xliii 



The author observed that a very large number of the generic names now current 

 are applied exclusively to insects which the proposers of the names in question never 

 indicated as their types of the genera, to the exclusion of the real types, which were 

 frequently placed even in other families. He presumed, and regarded it as au 

 " axiom," that where no figure or other indication of type was given, the insect placed 

 at the head of the genus was to be considered as the type, and that the first section of 

 a genus was always to be considered typical. Thus Linnaeus always placed ihei 

 species Priauius at the head of his genus Papilio, and that species must be taken to 

 be the type of Papilio : the consequence would be that Ornilhoptera {Boisduval, 1836) 

 would sink, and the present genus Papilio would receive the next oldest name, 

 Amaryssus (Dalman, 1816), with Machaon for its type. Numerous other instances 

 were j^iven, to show the vast changes in the current nomenclature of Rhopalocera that 

 would be required by a strict application of the law of priority to genera ; the object 

 of the auihov being to invite discussion, and ascertain the opinion of naturalists as to 

 the desirability of attempting so to apply the law. He recommended that in future 

 the type species of every genus should be indicated by some symbol, so that that 

 species should always remain in the genus, however much the latter might afterwards 

 be subdivided. Mr. Kirby, though he considered that an author was at liberty, when 

 subdividing a genus of his own, to apply the name to any group of species comprised 

 in it, provided be had not himself indicated any type, yet did not think it allowable 

 for an author, in subdividing a genus of another author, to apply the name to any but 

 the first section ; and (if no type had been indicated by the first author) the first 

 species of the first section must be taken as the type of the restricted genus. In con- 

 clusion, Mr. Kirby alluded to some difficulties in specific nomenclature; where the 

 sexes of an insect had been described under difi'erent names simultaneously, he thought 

 the rule was that the name given to the male should stand, whether that sex happened 

 to be described a few pages before the female, or vice versa. 



The President doubted whether there was any such rule as that which was the 

 whole foundation of Mr. Kirby's proposed revolution in generic nomenclature, 

 namely, that the first species in a genus was to be deemed the type ; and if any such 

 rule were to be adopted for the future, it did not follow that it ought to be applied to 

 the past: to give such a rule a retrospective operation would be productive of the 

 greatest confusion and inconvenience. 



Prof. Westwood had many years ago expressed the view, that where an author has 

 by means of dissections, figures, or in any other way, indicated the particular species 

 which he regards as typical of the genus, or which may be deemed to be the best 

 embodiment of the idea upon which the genus is founded, that species is of course the 

 type, and must be treated as such by subsequent authors; but where no such indication 

 is given by the founder, the first species in the genus is to be taken as the type, and 

 ought to be so taken in any subsequent dismemberment or division of the genus. But 

 the adoption of such a rule and the application of it retrospectively would cause so 

 much confusion that the remedy would be worse than the disease; and he should be 

 extremely sorry to see Mr. Kirby's theory carried into practice, to the subversion of 

 established nomeiiclalure. 



Mr. A. G. Duller discussed several of the particular instances mentioned by 

 Mr. Kirby, and dissented from his conclusions. He argued that Papilio of Linneeus 

 was not a genus, but included the whole of the butterflies ; Linnaeus's generic divisions 



