GENERA OF HYDNACEAE 437 
is the purpose of this paper to review these claims chiefly from 
a historical standpoint, believing it will serve to clear the air for a 
more critical study of generic relationships in this family. Be- 
fore entering upon this discussion it will be proper to state the 
most important principles by which it is proposed to determine the 
historical status of a generic name. 
This much vexed question is still in a very unsettled state, but 
it does not seem advisable to take up the space of this paper by a 
full discussion of the principles here adopted. In general they will 
be found to conform closely to those set forth by Professor L. M. 
Underwood in his paper “A Review of the Genera of Ferns pro- 
posed prior to 1832.” * 
1. Only generic names established in Linnaeus’ Species Plan- 
tarum, 1753, or later are considered.+ 
2. No generic name is considered as established unless it is: 
(2) Associated with one or more previously described species which 
are referred to with sufficient directness as to be recognizable, or 
(2) Associated with some species which is described for the first 
time at the publication of the name itself. Generic names founded 
with no hint of a species with which the name can be permanently 
associated will not be considered as holding any priority rights 
against names capable of being anchored to definite species (cf 
Underwood, Z. &.). 
3. Whenever a genus is established under a new generic name 
the name will be considered as permanently associated with the 
first-named species in the genus. This does not constitute such 
“ first-named species,” the ¢ype of the genus in any sense that in- 
volves the primary meaning of that term.t Nevertheless, the 
distinct designation of some other species as the “type” of his 
Senus by the author will be considered a sufficient ground for an 
€xception to the above rule. 
* Mem. Torrey Club, 6: 250. 
t This rule, laid down by the Rochester convention, compels us to ignore the older 
and more appropriate name Evinaceus for the leading genus of the family. 
t This is the key to my modification of Underwood’s rules. I have sought to 
‘void every expression that seemed to involve the idea of ‘type species,”” believing 
there is an ambiguity in the conception to which is to be attributed much of the con- 
Toversy that rages about this term. Moreover it does not seem to me possible to deter- 
Mune the true biological type of any genus in the present state of our knowledge. 
