— 146 — 



specimens in all Drders. Great pains had been taken to have the identi- 

 fications verified. Many valuable additions had been lately made by 

 members of the Society. 



Speaking of "types' or rare species, Mr. Fletcher spoke very 

 sirongly in favor of their being deposited for safe-keeping in Public 

 Museums, where they might not only be preserved from destruction but 

 would be accessible for examination by students. It was well that now 

 Entomologists had both in the National Museums', at Washington and 

 at Ottawa, depositories where rarities might be thus preserved from 

 loss. 



He further asked for opinions from those present as to the technical 

 meaning of the word "type;" his own view was that nothing should be 

 labelled " type'' even by the describer of a new species, except the actual 

 specimens before him at the time of drawing up the description, and if 

 there were more than one specimen each should be carefully labelled at 

 the time, with a consecutive number. He suggested that the number 

 of specimens used might also be given beneath this consecutive number. 

 Example — If a species had been described from 3 specimens these would 

 be labelled : Type No. ^, Type No. |, Type No. f. He was of the 

 opinion that if a describer subsequently distributed other material, even 

 although he considered it quite typical of his species, he was not justified 

 in labelling it "Type," but it might be labelled "Typical." He had 

 received from one author a specimen marked as "type " of a species de- 

 scribed some years before, which turned out not even to belong to that 

 species at all, but was a specimen wrongly named from memory and 

 without even examination of the original material. 



Mr. Howard expressed his agreement with Mr. Fletcher in the 

 matter of types. 



Dr. Riley expressed as his opinion that specimens determined by 

 the author as identical with original specimens which served as basis 

 for description or as representative of the species might also be con- 

 sidered as typical, but not as the original types of the species. 



Prof Webster thought types should be deposited in Public Institu- 

 tions or Collections as a guard against loss of correct specimens. He 

 urged also the importance of examining amateur collections where rare 

 species may sometimes be buried under common names. 



Mr. Smith would consider no specimens that were after determina- 

 tions, even by the author, as types. 



Mr. Osborn preferred to indicate a difference between specimens 

 determined as typical of a species and those which served as the basis 

 for the original description and called attention to the fact that the spe- 

 cimen first described often proved to be not representative of the spe- 



