( c ) 



genus by Linne was not necessarily the type— indeed, in Phil. 

 Bot. (ed. 1), 197 (1751) and (ed. 2) 201-2 (1763), Linne him- 

 self wrote : " Si genus receptum, secundum jus naturae et 

 artis, in plura dirinii debet, turn nomen antea commune 

 manebit vulgatissimae et officinali plantae," showing that his 

 opinion was that the name should be restricted to the best- 

 known species— not the first on the list. 



The whole question was tlioroughly threshed out in 1896^ 

 1898, and a full re])ort witli analyses of replies to the c^uestions 

 circulated will be found in Proc. IV, Int. Congress Zool., 

 273-342, Cambridge, 1899. 



^Ir. Durrant concluded by remarking that nothing new was 

 being brought before us, and he liad dealt with the whole 

 question twenty years ago ! 



Dr. G. A. K. Marshall then pro])oscd the following 

 Hesolution : — 



" That in the opinion of this Society the arbitrary method 

 followed by Sir George Hampson of taking as the Tyj^e of a 

 Genus the first sj)ecies in the series, disregarding the work 

 of previous authors, is contrary to the usage of Entomologists, 

 and this Society declines to adopt this system."' 



Mr. G. T. Bethune-Baker spoke as follows : — 



In seconding the motion I woiild draw your attention to 

 the fact that the proposition of Sir George Hampson to adopt 

 the first species as the type has been discarded practically by 

 all authors of zoology everywhere. Sir George claims Roths- 

 child and Jordan as adherents to his method, and in their 

 great work on the Sphingidae it is true they did adopt that 

 method, but they have discontinued it and do not adopt it 

 now. Again, Barnes and McDunnough, who at first thought 

 it was a convenient arrangement, have likewise discarded it, 

 finding, as they say, the whole of the zoological world against 

 them. Even Sir George himself makes his own exceptions 

 (Novit. Zool., xxiv, p. 19; 1917), to wit, Tortrix with viridana 

 as the type, the second species; Sphinx with liguslri as the 

 type, because of the sphinx-like attitude of the larva ; 

 Bombyx withmori as type. He gives his reasons, it is true, 

 but similar reasoning ought to apply with equal force to 

 the genus Tinea, for I demur entirely to his statement 



