466 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 103 Nomenclature The generic name Tapirus employed here is from Briinnich, 1771. Scopoli's use of Tapirus in 1777 is next available. For rejection of Brisson's Tapirus and other Latin names in his "Regnum Animale," 1762, see Hopwood (Proc. Zool. Soc. London, vol. 117, pp. 534-536, 1947). Tapirus Briinnich is adopted here on the same authority, a copy of the "Zoologiae Fundamenta . . . ," where the generic name appears, not being available in this country. Merriam (Science, new ser., vol. 1, p. 376, 1895) employed an ingenious device in his attempt to validate Tapirus Brisson. He combined his own with Brisson's (Regnum Animaie, p. 81, 1762) monomial specific Latin designation for "Le Tapir" to produce the custom-made binomial Tapirus tapirus. This combination is valid, to be sure, but dates from its originator, MeiTiam, 1895, and not from Brisson. The question that has arisen over the basic date of publication of the "Regnum Animaie" is en-tirely subordinate to the fact that the system of classification em-ployed therein is incontrovertibly non-Linnaean. Hence, Brisson's Latin names, really classical rather than technical, are not available. Bibliographic references and citations to generic synonyms are given under the subgeneric headings. Synonymies under specific headings include references to all original descriptions and to selected taxonomic works. Classification Cranial and external differences between living species of American tapirs are such as to warrant full generic rank for each of the recog-nized forms, Simpson (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 86, pp. 40-41, 1945) agreed with this in theory but found it impractical to recognize a multiplicity of closely related monot3^pic genera of Recent arid Pleistocene tapirs. Accordingly, he grouped all species in the genus Tapirus. The simplified nomenclature can be justified in this special case because whatever hierarchic terminology is employed in classification interrelationships remain the same. However, the real separation between each of the species should be emphasized by adding to Simpson's system the available subgeneric names. Living and fossil tapirs were first reviewed in a classical study by Hatcher (Amer. Journ. Sci., ser. 4, vol. 1, art. 17, 1896). Simpson (op. cit.) summarized much of the information since accumulated and described and analyzed the osteology of North American Recent and Pleistocene tapirs. Concerning modem American species, these au-thors agreed that ierrestris, bairdii, and pinchaque (roulinii) are repre-sentative. Other named forms were regarded as either absolute syno-nyms or, at best, subspecies of one or another of the three species cited.