he other five specimens to _S. p. phenax_ was
intentional, as he told one of us (Hall). He explained that he relied
upon the morphological characters of the individual animal instead of
upon the morphological characters of a population of animals. To him,
therefore, there was nothing inconsistent in his procedure in 1906.
Also, variation that was the result of difference in age and variation
that was the result of individual deviation were not understood, or at
least not taken into account, by Howell in 1906, nor by Merriam in
1890. For example, Merriam selected the most extensively white
specimen available to him for the holotype of _Spilogale leucoparia_.
He, and Howell in 1906, used the extensiveness of the white areas of
that particular specimen (see fig. 3, pl. 2, N. Amer. Fauna, 26, 1906)
as a character diagnostic of the "species" _S. leucoparia_ although
each of the authors had available two other specimens of _S.
leucoparia_ from the type locality, and all of the other referred
specimens in the United States National Museum, that were less
extensively white than the holotype. The _individual specimen_ was the
primary basis for the species or subspecies and one selected specimen
alone often was used in making comparisons between a given named kind
and some other species or subspecies. Also, be it remembered, degree
of difference, and not presence or absence of intergradation, was the
basis on which subspecific _versus_ specific rank was accorded to a
named kind of animal. Howell wrote on the labels of some specimens of
_Spilogale_ "not typical" when the individuals differed from the type
specimen in features that owe their existence to individual variation,
and he wrote the same words on the labels of other specimens that had
not yet developed mastoidal crests because the animals were not yet
adult.

Anyone who examines the specimens that Howell used will do well to
bear in mind the circumstances noted above concerning Howell's paper
of 1906; otherwise the reasons for Howell's identifications of certain
specimens can not be understood.

We have examined and compared the holotypes, and other specimens used
by Howell. While doing so we have borne in mind the degree of
individual variation well shown by each of several series of specimens
(for example, that in six adult males, from the Animas Mountains of
New Mexico, recorded by V. Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 53:339, 1932) and
age variation (for example, that shown in