228 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 
lichtenstei:n’b pluraj. distributive generic names 
BUBALIDES, CONNOCHAETES AND GAZELLAE. 
In 1814 Lichtenstein (Alag. Ges. naturf. Ereund. Berlin, vol. 6, p. 15 l> 
and following) in a monograph of the genus A?^^^7ope recognized 2h species 
in that genus and grouped them into 4 tribes: “ Buhalidesf' With 8 
species; “ Connochaetes,” with one species; '"Antilopae genuinae,” with 
8 species, and Gazellae with 12 species, the names of the tribes being in 
plural distributive form. The names applied to two of the tribes have 
found their way into systematic zoology in the form of singular collective 
nouns as valid terms for well established genera of Ungulates, Lichten¬ 
stein being commonly cited as their authority. A third name, Conno¬ 
chaetes, is in current use, still iu its plural form, for another genus. The 
fourth tribe designation, “Antilopae genuinae,’* having no semblance of 
a generic or subgeneric name has never entered nomenclature, though in 
analogy with Gazella and Bubalis, A7itilopa might be construed as an 
emendation of the original and currently used Antilope. It seems curious 
that the singular spelling of Connochaetes does not appear to have been 
used by authors. Yet if sanction be given to Bubalis and Gazella, why 
not employ Connochaeta or Connochaetef 
Although the a.ssemblages of species in Lichteiistein’s “Tribus” desig¬ 
nated by plural distributive nouns are the e(puvalent of modern genera, 
the fact is that the currently used Bubalis and Gazella as singular collec¬ 
tive nouns do not occur in Lichtenstein. They should accordingly take 
date and authorship from the first writer to use them as singular collective 
nouns applied to subgenera or genera. The case of Connochaetes is 
similar with the difference that subsequent writers u.sing it seem to think 
it is in singular collective form. Consideration of each of Lichtenstein’s 
mononomial terms and their subsequent use as singular collective nouns 
results as follows: 
Bubalides Lichtenstein, 1814, is a plural distributive noun and as such 
is not the proper designation of a subgenus. The next use of this word 
is by Rafinesque as Bubalis (Analyse de la Nature, p. 56) iu 1815. It is 
there a singular collective noun but stands without description or refer¬ 
ence. The earliest use of Bubalis as a valid name and a collective word 
is a{)parently by Goldfuss in 1820 (Ilandb. ZooL, vol. 2, jn 867). Here it 
occurs as [section or subgenus] “a” of the genus Antilope I’&lhds with 
the species “A. bubalis L. Vache de Barbarie. Menag. du IMus I, ]). o46,” 
type by tautonomy, and “A. caama Cuv. llarteheest. Cerf du Caj). 
Schreb. t. 277.” Bubalis, Frisch, 1775 (Syst. vierf. Thier., ]>. 2) should he 
ignored as being employed by a non-binary author (see Thomas and 
Miller, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 7, vol. 16, p. 468, 1905). 
Gazellae Lichtenstein, 1814, is not used as a singular collective noun 
and consequently can not be considered as the proper designation of a 
subgenus of antilopes. The first use of the word as a singular collective 
noun is by Rafinesque (Analyse de la Nature, p. 56), 1815, but like 
Bubalis it appears without description or reference. It was next em¬ 
ployed by Blainville (Bull. Soc. Philom., 1816, p. 78) one year later as a 
subgenus of Antilope, adequately described, and with nine species: dorcas, 
kevella, corinna, subgutturosa, euchore, pygara, koba, kob, and nasorna- 
