200 THE kmd.molooist's KKCORD. 



logical observers. A complete catalogue of the Palsarctic Sphingides 

 ai^peai's to be carefully done. Besides the "Specific index" to vol. iv, 

 this volume contains, thanks to the Rev. G. Wheeler, a " Synopsis of 

 the contents of vols, i-iv," and a "General Index of vols, i-iv." Some- 

 how, in working through this volume, one is convinced that the 

 subject of the British lepidoptera has not yet been Avorn threadbare, 

 that there is still work for the worker, and that d standard has been 

 set by which the work of the coming generation of lepidopterists must 

 be judged in this ever-increasing and complicated branch of study. 



"Types" in Natural History. 



By GEORGE WHEELER, M.A. 



As the author whose views on the matter of types have lately been 

 held up to ridicule by some of the writers in the h^nt. llecord, it may 

 perhaps be permissible for me to oti'er a few remarks on the other side 

 of the question. It is less than nothing to say that I am wholly un- 

 repentant, as it would be impossible to repent of anything which 

 produced the delightful satire of Dr. Chapman's remarks on the subject 

 (vol. XV., p. 310), the delicacy and charm of which caused me to assign 

 the article in question to Mr. Prout (1 hope Dr. Chapman will realise 

 what a high compliment I feel this to be), and to exclaim " I would 

 rather be scolded by Mr. Prout than praised by most people." How- 

 ever, neither the gentle satire of Dr. Chapman, nor the more jubilant 

 persiflage of Mr. Prout in the April number of the Knt. Beconl, nor even 

 the Olympian pronouncements contained in the " Revision of the 

 Sphingides," have succeeded in persuading me that the use of the word 

 " type " to represent the first-named individuals of a species is any- 

 thing else than a misuse of language. I am not so sanguine as to hope 

 to persuade any of these leaders that my view is correct, but I hope at 

 least to show that I am neither so unscientific, nor so illogical, as I 

 have been represented to be. 



First with regard to principles. There are, I take it, two chief 

 points of view from which nomenclature may be regarded ; either as a 

 handy means of recognising what species other people are writing and 

 talking about, or as a means of illustrating, and, so to speak, con- 

 densing, the facts of phylogeny as they become known. If the former 

 be the view taken, any name which is universally recognised will serve, 

 and fixity of nomenclature is the one desirable end to be kept always 

 in view, and striven for " at any price." This I take to be the view 

 advocated by Mr. Rowland-Brown in his review of my BHiterjiien of 

 Siritzedand, etc. (Knt. Beconl, xv., p. Bi5), and it is, from the 

 collector's point of view, a wholly reasonable one, but I fail to see how 

 it can be considered scientific, for, carry the matter to its logical con- 

 clusion, and what is the outcome ? If the recognition of any species 

 under discussion is the only raLsnn d'etre of nomenclature, why proceed 

 to give generic names ? or, if these are required for adequate recoiinitiim , 

 they should be based on the most obvious external resemblances, and 

 may be perfectly arbitrary ; for certainly, the moment we get beyond 

 such obvious groupings, we have got out of the region of pure 

 nomenclature into that of classification, and the moment we arrive at 

 classification we arc pulled up by the necessity for a scientific basis on 

 which to proceed. In former times there may have been several such 



