, is essentially the Mungos of Geoff roy and Cuvier, 
although Gray apparently knew nothing of the Mungos of these earlier 
French authors, this agreement being apparently a coincidence. Under 
his Mungos fasciatus Gray placed Herpestes mungo Desmarest, thus 
rendering this species, under modern rules, automatically the genotype 
of his genus Mungos. 
The restoration of Mungos to its proper place in nomenclature need 
not in the least disturb the 'stability of Crossarchus F. Cuvier (1825), 
which has, by monotypy, Crossarchus ohscurus F. Cuvier as its geno- 
type, for which and later described allied forms it should be retained. 
As thus restricted Crossarchus forms a group very different from the 
banded mongooses for which Mungos is available and to which it should 
be restricted. Gray showed good judgment in separating the two 
