xViv 



were his Equites, Plebeii, &c. Fabricius did describe genera, and usually indicated hfe 

 type species: he was the first to describe Papilio as a genus, Priamus was not the type 

 of the Fabrician Papilio, but the insects now known by the name Papilio did come 

 within that {jenus as limited by Fabricius. 



Mr. Pascoe thought that Linnanis and the older authors had no types at all: the 

 notion of a type-species was of modern date: he saw no ground whatever for regarding 

 the first species in a genus as the type: his notion was to discover the species which, 

 at the time when the genus was first named, was, by reason of its size or its abundance 

 or any other circumstance, most prominent amongst those which the author grouped 

 together under the same name, and that insect he took to be the type of the genus. 

 That the first species in the list could not be the type was conclusively shown by the 

 fact that, in successive editions of his works, Fabricius in many instances placed 

 different species at the head of the same genus, probably without any other guiding 

 principle than that of putting the largest species at the head; the largest species of 

 yesterday was deposed iu favour of the later but larger discovery of to-day. 



Mr. Stainton agreed with the previous speakers that the rule of priority could not 

 be applied to genera in the manner suggested by Mr. Kirby; and he did not think 

 that, in the absence of indication, the first species in a genus was necessarily the type. 

 Take, for instance, the genus Tryphsena, of which almost every one would be ready t<» 

 admit that Pronuba was the type; yet in almost every list the species Orbona was 

 placed first, and Pronuba came about the middle of the genus. When the author has 

 Dot indicated any particular species or section of his genus as typical, the subsequent 

 author who subdivides ihe genus has the right to determine to what section of the old 

 genus the old name shall be restricted, and his determination on that point ought to 

 bind all future writers. 



Mr. Janson agreed that the subsequent author has the right to allot the original 

 name to any division of the original genus, but if he does so it is rather as a matter of 

 courtesy to the original author than of right on the part of the latter to have the 

 original name retained. Suppose the original description of Aleochara by A. is silent 

 as to the tarsi j B. on revising the species congregated under that name finds a group 

 of fifty species with four-jointed tarsi, and another group of fifty species with five- 

 jointed tarsi; B. is at liberty, if out of courtesy to A. he chooses to do so, to retain the 

 name Aleochara for either of the groups, though neither group is the Aleochara of A. ; 

 but since neither group alone is the Aleochara of A., B. is equally at liberty to give, 

 and is logically more correct iu giving, a new name to each of the groups, and so 

 discard Aleochara altogether. 



Mr. Frederick Smith (who observed that, on Mr. Kirby 's principle, the honey-bee 

 would cease to be an Apis), Mr. Edward Sheppard^ Mr. J.Jenner Weir and Mr. 

 M'Lachlan, also remarked upon the intolerable inconvenience which would ensue 

 from any attempt to put in practice the views advanced by Mr. Kirby. 



With reference to the question of specific nomenclature, Prof. Westwood certainly 

 understood the rule to be that, where the two sexes of one insect were contempo- 

 raneously described under two names, upon the ascertainment of their specific identity, 

 the name of the female was dropped and that of the male was retained as the name of 

 the species. 



Mr. M'Lachlan inquired what was to be done when in different parts of the same 

 book (not being a periodical, but issuing from the press in its entirety and complete) 



