142 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Another similar term, viz., homo-type, has also been proposed, but it 

 may, perhaps, be objected to all these terms except co-type, the meaning 

 of which might seem to be sufficiently obvious, that a glossary is necessary 

 to explain them, and even the word co-type seems to be used in different 

 ways, as Dr. J. B. Smith, in his " Explanation of terms used in 

 Entomology," explains the word as follows : 



" Co-types are all the specimens before the describer when a species 

 is named, no single one being selected as the type ; the type in such case 

 equals the sum of the co-types." 



This is using the word in a different sense from that in which Mr. 

 Waterhouse and others use it, but it is the sense in which Mr. Oldfield 

 Thomas defined it, Proc. Zoo. Soc, 1893, he adding: "No species would 

 have both type and co-types, but either the former or two or more of the 

 latter." 



Para-type is defined by Dr. Smith as " every specimen of the series 

 from which the type was selected," and it is in that sense that Mr. Water- 

 house and others use the term co-type. 



Meta-type is defined by Dr. Smith as "a specimen named by the 

 author after comparison with the type," but according to Mr. Oldfield 

 Thomas, it must also be from the original locality, and so also be a topo- 

 lype. 



Homo-type, on the other hand, is " a specimen named by another 

 than the author after comparison with the type," and topo-type is " a 

 specimen collected in the exact locality whence the original type was 

 obtained." 



It always appears to me that any unnecessary addition to the already 

 vast number of technical terms is to be deprecated, as imposing an 

 additional burden upon amateurs and beginners, and it would seem to be 

 simpler to label a specimen " compared with type " than to label it 

 " homo-type," and when a specimen is compared with a type by anyone 

 other than the owner of the specimen, the name of the comparer should 

 be put on the label, as the value of such comparison is directly in propor- 

 tion to the ability of the one who makes it. My objection to having a 

 single type, when additional specimens, which are undoubtedly of the same 

 species, are available, is that in the former case a specimen is described 

 instead of a species. 



