46 BOOK OF THE BLACK BASS, 



any high degree of probability, for absolute certainty rarely accom- 

 panies any identification. 



In the absence or impossibility of any general rule regarding such 

 eases, the following supposed examples will illustrate what seems to 

 the present writer a fair method of treating them. 



Let us suppose that the genus Micropterus contains two well- 

 marked species;, that to one of these the name salmoides was early 

 applied ; that next the names dolomiei and palUdus were applied to 

 the two respectively, and that subsequently the name salmoides was 

 restricted to the one called j)<^dlldus. 



Now if (1 ) the original salmoides were definitely a complex species, 

 distinctly including both, we may hold its author to be a " conserva- 

 tive" writer, and that the subsequent restriction, like the restriction 

 of a genus, is a change of view or the elimination of an error. In 

 this case, the name salmoides should be retained, dating its priority 

 from its original use, and applying to the f^jyeciea pallidus. 



If (2) the original salmoides be not complex, but simply uncertain, 

 the probabilities being undeniably in favor of its identity with 

 pallid us rather than with dolomiei, it should be adopted instead of 

 pallidus. Absolute certainty of identification can not be expected 

 of many names older than the present generation, and each writer 

 must judge for himself of the degrees of probability. If we may 

 express it numerically, a probability of 75 per cent, should perhaps 

 be sufficient, and this probability should be unquestionable — that is, 

 not merely subjective and varying with the mental differences of the 

 different writers. 



If (3) the original salmoides be evidently a 3Hcroptcrus, but hope- 

 lessly uncertain as to the species intended, it should claim priority 

 from its first use for a definite species of Micropterus. If the name 

 pallidus intervene between its first use and its final precise use, sal- 

 vioides should become a synonym of jaa^/iV^iis, and should not be 

 available for the other species. This rule is followed more or less 

 consistently by most writers, and it seems to me a fair one. The 

 revival of hopelessly uncertain ancient specific names in place of 

 well-defined modern ones is productive only of confusion, and is 

 open to gross abuse. The revival even of well-defined but forgotten _ 

 names is confusing enough, and it has been strongly objected to by 

 many writers. 



