( xxii ) 



(c") Tliird metliod oi' restriction : As the first aud second methods are 

 opposed to one anotlicr, ditlering nearly always in the results attained, we 

 reject them both. The energy spent on the book-research which either method 

 requires is misai)plied, reminding one too much of the famous fight against 

 windmills. Nomenclature is not part of nature ; it is an auxiliary means 

 invented by the classifier for his own convenience. What in the name of 

 common-sense compels us, then, to turn a convenience into an inconvenience? 

 There is a wide scope for research in nature recpiiring all the energies of 

 scientists. Why, then, impose upon scientists those unnecessary labours which 

 have only a nomenclatorial, but no scientific result ? The method adopted by 

 ourselves is at once logical and very simple, and removes all the difficulties as 

 far as that is possible. Our method of dealing with composite species (and 

 genera) is to narrow all cases down to the case dealt with under (1) by simply 

 applying also liere the law of priority recognised by nearly every classifier as 

 the only means of arriving at a stable nomenclature. P^rom tiie sequence 

 of the localities under a composite species, or from the characters mentioned 

 in the definition, or from the bibliography referred to by the author of a new 

 species, one is able to draw up a sequence of the components of the sjiecies. 

 If Macroglossum corythus, as conceived by Walker in 185(i, consists of three 

 species. A, B, C, we have : — 



TA = M. cor/jf litis ; 

 Macroglossum cor)jthus \^ = M. cori/thus ; 

 \(_] = M. corythus. 

 Each of the three components is M. corythus, according to Walker. According 

 to the law of priority, the same sjiecific uame cannot stand twice in the same 

 genus, and tlie name occurring more than once can be valid only for the si)ecie8 

 which was first published under that name, or which stands first in the book 

 where the uame is defined for the first time. This rule being applied to the 

 above case, it follows that the name corythus can stand for A only. All we 

 have to do, therefore, is to find out the sequence of the components of a 

 composite species. This is mostly easy, especially in the case of geographically 

 separate forms. 



lu the case of composite genera the sequence is given by the names of 

 species mentioned, there being very few genera defined without reference to 

 one or more species. Strict adherence to the above rule makes the first species 

 mentioned the type of the genus. 



One might object that this mechanical application of a rule leaves it 

 entirely to accident which species becomes the type of the genus, or to which 

 j)artieular portion of a composite species the specific name is restricted ; and, 

 lurtlier, that tlie autiior did not intend to give the first species or the first 

 specimens respectively any such pre-eminence, and that the "type" thus fixed 

 may be just the one to which the description ajiiilies least. We reply, firstly, 

 that we do not know the intentions of the author, as he did not state them ; 

 and, secondly, that, if the description applies accidentally less well to the species 



