112 Journal New York Entomological Society. fvo . xv 



that of the nomination of types. This method is as different from, 

 the elimination method in its results as the first species method is. 

 Mr. Coquillett is further confused by the idea that there is a right and 

 a wrong way of selecting types. In fact, these terms are not appli- 

 cable, every method of type selection being essentially arbitrary and : 

 a question of rule ; the matter is only one of expediency. The elimi- 

 nation method has proved its utter inexpediency; the nomination off 

 types is far better, largely eliminating the personal equation, but still 

 objectional from the amount of otherwise profitless search involved ; , 

 the first species method is by far the simplest and most expedient. 

 Our present rules are so extremely elastic that they allow almost any - 

 method of procedure except the first species method. It is high time : 

 that they were amended and made definite on the only definite expe- 

 dient method, that of the first species. 



Since writing the above, we have read the article by President ; 

 David Starr Jordan (Science, n. s., xxv, 467, 1907) favoring the first 

 species rule. We are in complete accord with his conclusions, and 

 cannot imagine why they should not similarly appeal to everybody. 



We have been recently rather shocked by the attitude of so emi- 

 nent an authority as Professor S. W. Williston on this subje'ct. Hav- 

 ing supposed that the only important matter requiring adjustment was 

 the establishment of the first species method, it is a distinct surprise 

 to find the generic type itself in doubt. Professor Williston writes : 

 " I am unalterably opposed to any law of 'types,' and shall never 

 recognize such myself. I consider a genus as something more than a 

 specimen, and am decidedly opposed to any law which permits the 

 ignorant amateur to shield himself back of a type, throwing upon some 

 one else the burden of distinguishing generic characters. Any species 

 that an author uses in defining a genus is equally a type if he chooses^ 

 to so consider it, and it devolves upon the one who 'splits ' the genus-, 

 to show the differences and leave the residue to bear the original name. . 

 This is the view I have always had ; it has been the practice of all I 

 dipterologists, until recently at least, and it doubtless will be theiri 

 practice in the future. I do not think that rules promulgated by 

 . . . any one . . . will abolish the custom, at least not unless some 

 such commission as Davenport has recently suggested (a consummation 

 devoutly to be wished) is established." 



