12 BULLETIN 200, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



It would seem at first glance that the concept of monotypy — a genus 

 with only one original species, would be easy to apply. Quite the 

 contrary is true, however, for there are two basic points on which 

 nomenclaturists have widely different views. 



The Rules do not directly state that the type of a genus is a species. 

 However, this seems to be implicit in the rules dealing with the subject. 

 This interpretation is taken by some to mean that only a species (as 

 understood by the original author) included by name can be the geno- 

 type. Other concepts that might be included, such as subspecies or 

 synonyms, have no bearing since they were not "species" to the origi- 

 nal author. This is thought to be the logical conclusion of the prin- 

 ciple of accepting what he said he had rather than requiring detailed 

 subsequent study to determine what he actually did have. 



By others it is believed that throughout the Rules the word "species" 

 was intended to include subspecies. Support is claimed for this view 

 in the passage in Article 6 that "Generic and subgeneric names are 

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

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

 value." From this it is held that any name which is included under 

 the genus by the original author is a nomenclatural species and is 

 available as genotype. 



In the first of these views, a genus published with one named species 

 which contains two named subspecies is nevertheless monobasic, since 

 the author put only one species into it. That species is therefore the 

 genotype by monotypy. In the second view, this genus would have 

 two "species" available for genotype selection. 



The other point involved in this problem which is interpreted in 

 opposite ways is the question of what is "nomenclatural" in the sense 

 of Article 6 (quoted above) and what is not. Persons holding the 

 second view described above contend that there is nothing but nomen- 

 clature involved in the species with two subspecies cited above — that 

 the question of whether there is one "species" or two, for purposes of 

 genotype fixation, is purely nomenclatural. 



The opposite view is that although it is largely a nomenclatural 

 question, it does contain one zoological factor (the use of two zoologi- 

 cal categories) and is therefore no longer entirely nomenclatural. 

 To this view Article 6 is therefore no longer applicable, and only one 

 "species" is present. 



The writer has been unable to compromise these two sets of views. 

 He has been forced to follow one and has chosen the first. The follow- 

 ing paragraphs (a-f ) are based on this premise and will not be ac- 

 ceptable to persons following the second view. 



a. Subspecies, varieties, synonyms : If the single species has named 

 subspecies or varieties, or if it has synonyms that are listed, these have 



