ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Ill 



" type of the genus." When they omit doing so, it may still in many cases 

 be correctly inferred that the first species mentioned on their list, if found 

 accurately to agree with their definition, was regarded by them as the type. 

 A specific name or its synonyms will also often serve to point out the parti- 

 cular species which by implication must be regarded as the original type of a 

 genus. In such cases we are justified in restoring the name of the old genus 

 to its typical signification, even when later authors have done otherwise. We 

 submit therefore that 



§ 4. The generic name should always be retained for that portion 

 of the original genus which was considered typical by the author. 



Example. — The genus Picumnus was established by Temminck, and in- 

 cluded two groups, one with four toes, the other with three, the former of which 

 was regarded by the author as typical. Swainson, however, in raising these 

 groups at a later period to the rank of genera, gave a new name, Asthenurus, 

 to the former group, and retained Picumnus for the latter. In this case we 

 have no choice but to restore the name Picumnus, Tem., to its correct sense, 

 cancelling the^name Asthenurus, Sw., and imposing a new name on the 3-toed 

 group which Swainson had called Picumnus. 



[_ Wlien no type is indicated, then the original name is to be kept for that sub- 

 sequent subdivision which first received it.~\ 



Our next proposition seems to require no explanation : — 

 § 5. When the evidence as to the original type of a genus is not 

 perfectly clear and indisputable, then the person who first subdivides 

 the genus may affix the original name to any portion of it at his dis- 

 cretion, and no later author has a right to transfer that name to any 

 other part of the original genus. 



\_A later name of the same extent as an earlier to be wholly cancelled.^ 



When an author infringes the law of priority by giving a new name to a 

 genus which has been properly defined and named already, the only penalty 

 which can be attached to this act of negligence or injustice, is to expel the 

 name so introduced from the pale of the science. It is not right then in 

 such cases to restrict the meaning of the later name so that it may stand side 

 by side with the earlier one, as has sometimes been done. For instance, the 

 genus Monaulus, Vieill. 1816, is a precise equivalent to Lophophorus, Tem. 

 1813, both authors having adopted the same species as their type, and there- 

 fore when the latter genus came in the course of time to be divided into two, 

 it was incorrect to give the condemned name Monaulus to one of the por- 

 tions. To state this succinctly, 



§ 6. When two authors define and name the same genus, both 

 making it exactly of the same extent, the later name should be can- 

 celled in toto, and not retained in a modified sense*. 



This rule admits of the following exception : — 



§ 7» Provided however, that if these authors select their respective 

 types from different sections of the genus, and these sections be after- 

 wards raised into genera, then both these names may be retained in 

 a restricted sense for the new genera respectively. 



Example. — The names (Edemia and Melanetta were originally co-exten- 



* These discarded names may however he tolerated, if they have heen afterwards pro- 

 posed in a totally new sense, though we trust that in future no one will knowingly apply an 

 old name, whether now adopted or not, to a new genus. (See proposition g, infra.) 



