158 Stebbing — Maiiiaia and Mattiaiidse. 



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 liimself, 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 de^^criptive 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 noniimi nuda, and it is open to any one to de- 

 scribe and rename such noinimi nuda." 



Olndously for my present purpose this legislation would l)e 

 completely decisive, as showing that Pardmai/a had no validity 

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

 author. To me, however, Mr. Sherborn 's statement seems 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 l)oth 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 



