GENERIC NAMES OF THE FAMILY STAPHYLINIDAE 13 



no effect on the monotypy. Only a single species was included from 

 the point of view of the original author, and it is the type under the 

 name by which it was accepted. 



Article 11 of the Rules states : "Specific and subspecif ic names are 

 subject to the same rules and recommendations, and from a nomencla- 

 tural standpoint they are coordinate, that is, they are of the same 

 value." This has been interpreted by some taxonomists as meaning 

 that a named subspecies is of equal nomenclatural rank with a named 

 species and prevents the genus from being monobasic. Plowever, 

 Article 11 restricts its own application to nomenclatural considera- 

 tions. As long as the specific and subspecif ic names are being treated 

 merely as names, for validation, orthograph}^, priority, etc., they are 

 coordinate. However, when it is stated that one is to apply to a species 

 and the other to a subspecies, a zoological factor has been introduced 

 that removes the problem from the realm of Article 11. Since a species 

 and a subspecies cannot be said to be coordinate, their names cannot 

 either so long as their zoological rank is involved. Article 11 does 

 not say or mean that species and subspecies are coordinate, and it is 

 therefore impossible for the names of species and the names of sub- 

 species to be coordinate, except for certain strictly nomenclatural con- 

 siderations. 



Therefore, if an author states that a new genus contains a single 

 species under a particular name, no other names that were then or at 

 any later time applied to the species or any of its parts is of any con- 

 cern in determining the genotype. If only one named species was in- 

 cluded, from the point of view of the original author, only that species 

 is available as genotype, and the genus is monobasic. 



The same arguments apply to originall}^ included synonyms (spe- 

 cific or subspecif ic) and names of any other rank below species. 



It would have been possible, and perhaps even desirable, for the Rules 

 to have provided that the type of a generic name is a specific name. 

 This would have been in keeping with the fact that genotypy is a nom- 

 enclatural concept and therefore should deal with names only. It is 

 possible that this is what was intended in the Rules, but it is difficult to 

 maintain such a view in spite of its logic and certain practical advan- 

 tages. Although no rule says directly that the type of a genus is a 

 species, numerous references appear to show that that is what would 

 have been said. Statements in Article 30 and in several Opinions 

 make it reasonable for us to accept this interpretation, although in two 

 places in Article 30 there is definite implication that subspecific names 

 also are available. Accordingly the genotype in these cases can be only 

 the one species included, regardless of subspecies or synonyms. Al- 

 though it may be cited under any of its names (if it has several), only 



892643—52 2 



