| OCR Text |
Show 1014 MR. OLDEIELD THOMAS ON THE [Dec. 15, that the labour and time demanded would have rendered the preparation of the paper at all quite impossible, and partly because such diagnoses can never be really full and accurate unless prepared in connection with the working out of the species of each genus. Moreover, of all the groups he recognizes, Alston's paper contains diagnoses, and it would be superfluous to repeat them here. Where I differ from his conclusions full reasons are given in the footnotes. Comparing the numbers of recent families and genera recognized in the two papers, we have 18 families in Alston against 21 now, the difference being due to the Lophlomyldce being suppressed, and the Bathyergldce, Heteromyidce, Erethlzontldae, and Pedetldce added. Of genera Alston recognized 100, as against 159 n o w considered valid ; of the additional 59 just about half are formed by the breaking up of old genera and half are altogether new discoveries. Nomenclatural questions have of necessity cropped up here and there, and the recent work of American authors in this respect has been fully utilized. It is with the greatest regret that I have had to use a good many names unfamiliar to English naturalists, but the evidence in every case is so clear as to leave no room for doubt, and none are mere matters of opinion. Recognizing that the ultimate use of these names is inevitable, I. think the sooner a knowledge of them is disseminated the sooner will the intermediate stage of confusion be passed through and done with. Where comparatively unfamiliar names are used, the better-known terms are placed in brackets after them, as also are any special synonyms which it seems of importance to mention. It should be again repeated that the special object of the list is the proper allocation of the genera in their respective subfamilies, and I have purposely been as conservative as possible wdth regard to the groups of higher rank, following Alston wherever there has not been very special reason for departing from his arrangement. In regard, however, to Anomalurus and Aplodontia, both placed by him in the Sciuromorpha, I have had to give in m y adhesion to the views expressed by more recent authors, that these two aberrant genera cannot rightly be placed with the Squirrels. But where they should go is by no means clear-Winge, Zittel, and Tullberg all differing in the matter; nor can I say that I agree Avith any one of them. As it seems a pity to abolish the convenient and time-honoured groups Sciuromorpha, Myomorpha, and Hystricomorpha, just for the sake of these genera, I have thought it best to put each of them under a special group-name *, leaviug it for further research to show their true relationships. Fortunately, their serial position in the list, like that of Pedetes, may be left almost exactly as in Alston's paper. 1 I have purposely not used names ending in morpha, as, apart from the length and clumsiness of the resulting combinations, I do not think it at present advisable to consider the groups Anomaluri and Aplodontiae as of the same rank as the Sciuromorpha and tbe others. |
