transfers of names of (jenera. 187 



have recently said elsewhere (Tr. Eoy. Dub. Soc. (2), iii,, 

 p. 209) : — " Considerable difference of opinion prevails 

 at present as to what course should be pursued in citing 

 a name and reference to the genus. Some prefer to refer 

 to the author who first described or defined the genus ; 

 while others — looking to the fact that any genus in the 

 lapse of time undergoes great changes — consider we 

 should quote the author who defined the genus in the 

 sense in which the individual now writing uses it. The 

 first of these courses is, it must be admitted, practically 

 of little value except to bibliographers ; while the second 

 is unfortunately to a considerable extent impracticable, 

 for the reason that a genus is made what it is at any 

 given moment, not by actual definition, but by definition 

 plus addition and minus subtraction. A defines a genus, 

 say as " Chorazus," making it to consist of ten species ; 

 B adds another five species, still calling the aggregate 

 Chorazus ; C describes an allied new genus, say Dij- 

 clomus, which consists of certain insects plus two of A's 

 and one of B's Chorazi. E, now coming to the subject, 

 finds that Cliorazus, as in actual use, is not the same as 

 it was to either A or B ; while C, who has been the last 

 of the defining factors in its shaping, has not defined it 

 in any way whatever. For these reasons it has long 

 appeared to me desirable that no rule should become 

 fixed or conventional as to the use of references to 

 generic names. In point of fact four courses may be 

 adopted : first, no author's name need be given when a 

 generic name is used ; and this for many purposes is 

 the truest and most simple thing to do, though very 

 unsatisfactory to amateurs of pedantry; second, the 

 name and reference may be to the maker of the generic 

 name— this may be used in bibliographic and synonymic 

 works ; third, the name of the last actual describer may 

 be given : this is perhaps the best course for popular 

 works, where brevity and utility are of predominant 

 importance over consistency and completeness ; fourth, 

 a history of the genus and its changes may be given, 

 and the course of events by which it has come to be 

 what it is at the moment of writing may be sketched. 

 This latter is the best course, but it involves more 

 expenditure of time and labour than it is worth while to 

 devote to the object in the present transitional state of 

 zoological nomenclature." 



