Dec, 1905.] Editorial. 215 



cantenation of names, as on the Scudder system, but, at the worst, 

 only the one, or ones, immediately involved. A moment's thought 

 will show that, given the literature of a certain name, the type can be 

 decided as automatically, and almost as quickly as, and certainly far 

 more logically than, by the arbitrary selection of the first species — a 

 method which 1 cannot agree with you is at all likely to obtain in the 

 long run, in face of the strong arguments which were adduced against 

 it by nearly all the authorities who took part in the Sir George Hamp- 

 son Nomenclature Correspondence (Proc. Internat. Congr. Zool., 

 App. A, Cambridge, 1898) and of the fact that in this matter we 

 ought to work harmoniously with other zoologists, who can hardly be 

 expected to consent to a course which would bring about such disas- 

 trous results in their particular departments." 



Louis B. Prout. 



London, N. E., 18 Nov., 1904. 



Our correspondent advocates what Rothschild and Jordan call the 

 41 First method of restriction," or the method of nomination of types.* 

 We admit that we have not seen this method fairly tried, though we 

 had thought the same objections applicable to it as to the other "his- 

 torical method," the second method of restriction of Rothschild and 

 Jordan, or the method of residues. These methods are sometimes 

 thought to be similar or parts of one method, but, as Rothschild and 

 Jordan say : "As the first and second methods are opposed to one 

 another, differing nearly always in the results attained, we reject them 

 both." Of course it does not necessarily follow that a method should 

 be rejected because opposed to another ; that might prove it the right 

 one. Phit we are pleased to see that Mr. Prout condemns the method 

 of residues. This is the method heretofore used by Lepidopterists 

 from Scudder to Kirby. It must be abandoned. What method shall 

 we substitute? Mr. Prout urges conformity with other zoologists; 

 but we have yet to see a code of rules that clearly covers the points 

 of the present subject. 



* Called by Kirkaldy " The historical method" and advocated by him. (Proc. 

 ■ent. soc. Wash., vii, 1905.) 



