( xlix ) 



value, or, apart from this latter, the more sentimental idea of 

 adding to the fame of a collection. There is also much popular 

 misapprehension as to the meaning of the word " type." The 

 purely systematic entomologist regards " type " or " types " as 

 the specimen or specimens (for it is always desirable that a 

 species be described from more than one example, even at the 

 risk of confusing two species) from which a species was 

 originally described. Now, permit me to put a case. An 

 entomologist goes to a certain museum or collection, and asks 

 to see a certain insect mentioned by name. It is shown to 

 him, and he is informed that it is the " type," but, to the 

 astonishment of the curator, or possessor of the collection, he 

 flatly denies the truth of the assertion. There is simply a 

 misunderstanding. The stay-at-home systematist sees in the 

 term " type " only the specimen to which a certain name has 

 been attached ; the field-naturalist sees in it the dominant con- 

 dition of the species according to his own observations. I opine 

 that it might occur to me to side with the field-naturalist in such 

 a case : — 



" Wenn man so in sein Museum gebamit ist ; 

 Und sieht die Welt kaum einen Feiertag, 

 Kaum durch ein Fernglas, nur von weiten, 

 Wie soil man sie durch Ueberredung leiten ? " 



A misuse of the term " type " is made by collectors who, 

 having spaced out their cabinets, and put in the labels, 

 consider a type something, formerly wanting to them, that 

 represents one of these names ; it is a misuse, but is probably 

 justifiable from their point of view, and needs no further 

 mention. As bearing upon the question of " types," I call 

 attention to one other matter, one that happens to affect my 

 own special branch of entomological study very prominently. 

 I allude to the mischievous practice of publishing names 

 without descriptions. Such a course entails endless annoyance 

 and confusion to subsequent writers ; and another practice 

 almost equally to be deprecated is that of naming undescribeci 

 species in collections (especially if the collections be important) ; 

 such names often get inadvertently published, and thereby 

 create confusion. 



In earnestly recommending a course of systematic study to 

 the younger Fellows of this Society, it may be well to call 



