140 cook: determining types of genera 



tained; but such a rule leads, in cases like the present, to a 

 mere shuffling of names, without historical warrant or practical 

 advantage. It seems more reasonable to hold that in using 

 olfersii exclusively as the basis of his genus Brandt himself des- 

 ignated the type of Spirobolus. The original application of the 

 name should not be subject to change by any later author, either 

 by proposing a new genus in the place of Spirobolus or by desig- 

 nating a different type for Spirobolus. Instead of being taken 

 as the type of Spirobolus, bungii should be associated with 

 Arctobolus, the genus of Spirobolidae that is dominant in the 

 temperate regions of North America. 



The case is one of many where types are not to be determined 

 from considerations of nomenclature alone. It would be use- 

 less to ask a nomenclatorial expert or commission to rule upon 

 Spirobolus without the pertinent facts. Instead of premature 

 regulations and decisions, the need is for more facts and more 

 thorough study of taxonomic problems. Adequate investigation 

 might lead to simple and practical solutions that could be applied 

 by any careful student. 1 



Complications have been increased unnecessarily in the effort 

 to force a general adoption of an imperfect system. Priority 

 has been pushed to extremes in the acceptance of names, only 

 to be disregarded in determining the applications of names. 

 Abortive names and synonyms that might well have remained 

 in oblivion have replaced many well-known names, and others 

 are being misapplied as a result of the practice of elimination. 

 That botanists and zoologists are using different methods of 

 typifying genera also shows how casual the study of taxonomic 

 problems has been. Such divergence of views can only mean 

 that the subject is not adequately understood, for the need of a 

 stable taxonomy is the same in both branches of biological science. 



1 Other phases of the question have been treated in previous papers. See, 

 Terms relating to generic types, The American Naturalist, 48: 308; and Fiat 

 nomenclature, Science, N.S., 40: 272. 



