2 BULLETIN 200, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



However, in the families where the individuals are of fairly large 

 size much more work has been done ; the sheer number of works in- 

 volved, the greater ease of seeing characters, and the cumulative effect 

 of the small corrections that are being made constantly have resulted 

 in a reasonable approach to the classification that might have been 

 reached earlier by a more scientific approach. This is, of course, only 

 relatively true, but in many families the current classification is satis- 

 factory in its broad aspects, and most of the groups have been defined 

 in a usable manner. 



In the Staphylinidae, on the other hand, there has been practically 

 no change in classification or definition since 1840, almost no satis- 

 factory definitions exist for genera or any higher groups, and the 

 many problems of validation, synonymy, homonymy, errors of various 

 kinds, genotypes, and all the difficulties of a relatively unassimilated 

 but voluminous literature have frequently not only remained unsolved 

 but have been greatly complicated by continuing inadequate work, 

 which only serves to increase the difficulties. 



It is not intended to imply that these difficulties are not met with in 

 other families, often in as great degree, but to establish a background 

 for understanding the reason why the present study indicates such an 

 extreme state of confusion in the literature of this family. The publi- 

 cations of several of the most important writers are so little known 

 that they are nearly always misquoted as to date (and therefore prior- 

 ity) and originality of new forms included. Multiple publication of 

 names is common but heretofore almost unnoticed. The most prolific 

 writers are unable to keep track of even their own proposals, making 

 double and triple homonyms of their own names in fantastic combina- 

 tions. Classifications have adhered rigidly to systems that could 

 readily be proved to be inadequate, and most workers have failed to 

 take advantage of what sound work was published. 



Under these circumstances it is not surprising that a study based on 

 exhaustive bibliographic work, careful study of the Rules and prin- 

 ciples of generic names and their genotypes, and careful application of 

 these principles to the 2,500 names involved should show an extremely 

 confused situation among the names. At least 50 names have been here 

 recognized for the first time as junior homonyms and have been re- 

 named ; at least 80 generic names have here had their genotypes fixed 

 for the first time; several hundred cases of objective or absolute syn- 

 onymy have been discovered ; more than 350 cases of multiple publica- 

 tion are recorded ; many changes in application of names are found to 

 be required and are made ; dozens of cases of incorrect citation of date 

 or place of original publication are cited ; well over 1,200 misspellings 

 are listed ; and hundreds of previously unknown genotype designations 

 have been brought to light. 



