Rules for Beidenng the Nomendatare of Zoology Uniform. 355 



When an author infringes the law of priority, by giving a new name to 

 a genus which has been properly defined and named already, the only 

 penalty which can be attached to this act of negligence or injustice, is 

 to expel the name so introduced from the pale of the science. It is not 

 rio-ht, then, in such cases to restrict the meaning of the later name so 

 that it may stand side by side with the earlier one, as has sometimes 

 been done. For instance, the genus Monaidiis, Vieill., 1816, is a pre- 

 cise equivalent to Lophophorus, Tern., 1813, both authors having 

 adopted the same species as their type, and therefore when the latter 

 genus came in course of time to be divided into two, it was incorrect 

 to give the condemned name Monaulm to one of the portions. To 

 state this succinctly: 



§ 6. When tAvo authors define and name the same genus, both mak- 

 ing it exactly of the mme extent, the later name should be canceled in toto, 

 and not retained in a modified sense. 



This rule admits of the following exception : 



§ 7. Provided, however, that if these authors select their respective 

 types from diflferent sections of the genus, and these sections be after- 

 ward raised into genera, then both these names may be retained in a 

 restricted sense for the new genera respectively. 



Example. — The names CEdemia and Melanetta were originally co- ex- 

 tensive synonyms, but their respective types were taken from different 

 sections, which are now raised into genera, distinguished by the above 

 titles. 



[No special rule is required for the cases in wliich the later of two 

 generic names is so defined as to be less extensive in signification than 

 the earlier, for if the later includes the type of the earlier genus, it 

 would be canceled by the operation of section four ; and if it does not 

 include that type, it is in fact a distinct genus.] 



But when the later name is more extensive than the earlier, the fol- 

 lowing rule comes into operation : 



A later name equivalent to several earlier ones is to be canceled. — The 

 same principle which is involved in section six will apply to section eight. 



§ 8. If the later name be so defined as to be equal in extent to two 

 or more previously published genera, it must be canceled in toto. 



Exwnple.—Psaroeolius, Wagl, 1827, is equivalent to five or six 

 genera published under other names, therefore Pmrocolim should be 

 canceled. 



If these previously published genera be separately adopted (as is the 

 case with the equivalents of Psarocolius) , their original names will of 

 course prevail ; but if we follow the later author in combining them 

 into one, the following rule is necessary : 



