March, igo6.j EDITORIAL. 



51 



598, 1905) finds further objection to the first reviser rule. He says : 

 "The objection to it is that no one has yet defined the first reviser so 

 as to separate his rights from the rights of different meddlers." Mr. 

 Prout would except faunal lists; but why except anything? The 

 only way to have any definiteness is to include the "meddlers" on 

 the same basis as the "reviser" and take as type the one first men- 

 tioned by anybody. This would involve even more of what President 

 Jordan call's " otherwise profitless labor in bibliography " than follow- 

 ing the first reviser, for it would mean the examination of all literature 

 for some stray mention of a genus and typical species. No doubt this 

 is asking too much ; we fear there is no fixity or uniformity in the 

 " historical method." Lord Walsingham, we believe, has expressed 

 the opinion that a writer should know the literature of his subject. 

 If there were any way of knowing that this desirable condition had 

 been attained, we should cordially endorse the view ; but even the 

 best posted author is liable to discover accidentally some overlooked 

 reference that may vitiate his carefully constructed historical system. 

 He is always in a position of uncertainty. 



We return to the method of first species as the only one promising 

 fixity. President Jordan says: "The method of beginning with a 

 leading species or chef de file as typical representative of each genus, 

 to be described in full while the others were disposed of in compara- 

 tive sentences, was adopted by Lacapede, Cuvier, Valenciennes, Poey 

 and other authors. In Ichythology this has given reason for the choice 

 of the type of the genus by page precedence. This method was raised 

 to the dignity of a universal rule by Dr. Bleeker and others. It is a 

 pity it was not adopted earlier, for it would have given fixity, a matter 

 which in nomenclature far outweighs all others." The objections to 

 the method are, we believe, two. The first is that it would change 

 many of the names now in use ; the second that Linnaeus and others 

 usually placed their typical species in the middle of the series and the 

 less known or aberrant ones at the ends. To obviate these we suggest 

 that in the case of Linnaeus and other authors definitely known to have 

 used his method, the central species be taken instead of the first. 

 These authors would have to be enumerated in the rule and all others 

 held to the first species as type. But unfortunately, a glance over 

 Linnaeus' tenth edition shows that this would be no solution of the 

 problem, for taking the middle species as type is not more in conson- 

 ance with modern ideas than taking the first. In fact, in the Coleop- 



