2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



above, comprising 79 octavo pages, referring in a footnote to the three parts 

 of the above-cited quarto work so far published at that time. In this work 

 the authors gave synopses of the European genera and groups, in German, 

 similar in plan to those given in the quarto work but in each case they preceded 

 with the word " Type " the specific name. This paper is practically a repetition 

 of the European faunal element in the quarto work. 



It is plainly evident that the above quarto work was intended by its authors 

 as a practically complete elucidation of the muscoid genera of the world known 

 in collections up to that time, and it does in reality constitute such an elucida- 

 tion. It is evident also that all possible consistent adherence to the generic con- 

 cepts of this work will greatly advance the interests of muscoid taxonomy by 

 facilitating the fixation of the numerous genera. If such adherence is not possi- 

 ble to obtain, certain genotype designations published subsequently to the above 

 quarto work will hold, resulting in an entirely different interpretation of many 

 of the genera treated. 



In view of these facts, does the Commission rule that in all cases in said 

 quarto work where a single originally included species immediately follows 

 the generic name, the species in question shall be taken as the genotype ; and 

 that in all cases where the species immediately following the generic name is 

 not an originally included species, the genotype shall be the first originally in- 

 cluded species, if any, cited in connection with the generic diagnosis ; provided 

 in all cases that no conflicting valid genotype fixation had previously been 

 effected? 



Discussion. — The foregoing case was submitted to Commissoner 

 Karl Jordan for special study. At the meeting of the Commission in 

 Budapest, August 30, 1927, he presented a verbal report discussing 

 in detail the various documents involved. 



He also presented the following written report : 



Tn this work, which is preliminary to a more extensive work, the authurs give 

 diagnoses of all genera of these flies known to them. They quote behind the 

 name of the genus usually one species, rarely tu'o, and still more rarely )w 

 species. Nothing is said as to whether these species are meant to be exam- 

 ples or genotypes. 



The genera should be grouped in three categories for the purpose of arriv- 

 ing at an opinion about the question "genotype" versus "example." 



(i) New genera. — If only one species is mentioned, this must be accepted as 

 genotype; if two are mentioned, one of them is the genotype. 



(2) Old genera where a species is distinctly stated to be " Typus " of the 

 genus. — In many cases B. and B. say " Typus." but it is clear that in these 

 cases the addition of the word Typus means tliat B. and B. have examined the 

 type [specimen] of the s/'ccics. 



(3) Old genera where one or two species are quoted without one of them 

 being distinctly designated type of the genus. — In these cases the quoted species 

 are merely "examples." In the later work, 1893, where for each genus a geno- 

 type is given, the genotypes are not always the same species as those quoted in 

 the preliminary work under consideration ; evidently B. and B. were not yet 

 quite clear about the concept genotype when they published their preliminary 

 studies. 



