14 INTRODUCTION. 



are not to be had, then what are we to call the specimen selected for special descrip- 

 tion by the reviser and reestablisher of the species? 



The writer woukl therefore define a neotype as a siipplementar}' type 

 selected Ijy an author, on which a species is to rest because of the loss 

 of the original type or where the original material still extant is so poor 

 or fragmentary that from it the characters of the species can not be 

 determined with certaintj^ 



Heautotype (new). — In a letter to the writer, Buckman proposes 

 this term for "a specimen figured by an author as an illustration of his 

 own already founded species such not being a proterotype " (= primary 

 type). The same writer, in 1899, used the term autotype, but as this 

 word is also in use for certain printing blocks he changes it here to 

 heautot3q:)e. 



TYPICAL SPECIMEN.S, OR ICOTYPES. 



ToPOTYPE (Thomas). — A specimen collected at the exact locality or 

 within a few miles of the place where the original type of a species was 

 obtained. 



In paleontology it is further demanded that the topotype should come 

 not onl}- from the exact locality but also from the identical stratum that 

 furnished the species. 



Topotypes and metatypes liaYC been wrongly included by Q^hlert 

 (Palaeontologia Universalis, 1904) under Schuchert's term " supplemen- 

 tar)^ t3^pes" or In-potypes ( = plesiotypes). These .specimens have not 

 the value of " t3'pe material" as here defined, but belong to the cate- 

 gory of "typical specimens." 



MeTatype (Thomas). — " A .specimen received from the original 

 locality [in paleontology, the exact .stratum as well] after the description 

 has been published, but determined as belonging to his own species by 

 the original dcscriber himself." (See ideotype. ) 



Metatype has been redefined by Walsingham and Durrant" as follows: 

 ' ' A specimen sub.sequently named by the author after comparison with 

 the type is called a Metatype. ' ' As this is not the meaning given by 

 Thomas, it can not be accepted. The latter'' .sa3^s: 



The objection to "hypotype" [=nietat3'pe] as being too general and covering too 

 many specimens of different origins applies even more strongly to Lord Walsing- 

 ham and Mr. Durrant's proposed extension. * '■'•' * Many a mnseum worker, 

 who has to name large series of .specimens from all sorts of localities, must constantly 

 put under one of his own names specimens which may be anything but typical, and 

 it would be absurd to call the whole of a nuiseum series of a common animal " meta- 

 types" merely because the name of the species happened to have been jiroposed by 

 the person who determined the specimens. 



HoMCEOTYPE. — Under the name homotype, Walsingham and Dur- 

 rant define this term thus: "A .specimen named by another than the 

 author, after comparison with the type, is called a Homotype." How- 



"Merton Rules, London, 1896 p. 13. 6 Science, Sept. 24, 1897, p. 486. 



