XVI 
but refer further to an admirable paper by Gill4), who ae shows ie 
unreliability of Linnean applications of classical names. Reuter i as seus a ies 
in his adhesion to my claims on behalf of Cimesx and Clinocoris ) as ae : 
Bergroth, and the matter may therefore, it is hoped, be considered as settled. 
5 92. If an author in dealing with all the known apeeies of a gente 
removes all but one species to other genera, that Bpecipsais the type ; or, 
if several are thus left, then Be Se the “type-possibilities”. Restriction 
7 is not considered valid ”). 
z cae et author may fix the type of any genus, provided that it be 
one of the original species of that genus and that such fixation be per- 
missible by the previous operations of other authors. j 
24. If a genus, having no type assigned, be divided into two or more 
subgenera (none of the latter bearing the generic name), the fixation of Pa 
genotype (and of the typical subgenus) to be determined subsequently as follows: 
a) Any subsequent author (providing intermediate authors have left 
the way open), may fix the type of the genus out of any one of the sub- 
genera, the name of that subgenus then becoming a true synonym of the genus. 
b) If a genus, having no type assigned, be divided into two or more 
subgenera, one of which bears the generic name, the type mus t subsequently 
be fixed from that subgenus. Ls 
c) If some of the subgenera are raised to generic rank, the remaining 
one falls as a synonym of the genus if one be left, or “(a)” comes into 
operation if two or more be left. 
25. Where genera (containing more than one species) have no type 
fixed, any subsequent author can fix the type (except as above), even to the 
detriment of the original author. Ex. If such a genus contain the type of 
an earlier genus, it is allowable, and indeed preferable, to synonymize it 
with the earlier genus, even if some of the other species do not belong to 
such earlier genus. 
26. The following categories of species are excluded from consideration 
in selecting genotypes: 
a) Those not included under the genus at the time of inception (ex- 
cept, very rarely, as in Myodocha), 
1) 1898 Smithsonian Rep. for 1896, pp. 457—83, especially 466—68. 
2) 1908 Ent. Mo. Mag. (2) XIX. 22—29. 
*) The followers of the method of residues “have allowed one name, indepen- 
dently erected, to ‘restrict’ another — whereof the second author had probably never 
even heard! — have forbidden an author or reviser to fix as type of one genus a 
species which has earlier been made (or which even now becomes, on their arbitrary 
methods) the type of another, and have brought in other extraneous elements which 
have resulted, as Sir George Hampson has so well said, in a ‘reductio ad absurdum’. 
If the history of each name were traced independently and types fixed in accordance, 
the matter would be greatly simplified. Compare Walsingham and Durrant’s ‘Merton 
Rules’ No. 44: ‘He who first restricts a genus under its own name limits the possible 
type’, ete. There is nothing ‘absurd’ in this, quite the reverse; for it recognizes 
and respects an intention to revise antecedent work, and fulfils the requirements of 
the ‘British Association’ and other codes. Theoretically, no author ought to revise 
nomenclature without knowing his literature (of course mere faunistic lists can be 
ignored as they have no restrictive influence); but even if, as you suggest, some 
relerence were overlooked by the monographer, it would not dislocate an entire 
catenation of names, as on the Scudder system, but, at the worst, only the one, or 
ones, immediately involved.”. L. B. Prout 1905 J. N. York Ent. Soc. XIII. 214—15. 
