The occurrence of the Canada porcupine in Maryland

PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 161

Radialformula.—D. VII, I, 9; A. II, 7{; P. 16; V, ^I, 5.

Scales, inlateral line, 45^; abovelateralline, 3^; below, 9.

Colornearlyuniform light, reddish brown,with no blotches. Scales

finely imiu'lnlate withback.

—

^/

Our

description isbashed

upon museum

specimen ISTo.26228.

Among

the otherinterestingformscollected in the

same

localityis a

young

specimen of Hoplosteihus mediterraneiis,

and

also a species of Scorpcena, soonto bedescribed.

mXITAIililC

CASTINGS OF DEIilCATE

IVATUBAIi

OBJECTS.

[Translated.]

The

following process is

recommended by Abbass

fori^roducing me-

talliccastings of flowers, leaves, insects, &c.

The

object, adead beetle forexample,isfirstarrangedin a naturalposition,

and

the feetare con- nected withanovalrim ofwax. Itisthenfixedinthe centreofapaper or

wooden

box

by means

of pieces offinewire, sothat it isperfectlyfree,

and

thickerwires arerun fromthe sidesofthe

box

to theobject, which subsequently serve to form air-channels in the

mold by

their removal.

A wooden

stick,taperingtowardthe bottom, isplaceduponthe back of the insect to produce a runner for casting.

The

box i^ then filled

up

with a paste of three parts of plaster of Paris,

and

one of brick-dust,

made up

with asolutionof

alnm

and sal ammoniac. Itis alsowellfirst tobrushtheobjectwiththis pasteto prevent the formationofairbub-

bles. After the

mold

thusformed has set, the object is

removed

from theinterior

by

first reducing it to ashes. It is thereforedried slowly,

and

finally heated gradually to a red heat,

and

then allowed to cool slowlyto prevent the formation of flaws or cracks.

The

ashes are re-

moved by

pouring mercury into the cold mold

and

shaking it thor- oughly before pouring it out,

and

repeating this operation several times.

The

thicker wires arethen

drawn

out,

and

the

mold

needs sim- plyto be thoroughlyheated before it is filledwith metal in order that the latter

may

flow into allportions of it. After it has

become

coldit is softened

and

carefullybroken

away

from thecasting.

THE OCCURRENCE OF THE CANADA PORCUPINE

IN ITIARVIiAND.

By OTTO I.UOOEB.

Referringtothe paper ontheoccurrenceof the

Canada

^Porcupine in

West

Virginia

by

Mr. Goode, in Vol. I, Proceedings U. S. National

Museum,

page 264, I wish to mention that this Porcupine, EretMzon

dorsaiiis, is still, though rarely, found in Maryland. In the

museum

of the

Maryland Academy

of Sciences is a specimen from

AUeghany

Proc.Nat. Mus. 81 11

Aug. 11,1881.

162 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.

County, Maryland.

Another

specimen I

saw

living inconfinementin theBlue Eidge Mountains, where it

was

caught

two

years ago.

One was

killed quiterecentlynearEllicottCity, Maryland.

Maryland Academy of

^Sciences,

Baltimore,

May

22, 1881.

NOTC: OJV

TBE

liATIIiOin

OEIVEKA.

By THEODORE

^OIL.L..

In alate

number

of the Proceedingsof theU. S. National

Museum

(Vol.IV, p. 53), Messrs. Jordan

and

Gilbert have accepted the

name Bekaya

instead of Gaulolatilus for agenus of the familyLatilidce, with afoot-note, ^^Gaulolatilus, Gill:

nomen

nudum.'" In order that the adop- tionofthisview

may

beatoncearrested,it isadvisabletogiveahistory of those names.

In 1862, inthe "Proceedingsof the

Academy

of Natural Sciencesof Philadelphia" (p. 240),the

name

Gaulolatilus

was

proposed as the ge- neric denomination of Latilus chrysops

and

its allies,in the following terms

:

"The

Malacanthini of

Poey

forma naturalfamily.

The

Latilus chrys- ops, VaL, does not,however, appear to be congenericwith the typeof Latilus, but is distinguished

by

its form

and

thestructure of thefins.

It

may

becalled Gaulolatilus chrysops."

It willbethus seen (1) that therespectsin

which

Gatilolatilus differs

from Latilus were indicated; (2) the relationships were exactlyappre- ciated; ₍₃₎a specific type

was

mentioned. There could consequently be no doubt^{as to}

what was meant

^{nor asto}the characters

by

which it

shouldbedistinguished.

In 1864, inthe "Proceedings of the California

Academy

of Natural Sciences" (Vol. _3, p. 70),Dr. Cooper proposed the

name

oi

Bekaya

fora supposed

new

fish, concerningwhich he

had

not the slightestconcep- tionas toitsproperrelationships,consideringit "tobe avery aberrant form of the Percoid family, having

many

of the characters of other orders" [sic!_],but thaton the whole^itseemedtobe mostnearlyrelated to "the genus Heterognaihodon, of Bleeker."

The

remarks respecting the "other orders"

and

the affinities indicated themost completemis- apprehension as to the type.

The

description

was

equally at fault.

The

"general shape"

was

said to be "elongated

and

fusiform,"although a shape less "fusiform" could scarcely be associated with moderate elongation. In otherrespectsthedescription

was

faulty

and

erroneous orvague,buttheselapsesneednot detainlonger.

The

question arises insuchacase.

What

istheadvantage of

any

de- scription? Accordingtotherulesof the British

and American

associa-