444 BTTLLETIN 58, ITNtTED f^TATES NATIONAL MURETTM. 



In order to settle the question according to the International Code 

 of Zoological Nomenclature we must turn to its article 30, which 

 reads as follows: 



If the original type of a genus was not indicated, the autlior wlio first subdivides the 

 genus may apply the name of the original genus to such restricted genus or subgenus as 

 may be judged advisable, and such assignment is not subject to subsequent change. 

 In no case, however, can the name of the original genus be transferred to a group con- 

 taining none of the species originally included in the genus; nor can a species he 

 selected as type which was not originally included in llie genus, or wliidi the author of 

 the generic name doubtfully referred to it. 



Linnaeus, of course, did not indicate a type, and "the author who 

 first subdivides the genus may apply the name of the original genus to 

 such restricted genus or subgenus as may be judged advisable, and 

 such assignment is not subject to subsequent change." The first one 

 to do this is unquestionably Laurenti, in 1768. He dismembered the 

 enormous genus Coluber of Ijinnieus and left comparatively few species 

 in it. Five of these are additional to those inchided by Linnaeus in 

 his original (^oluher of 1758, and are conseciuently ineligible as types, 

 l)ecause a species can not "be selected as ty])e which was not origi- 

 nally included in the genus." The type nnist of necessity, therefore, 

 he selected from among the remaining Linna^an species, viz, C'oliiher 

 sfolatus, huccatus, sihon, chersea, and herus, the two last-mentioned 

 being in reality only one species. It now so happens that only one of 

 these has been designated by a subsequent writer as type of the 

 genus Coluber, viz, C. berus, which was so designated by Prof. Robert 

 Collett,in 1878," and in the words of article 30 "such assignment is not 

 subject to subsequent change."'' The result is fully consonant with 

 the "recommendation" acc(mipanying article 30, more particularly 

 that part of paragraph C, which provides that "if the genus contains 

 both exotic and nonexotic species, from the standpoint of the original 

 author, the type is to be selected from the nonexotic species," inas- 

 nuich as C. berus is the onl}^ nonexotic species among the eligible spe- 

 cies. Tliat this result also agrees with Laurenti's "intention" has 

 been well shown by Cope,*" who expressly remarks that "the poison- 

 ous species are, then, the types of the Coluber of Laurenti." 



In a large collection of Russian and Siberian reptiles received by 

 the ITnited States Naticmal Museum in 1885 from Dr. Alexander 

 vStratich there are three specimens named Vipera berus whicli in the 

 invoice are marked thus: No. 32, Dui aiif Sachalin; No. 84, Smei- 

 nogorsk (Altai); No. 88?, Dui auf Sachalin. 



o Christiania Vidensk. Selsk. Forhandl., 1878, no. .3, p. 6. 



^ It might even be maintained that the same selection was made as early as 1820 by 

 Merrem (Syst. Amphib., p. 148). He subdivided also the genus Coluber, but unfor- 

 tunately he did not retain the name for any of thesul)divisions. But in instituting the 

 genus Pelias for Coluber bernshe expressly mentions Laurenti's Coluber us the equivalent. 



c Proc. 11. S. Nat. Mus., XI, p. 389. ' 



