( xxiii ) 



or specimens first in the sequence than to the others, this argument holds 

 equally good in the case of the types fixed by any other method of restriction. 

 We invite the reader to find ont the types of such genera as I'apilw, Sesia, 

 and Zi/garna by all three methods. A glance at the original definitions of these 

 genera suffices to fix priamus, tantalus, and flipendidat; as the respective types 

 according to tlie third method. A study of several families is necessary before 

 the types can conscientiously* be ascertained by the first and second methods, 

 since the species originally included in each genus belong to different families. 



In mammals and birds and several other groups of animals the second 

 method has almost generally been adopted, for genera at least. If the 

 systematists have there really arrived at a stable nomenclature, no change is 

 necessary, a stable nomenclature being the main aim of the principles of 

 nomenclature. In Lepidoptera, however, and other insects, the first and second 

 methods, less often the third, have been followed, and that has landed us in 

 such a muddle that there is no question of stability having been attained. This 

 being so, we should have adopted, as a matter of course, the surest method of 

 restriction for the sake of avoiding waste of energ)', even if our method was 

 not the logically correct one for all who agree that strict priority has to be 

 adhered to. 



If the authors of the names for varieties, species, genera, etc., had done 

 from the beginning what we now have to do with their names ; if the authors 

 had restricted every name in the way that we now are compelled to restrict it, 

 much time would have been saved. We all agree that a specific (or varietal) 

 name based on one specimen, and a generic name founded on one species, 

 are as valid as names based on more material. Further, if all names were 

 based on one individual or on one species respectively, tliere would be no 

 composite species and genera ; and if the original individuals of each species 

 and variety were preserved, scarcely any difference of opinion would arise among 

 careful workers about the apjdication of the names. We cannot alter what has 

 been published ; but our contemporaries and the scientists who come after us 

 have it in their own hands to simplify nomenclature in the way here indicated 

 by making all names monotypical. 



We do not know who was the first to fix a ti/pe (= ti/pus) for the name 

 of a species, variety, or genus. The nomenclatorial term appears already in 

 I8I6 (Ualman). The word ti/pe was perhaps not the best that could have 

 been chosen, as it had already a definite meaning also in science, signifying 

 that which is typical for a grouj) of units. Bnt as we frequently use in science 

 tiie same word for different conceptions (claw, wing, tarsus, lip, mandibles, tail, 

 tongue, etc.), the philological objection against the term " type " is not of much 

 weight. However, the difference between the meaning of the word as used in 

 ordinary language and tlie meaning iif the nomenclatorial term has occasioned 

 coni'usion, and hence led to another kind of objection. 



• Some writers liavc simiilifietl nuittc'r.>i fur themselves by igiioiing the exotic speeies altogetlier ! 1 



