NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO ']'7 5 



In many cases Fleming simply mentions a single species under the 

 genus without stating that it is the type. For instance : 



p. 178, 27. Rhinolophus Rh. ferrum cquinum. 



28. Nycteris A^. hispidus. 



The foregoing citations clearly show that Fleming had a distinct 

 conception of the type species as we understand it to-day. 



The practical point arises whether Fleming intended that the citation 

 of a single species should be accepted as a designation by him of the 

 type species. If Fleming avers in any portion of his book that this 

 interpretation is to be made, the Secretary has thus far been unable 

 to find the statement. The general tendency of the entire work toward 

 the naming of a type species is, however, striking for a book published 

 in 1822, and the temptation is very great indeed to make the interpre- 

 tation that Fleming actually intended to designate a type species for 

 nearly every genus he mentioned. 



In his Philosophy, Fleming (1822, vol. 2) refers to Pleuronectes 

 as follows : 



p. 388, 64. Pleuronectes. With pectoral fins. This genus includes i. Pleuro- 

 nectes (P. platcssa). 2. Hippoglossus {R. [P.] hippoglossus). 

 3. Rhombus (P, maximus). 4. Solea (P. solea). 

 65. AcHiRUS. Destitute of pectoral fins. Pleuronectes achirus. 



The point is to be noticed that in 1822 Fleming used Pleuronectes for 

 Pleuronectes platessa, and Rhombus for Pleuronectes maximus, while 

 in 1828 he changed his view and used Pleuronectes for Pleuronectes 

 maximus and Pleuronectes rhombus, but he placed Pleuronectes 

 platessa in the genus Platessa. 



Accordingly the premise presented by Doctor Jordan that Fleming 

 (1828, 196-199) was the first to restrict the name Pleuronectes to a 

 subdivision of the original genus is found to be erroneous. Such 

 restriction appears to have been made at least as early as 1822 by 

 Fleming, and his 1822 action was reversed in 1828. 



It will be noticed that Fleming in 1822 adopted the four subgeneric 

 groups used by Cuvier, 181 7, and that he corrected the nomenclatural 

 error of Cuvier, in that Fleming recognized Pleuronectes for one of 

 the subgenera, namely, for that group which Cuvier named Platessa, 

 and the type of which by absolute tautonymy is Pleuronectes platessa. 

 The question is : Did Fleming here select platessa as type of Pleuro- 

 nectes s. str. ? 



At least four views are possible : 



(i) Type by inclusion. — By the principle of "type by inclusion" 

 platcssa would become, ipso facto, the type of Pleuronectes s. str., 

 because Pleuronectes s. str., here clearly includes Platessa 1817, for 



