20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. "JT^ 



fixes on any specimen or specimens as holotype or syntypes. In fixing 

 the holotype it is no doubt advisable to regard the locality and, if the 

 specimens therefrom are individually listed, to select the first on the 

 list as holotype. The holotype as thus fixed may confirm the inter- 

 pretation of the diagnosis, or, as Professor Boule and others have 

 shown, it may be equally unintelligible ; or again, the diagnosis may be 

 quite clear and may correspond with specimens from the type locality 

 although the lectotype happens to be obscure. 



The adequacy of the " Prodrome " diagnoses is not to be judged by 

 their length, for a single epithet may be sufficient. Nor can the names 

 employed have any bearing on the question, especially as d'Orbigny 

 (Introduction, § 66) insists that names which have no meaning are 

 often the best. 



Thus examination of the " Prodrome " leads to the conclusion that 

 it is possible to consider each of the new species on its own merits and 

 to accept as valid those that have been or can be identified. 



The plea of the applicants is that such a course would lead to con- 

 fusion, and Mr. Arkell in his letter gives a respectable number of 

 instances in which familiar names would have to go. It does not 

 appear that there is or would be any particular difficulty in echino- 

 derms. My colleagvies in the Geological Department of the British 

 Museum take essentially the same view in regard to corals, Polyzoa, 

 and brachiopods. 



In these circumstances it seems out of the question for the Commis- 

 sion to sweep away all the names proposed for new species in the 

 " Prodrome." It is by no means certain that such action would not pro- 

 duce a converse state of confusion in some groups. 



The chief difficulty, or at any rate the most annoying change in- 

 volved by following the Rules, seems to be that exemplified by 

 Trigonia cassiope and Myoconcha actaeon. Here it is generally ad- 

 mitted that d'Orbigny's diagnoses are inadequate (even the type speci- 

 mens do not elucidate them). Yet it seems to be thought necessary to 

 reject the T. cassiope and M. actaeon of Morris and Lycett as homo- 

 nyms of d'Orbigny's species. This conclusion does not appear to be 

 necessitated by the rules. I have already maintained that a name can- 

 not be a homonym when given to the same species. But can it be said 

 (in the words of Article 35) that T. cassiope d'Orb. was used for 

 some other species than T. cassiope M. and L. ? Ex hy pot he si it can- 

 not. If it were proved that T. cassiope d'Orb. did represent a distinct 

 species, then that name would stand, but it has not been proved, and, 

 one gathers, cannot be proved. Morris and Lycett were not founding 



