General Notes. 
220 
culata.^ Tlie type of Blainville’s genus Gazella was selected by Ogilby in 
ISo? (I roc. Zool. vSoc. London, vol. 4, p. 137) as Antilope dorcas and tbe 
snl)genus itself was raised to generic rank. 
Connochaeles of Lichtenstein, 1814, has the same criticisms against it as 
have Gazellae and Babalides, but the word is not so obviously in plural 
distributive form, ft has been adopted in its original s})elling by most 
recent authors as tbe generic name of the gnus. According to the gener¬ 
ally accepted rules the proper form of the word should be Connochneta if 
admitted into nomenclature at all. Subsequent to Lichtenstein’s dis¬ 
tributive use of Connochaeles, no author apjiears to have used the word 
until Gray mentions it in 1843 (List Spec. Mamin, licit. Mus., p. XXVJ) 
spelled Connochetes. ^Meantime two other generic names had lieen jiro- 
posed embracing the gnus, Cemas, Oken, ISKi (Lehrbuch Naturgesch., 
part 3, vol. 2, p. 737) and Catablepas, Gray, 1821 (London Medical lle- 
pository, vol. 15, p. 307), each with the same type. Antilope gnu Gmelin 
(See Sclater and Thomas, Book of Antelopes, vol. 1, p. 93, 1895). The 
singular collective Cemas should thus replace the plural distributive Coa- 
nochaetes. This change is not far reaching because Gray in 1850 (Knowsley 
iMenagerie, p. 20) proposed Gorgon as a subgenus of Catablepas. Gorgon, 
embracing all the gnus except the white-tailed gnu, has lately been 
raised to generic rank (Heller, Smiths. Mi.sc. Coll., vol. 0, no. 8, j)p. 3, 
19; Roosevelt and Heller, Life Flistories African Game Animals, p. 361, 
1914). The white-tailed gnu would thus constitute the genus Cemas. 
It is hoped the publication of this note will bring attention to generic 
and subgeneric names used in plural distributive form and perhaps lead 
to some uniformity in treating them. A few other plural generic names 
exist in mammalogy, but only Lichtenstein’s three genera mentioned 
above are taken seriously, the others being properly ignored. 
— M. W. Lyon, Jr. 
FURTHER NOTE ON THE GENERIC NAME OF THE COLLARED 
PECCARIES. 
Dr. J. A. Allen has kindly called my attention to the fact that my 
recent conclusion* regarding the generic name of the collared peccaries 
is incorrect. While it is true that Palmer in 1904 regarded the species 
torquatus as type of Cuvier’s genus Dicotyles, Gray in 1868t had selecteiU 
labiatus (Cuvier 1817 = pecari Fischer 1814). As labiatus {= pecari) 
was already type § of Tayassu Fis(4ier 1814, the name Dicotyles lapses 
into synonymy. Reichenbach’s Pecari 1835, |1 is therefore the earliest 
o-eneric name available for the collared peccaries. 
— Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. 
* These Proceedings, p. 215. October 31,1914. 
t Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1868, p. 45. 
I See Opinion No. 6, Int. Conun. Zool. Nonienclnture. .inly, 1910. 
$ By absolute tautonyniy. As a synonym of liis accurately diagnosed and described 
Tayassu jjecari, “ T. corpore nigro, maxilI4 inferiore albft.''Fischer places the name 
“Sus Tajassu Linn. Gmel. syst. nat. 219. n. 3.” (Zoognosia. vol. 3, p. 285). 
II Bildergalerie der Thierwelt, Heft 6, p. 1. Type by monotypy Sus torquatus Cuvier. 
The entire case is correctly stated in my List of North American Land Mammals in the 
United States National Museum, 1911, pp. 383, 384, December 31, 1912, except that a 
reference to Gray, 1868, should take the place of the words “ now selected,” under 
Dicotyles, in line 9, p. 384. 
