GENERIC NAMES OF THE FAJVnLY STAPHYLINIDAE 19 



in which more than two species are originally included and all hut one 

 are simultaneously made types of monobasic new genera by a subse- 

 quent author (as suggested in Opinion 154). 



d. In recent years there has been much discussion of the problem 

 of misidentified genotypes — cases in which an author stated that 

 species 1 is the genotype but is afterward believed to have misidenti- 

 fied species 1 and to have been actually dealing with species 2. The 

 International Commission has ruled that when it appears that this 

 has happened, the case should be submitted for ruling. 



I believe that Article 30, as interpreted in Opinion 14, takes care 

 of all such cases. The genotype is the species named^ not some other 

 species that may have been in the author's mind or is now in his 

 collection. 



In connection with this last item, it may be pointed out that exam- 

 ination of a man's collection years later has often been used as the 

 basis for a claim that he misidentified the genotype species. This is 

 a most unsatisfactory practice, not justified under the Rules, and lead- 

 ing only to confusion. I wish it to be clearly understood that, in pre- 

 paring this and other works on genotypes, I have not used specimens 

 in the U. S. National Museum or in any other collection. My des- 

 ignations and citations are based entirely on the literature. No other 

 method can produce sound nomenclatural results in this field. The 

 zoologic identity of the various genotype species is another problem 

 entirely. 



11. Acceftance of a supposed prior designation. — It is, of course, a 

 cormnon occurrence for a writer to quote an earlier worker's attempt at 

 genotype fixation. The later writer may accept or reject the earlier 

 citation or he may give no clue to whether he accepts it or rejects it. 

 He may say, "Genotype =Xw5 alhus because of designation by Smith 

 1910," or he may say, "In 1910 Smith stated that the genotype is 

 Xus alhus.'''' Since it has sometimes happened that the later writer 

 has misquoted the earlier one and no such citation was made, it is 

 necessary to decide whether this quotation by the later author will 

 itself be accepted as type fixation. 



It has been claimed that any statement about a prior genotype 

 designation itself constitutes a designation. This leads to several ab- 

 surdities. If a writer lists all the attempts at fixation by earlier 

 workers, as in the present work, and rejects all but one of them, it 

 cannot reasonably be held that he is citing all the various names as 

 genotypes. Again, a legally unacceptable attempt at fixation, such 

 as the use of the word "example" instead of "type," cannot be legalized 

 by the mere quotation of it. And if a writer quotes a previous citation 

 and demonstrates that it is unacceptable, he would nevertheless under 



