cook: determining types of genera 139 



named, S. olfersii from Brazil and S. bungii from northern 

 China. The generic description relates entirely to the char- 

 acters of the antennae and refers to a drawing of S. olfersii, 

 the only species figured. The characters as stated and illus- 

 trated are applicable only to S. olfersii, so that a strict inter- 

 pretation would exclude S. bungii. It seems plain that Spiro- 

 bolus was based wholly on S. olfersii, and that this species must 

 be considered as the true historical type of the genus. 



Nevertheless, Spirobolus bungii has been designated as the type 

 of the genus, on the ground that the establishment of Rhino- 

 cricus in 1881 had the effect of removing olfersii, so that only 

 bungii was left. But now it appears that olfersii was not really 

 removed, since Rhinocricus needs to be maintained as a distinct 

 genus, with the Porto Rican Rhinocricus parous as type. Even 

 if olfersii and parens were congeneric, there would still be no ade- 

 quate reason why the publication of Rhinocricus should be sup- 

 posed to take away the historical type of Spirobolus and change 

 the application of the name. Obviously, any later name based 

 on olfersii, or on any species truly congeneric with olfersii, should 

 be treated simply as a synonym of Spirobolus. 



Under the law of priority a name has to be replaced if another 

 is older, but elimination often has the effect of replacing an older 

 name by a later one. Changing the type makes it possible for a 

 later synonym to supplant an old, well-known generic name, 

 which is then slipped along to a different application. To 

 assume that the naming of Rhinocricus could have the retro- 

 active effect of transferring the name Spirobolus from a Brazilian 

 genus represented by olfersii to a Chinese genus represented by 

 bungii, is neither consistent with priority nor in the interest of 

 stability. 



Transferring Spirobolus to China has the effect of giving the 

 same name to a second genus. Altering the application of the 

 name subverts the law against homonyms. Future writers and 

 readers must guard themselves against confusing the two genera 

 to which the name Spirobolus has been applied. 



Some taxonomists hold that the first formal designation of a 

 type species, however arbitrary or erroneous, must be main- 



