30 BULLETIN 2 00, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



that would be involved, it has been impossible to deal with this work 

 in exactly the same manner as with all previous ones. The following 

 plan has therefore been followed: (1) All Tottenham's type citations 

 have been entered in the usual manner; (2) any changes are made 

 that are required by previously unrecognized facts brought out by 

 him; (3) discussions are added wherever necessary to explain unusual 

 cases; but (4) the discussion of Tottenham's methods, sources, and 

 arguments are collected in the following paragraphs and are not 

 repeated under the individual cases. 



For example, the name MegarthTU'& is credited to Stephens (1829). 

 A previous usage by Curtis is ignored because it is thought to be 

 invalid. In my text, Tottenham's citation is listed as erroneous, but 

 no explanation is made. The explanation will be found below. 



A. The most important point in which Tottenham's practice diffei"S 

 from mine is the manner of citing the genotype species. We appar- 

 ently agree that the genotype is a species^ but Tottenham believes 

 that that species can be cited under any name that has been applied to 

 it. He cites the type of BlecUus as tricornis (Hbst.) (p. 364). But 

 tricornis was not originally included. Tottenham believes that the 

 single original species {ateri'imus) is conspecific with tricoimis, and he 

 therefore cites the type species under the latter name. This is not 

 an uncommon practice in citing genotypes, but it is one that leads to the 

 ridiculous situation of having to change the nominal genotype with 

 changes in the nomenclature of a species. Citation of the genotype 

 under the name used in the original is the only method that guaran- 

 tees stability of name as well as of species. The subjective synonymy 

 can be readily indicated in addition. 



Tottenham has not been entirely consistent in this regard. On page 

 363 the type of Bledius is listed as: '■'Staphylinus tricornis Herbst 

 1784 (= Oxytelus armatus Panzer, 1799)." On page 364 this same 

 type is listed as: '"'•Staphylinus tricornis Herbst, 1784." It is clear 

 that Tottenham considers the citation of the original name in sy- 

 nonymy as desirable (or even essential) but is willing to cite a type 

 by a later name alone. 



This type of citation is not accepted here as fixation unless the 

 specific synonymy is objective. It is held that to be unambiguous, a 

 designation must be of an included species under the name by which 

 it was included. 



This principle is also the basis for the present writer's refusal to ac- 

 cept most cases of supposed misidentified genotype. Except for a 

 possible misspelling or lapsus, it is impossible to misidentify a name. 



B. The idea that a genotype designation can be disregarded or 

 changed because of a supposition that the designator misunderstood 

 the species he was citing is entirely incompatible with stability of 



