2 University of Michigan 
So far as the Rafinesquian specimens in the Poulson Col- 
lection are concerned, it is not claimed, except in one case, 
that they are the original types of Rafinesque’s species. They 
simply represent what Rafinesque understood or claimed in 
1831 to be the species that he had described in 1820. 
The Iaw of Priority as laid down in the Code (Art. 25) is 
as follows: 
‘Article 25. The valid name of a genus or species can only 
be that name under which it was first designated on the con- 
dition : 
“(a) That this name was published and accompanied by an 
indication, or a definition, or a description.” 
Under this provision it has been held by the International 
Commission : 
“Opinion I. The word ‘indication’ in Art. 25a is to be con- 
strued as follows: 
“A. With regard to specific names, an ‘indication’ is (1) a 
bibliographic reference, or (2) a published figure (illustration), 
or (3) a definite citation of an earlier name for which a new 
name is proposed. 
“B. With regard to generic names, (1) a bibliographic ref- 
erence, or (2) a definite citation of an earlier name for which 
a new name is proposed, or (3) the citation or designation of 
a type species. 
“Tn no case is the word ‘indication’ to be construed as includ- 
ing museum labels, museum specimens or vernacular names.” 
The fundamental idea underlying the present study is that 
no name should be accepted as valid that was not originally 
described, figured, or designated in such a way as to be iden- 
tifiable. If the original description is insufficient, no subse- 
quent identification of the type can revive that name, if the 
form has been satisfactorily described in the meantime under 
another name. 
