On Dr. Glcjer^s Mammalian Generic Names. 189 XXII. — An Analysis of the Mammalian Generic Names given in Dr. C. W. L. Gloyer's ' Naturgeschichte ' (1841).' By Oldfield Thomas. In Gloger's work on Natural History, which, although the titlepage bears the date 1842, was really published in 1841 *, a large number of mammals were given new generic names ; and it is the purpose of the present paper to analyze these names and to see how far they demand recognition, as they have hitlierto been practically overlooked by mammalogists. Fortunately examination proves that very few of them supersede names now in use ; but in any case it seems advis-able that the names should be systematically analyzed, the synonyms sorted, and the valid ones put forward for the accept-ance of such zoologists as, like myself, believe that the sooner we reinstate, at any inconvenience to ourselves, the names which are technically correct, the sooner zoological nomen-clature will attain some stability. In the present case, although Gloger's work contains no less than seventy-three new generic terms for mammals, apart from those given to other animals, yet scarcely half a dozen are of any importance, as will be shown below. Gray alone, to whom I owe the reference, with his usual extraordinary knowledge of out-of-the-way literature, has occasionally quoted Gloger's generic names, but by other mammalogists tliey seem to have been systematically ignored. The names themselves are for the most part given to each genus as a whole, commonly without mention of species, and often with the old generic name appended, the author, like llliger and others, assuming a right to change such names as he thought barbarous or unclassical. In these cases therefore no further subdivision of the genera will bring Gloger's names into use, as whatever species may be the type of the earlier and quoted generic names will remain the type for Gloger's substituted one. The work of preparing the present paper has been much * At least, so far as the mammals are concerned. This statement is based on the fact that in the number of ' Isis ' for May 1841 (Heft v. p. 379) there is a review of Gloger's " Hefts 1 and 2, pages 1-160," which were therefore clearly published at this date. Even so far as regards the remaining parts of the volume, although not criticized until May 1842 (Heft V. p. 394), they are there spoken of as " Hefts 3 and 4, pages 161-400, ISUi^ a fact which must be borne in mind by ornithologists who may be iuterested^in the question, although it may be a mere misprint. The mammals extend to p. 174, but there are no names afiected by this ques-tion in the fourteen last pages.
BioStor
