9B On designating Genera and Subgenera. 



-the subgenus in a parenthesis. * Thus, I should usually say 

 (speaking of the Lapland bunting), Emberiza lapponica ; but, 

 in the particular instance just alluded to, Emberiza (Plectro- 

 phanes) lapponica. 



I cannot forbear adding, on this occasion, that I fear I have 

 been much misunderstood on the subject of the division of 

 genera. The object of my former communication [VI. 385.3 

 was not so much to find fault with the subdividing of old 

 genera, where there may appear just ground for the sub- 

 division, or the calling of the new groups by this title, if we 

 object to the adoption of that of subgenera, as with the not 

 appreciating the relation which these new groups bear to the 

 old one, and to the other genera in the same family with 

 which this old one was considered of equal value. Perhaps, 

 however, my meaning will be rendered more intelligible than 

 it was in that article, by the assistance of a diagram. Let us, 

 then, suppose the family of ^rdeidse, for instance, and three 

 of its induded genera, to be represented in the following 

 manner, — 



^rdeidae 



A'rdea Ciconia Platalea; 



assuming that the above three groups, placed in the same 

 line, are of equal value amongst themselves, but all subordi- 

 nate to the one above, in which they are included, and which 

 we here designate by the name of family. Suppose that, on 

 farther investigation, we find that, in like manner as this 

 family includes three genera f, so that one of these genera, 

 say A'rden, includes also three subordinate groups. What 

 do we do? We attach the same name, ^'rdea, though in a 

 restricted sense, to that subordinate group which is more 

 typical than the others ; while to the remaining two we affix, 

 perhaps, the new names of Botaurus and iVycticorax ; and 

 we carry on the diagram in this manner, — 



yirdeidae 



^'rdea Ciconia Platalea 



^'rdea Botaurus iVycticorax ; 



in which we still have the old group A'rdea held together by 

 certain characters as before ; only we distinguish in it three 



* This is what Cuvier recommends, in his Histoire des Poissons, 4to edit, 

 torn. ii. p. 41. note 1. In a former work he advises that, on ordinary occa- 

 iions, the name of the subgenus be suppressed. {Reg.Aii., torn. i. p. xvii.) 



f I am not really asserting that there are no other existing genera in 

 this family, but merely selecting these three as sufficient for my argument. 



