158 Stcbbing Mamaia ami Mamaiidse. 



to represent the Dutch i j, which would throw some doubt on 

 the Latinity of Paramaya. 



Miss Rathbun argues that it was not within de Haan's com 

 petence, after the publication of his plate, to make the change 

 which he recorded in his text. But here a question arises of 

 somewhat wider interest than the immediate subject of our con 

 troversy. 



In the introduction to his very valuable ' ' Index Animalium ' ' 

 (p. vii, Cambridge, 1902) Mr. C. D. Sherborn lays down a rule, 

 for which he is himself, I imagine, exclusively responsible. He 

 says : 



The figure depicted on a plate may, or may not, be the drawing in 

 tended by the author, it is the work of the artist who is also responsible 

 for the descriptive legend. In numerous instances the descriptive legend 

 on a plate is quite erroneous, and has been repudiated by the author in 

 his text. Until the text descriptive of a plate appears, the names on the 

 plate must be considered as nomina nuda, and it is open to any one to de 

 scribe and rename such nomina nuda." 



Obviously for my present purpose this legislation would be 

 completely decisive, as showing that Paramaya had no validity 

 up to the time when it was disowned and cancelled by its reputed 

 author. To me, however, Mr. Sherborn's statement seerns too 

 sweeping. I can not accept his dictum that the artist is respon 

 sible for the descriptive legend on a plate, in any other sense than 

 that which would make the printer responsible for the descrip 

 tive legend on a page of text. In each case, as we all know, 

 the author's intention may be sadly misrepresented, but in the 

 long run we find ourselves deeply indebted to the general ac 

 curacy both of printers and lithographers. There are cases in 

 which a good figure will tell much more than an indifferent de 

 scription, and in these there seems no reason why the satisfactory 

 figure should not be allowed to give validity to the accompanying 

 name of a species. But this is not the same thing as saying 

 that any and every figure should have the privilege even in regard 

 to specific names. Much more will the license require restric 

 tion when genera or subgenera are in question. Can we really 

 be expected to accept de Haan's two figures of the species 

 spinigera as an adequate definition of a new subgenus ? How 

 could that be adequate for the rest of the world, when it was 

 not adequate for the author himself ? Paramaya of the figures was 



