( xxii ) 



((-) Third method of restriction : As the first and second methods are 

 opposed to one another, diiiering nearly always in tlic results attained, we 

 reject them hoth. The enerjry spent on the book-research which cither method 

 requires is misapplied, reminding- one too much of the famous fight against 

 windmills. Nomenclature is not jiart of nature ; it is an auxiliary means 

 invented by the classifier for his own convenience. What in the name of 

 common-sense compels us, then, to turn a convenience into an inconvenience? 

 There is a wide scope for research in nature requiring all the energies of 

 scientists. Why, then, impose upon scientists those unnecessary labours which 

 have only a nomeuclatorial, but no scientific result? The method adopted by 

 ourselves is at once logical and very simple, and removes all the difficulties as 

 far as that is possible. Our method of dealing with composite species (and 

 genera) is to narrow all cases down to the case dealt with under (1) by simply 

 ajiplying also here the law of priority recognised by nearly every classifier as 

 the only means of arriving at a stable nomenclature. From the sequence 

 of the localities under a comjiosite species, or from the charai-ters mentioned 

 in the definition, or from the bibliography referred to by the author of a new 

 species, one is able to draw up a sequence of the components of the species. 

 If Macroglossiini cori/thus, as conceived by Walker in 185G, consists of three 

 species, A, B, C, we have : — 



TA = M. cori/thiis ; 

 MacroglossKM cori/tkus\^ = M. corythus ; 

 tC = M. corythus. 

 Each of the three components is M. corythus, according to Walker. According 

 to the law of ]iriority, the same specific name cannot stand twice in the same 

 genus, and the name occurring more than once can be valid only for the sjiecies 

 wiiich was first pnblislied under that name, or which stands first in the book 

 where the name is defined for the first time. This rule being applied to the 

 above case, it follows that the name corythus can stand for A only. All we 

 have to do, tlienlbre, is to find out the sequence of the components of a 

 composite s[iecies. This is mostly easy, especially in the case of geographically 

 separate forms. 



In the case of composite genera the sequence is given by the names ot 

 species mentioned, there being very few genera defined without reference to 

 one or more species. Strict adherence to the above rule makes the first species 

 mentioned (he type of the genus. 



One might object that this mechanical application of a rule leaves it 

 entirely to arcident which species becomes the type of the genus, or to which 

 I)articular portion of a composite species the specific name is restricted ; and, 

 further, that the author did not intend to give the first species or the first 

 specimens respectively any such i)re-eminence, and that the "type" thus fi.xed 

 may be jnst the one to which the description a]iplies least. We reply, firstl)-, 

 that we do not know the intentions of the author, as he did not state them ; 

 and, secondly, that, if ihe description aiij)lies accidentally less well to the species 



