1915] Bergroth — Some Tipulid Synonymy 59 



9. Some authors — among American dipterists, Johnson and 

 Alexander — have adopted the principle that if two (or more) 

 species have been described in the same genus under the same 

 specific name, the species described later must be renamed even if 

 the two species now belong to quite different genera. Johnson 

 has, for instance, given a new name to Oropeza annulata Say., 

 because it was described as a Tipula, and there is a Tipula annulata 

 of Linne, which now is referred to Discobola, a widely different 

 genus. Had Say. wrongly cited Linne 's species as being the same 

 as his own, the change would be just, but now it is quite unneces- 

 sary, and the general acceptance of such a principle would lead to 

 disastrous consequences. Between 1758 and 1830 a very great 

 number of species was described, but referred to a comparatively 

 very small number of genera. The consequence of this is that 

 the number of specific names preoccupied in this sense is immense, 

 not in Dipt era, as so many genera were founded as early as 1803, 

 but in many other groups, as Lepidoptera and Mollusca. If all 

 classes of animals are considered, the number of species, which 

 must be renamed according to this rule, amounts to thousands. 

 Kirkaldy's catalogue of the Pentatomidse and some of his minor 

 articles, with their sweeping and useless alterations of specific 

 names, are a good warning in this respect; fortunately almost no 

 hemipterist seems to have taken any notice of his new names of 

 this class. As Sherborn's bulky volume, ''Index animalium" — 

 a result of many years' work — ^only includes the- species described 

 till 1800, and few persons have time and liking for -looking up 

 names preoccupied in this sense, it is a matter of course 

 that the eventual new names alleged to be necessary in such cases 

 could be introduced only little by little. In the meantime not 

 even our most familiar names of animals could be safe from a 

 sudden rebaptizing. As a confusion of two species bearing the 

 same specific name, but belonging to different genera, is out of the 

 question, a change of names in such cases serves no purpose, and 

 it is sincerely to be hoped that zoologists who have accepted the 

 contrary principle would reconsider the position they have taken 

 in reference to this matter. It is true that we then have to restore 

 some of the older names now standing as synonyms, but the num- 

 ber of these names is very small as compared to the names of the 

 other class. 



