190 Journal New York Entomological Society, [VoI. xii. 



of type was given, the insect placed at the head of the genus was to be 

 considered as the type, and that the first section of a genus always 

 was to be considered typical. Mr. H. W. Bates stated that Professor 

 Westwood had many years ago expressed the view that where an au- 

 thor has by means of dissections, figures or in any other way, indicated 

 the particular species which he regards as typical of this genus * * * 

 that species is of course the type *-!<*; but where no such indication 

 is given by the founder, the first species in the genus is to be taken as 

 the type and ought to be so taken in any subsequent dismemberment 

 or division of the genus. The idea was combated then on much the 

 same lines as at present. Mr. Bates goes on to say that he doubted 

 whether there was any such rule as Mr. Kirby stated, and that if it were 

 adopted for the future it ought not to be applied to the past. The 

 adoption of such a rule retrospectively would cause so much confusion 

 that the remedy would be worse than the disease, since it would cause 

 the subversion of established nomenclature. In the following discus- 

 sion Mr. Pascoe thought the type species should be the most promi- 

 nent one, either by its size, abundance or any other circumstance. He 

 also showed that the old authors did not themselves regard their first 

 species as typical. Mr. Dunning thought that every means thould be 

 used to get at the author's idea, using evidence either "intrinsic or 

 extrinsic, positive or negative," and that the species best embodying 

 this idea was the type. But where no indication can be found, he 

 agreed with the general sentiment of the members present that in the 

 division of a genus, the author who divides it has a right to deter- 

 mine to which division the original name shall be restricted, and that 

 the original name must be retained for some section. The Entomo- 

 logical Society of London proceeded then to endorse the view at pres- 

 ent embodied in the " Merton rules" and the "A. O. U. Code." 



It appears to us that all these objections disappear. Complaint 

 of change of long established names can no longer be made when 

 every new work changes most of them, on whatever rules it is based. 

 If the first species is sometimes atypical, it is not more so than the 

 type often arrived at by the method of residues. The great advan- 

 tage is that our method is easy, it promises permanence, in that inde- 

 pendent students may arrive at the same result, and it will not con- 

 demn an author to spend most of his time in the unprofitable study 

 of ancient history. 



In the Entomological News for June Dr. J. B. Smith and 



