XVII 
b) Those queried at time of inception of genus. 
c) Those mentioned in their description as mutilated in some character 
mentioned in the generic description. 
d) Those later on removed to other genera, except in cases where 
genera have been reversed, as in Cicada and Tetigonia. 
* * 
* 
Another controverted question is: Shall a species be determined accor- 
ding to the type-specimen or the description? This seems to me not at all 
doubtful, yet so many competent entomologists hold a view opposed to mine, 
that it must now be discussed. 
In the case of closely-allied species, in which characters, not mentioned 
by their authors, are subsequently found to be of great value, the inspection 
of the type-specimen is very important, perhaps indispensible. Yet I think 
the supposed type should not override the description }). 
For example, if the type-specimen of a supposed Cimexr bidens were 
labelled in the author’s handwriting “Cimer rujipes type’, surely the in- 
dication should be disregarded; yet I have heard the opposite view 
seriously advocated by a well known entomologist. In determining species 
by description, one must bear in mind the date at which the description 
was made, as also the methods of the author. For instance an author might 
describe a bug as having quadri-segmentate antennae when it really has five 
segments, and so forth. But it is too possible for labels to be shifted on 
type-specimens, to allow the stability of nomenclature to depend entirely on 
such labels. In my opinion, the type-specimen should only be called into 
court as a last resource, for precise determination. 
But even when the type of a genus is fixed satisfactorily to all dis- 
putants and when claims to priority are apparently fairly adjudicated, there 
still comes into play another factor which is always liable to upset appa- 
rently final results, that is, wrong dating! 
It is comparatively very rare to find separate works in which the 
exact date of publication is given, though the latter is happily the case increa- 
singly frequently in periodicals. There is no reason whatever why every 
publication in which new forms are described, should not be dated with the 
exact date of publication. But some of those which fulfil this requirement, 
do so falsely. I am sorry to pillory a magazine which has published such 
excellent work, but I am obliged to mention the “Revue d’Entomologie” as, 
(at least in former years) habitually bearing a false date. Thus, papers 
dated October would not be published till January of next year, and these 
discrepancies, which were almost habitual, were never acknowledged. Other 
cases have been noted from time to time. On the other hand, we occasionally 
find works post-dated! For example the second and third parts of Fieber’s 
»Die Europidischen Hemiptera‘ were dated 1861, but were actually published 
Nov. 1860, so my friend Prof. Anton Handlirsch writes me. 
Another cause of uncertainly is the claim by certain workers, that the 
earlier issue of a few “author’s separates’? is sufficient to insure priority. 
For example, Dyar 2) claimed priority, a little while ago, for certain de- 
1) Cf. also A. S. Hitchcock 1905 Science (N. 8S.) XXI. 828-—32. 
2) J. N. York. Ent. Soc. XIV. 231. 
II 
