A02 Allen, Status of Certain S-wainsonian Genera. lOct 



1827. The introduction to this paper was dated (/. c, p. 162), 

 "Warwick, 15th Nov. 1826," when, as Swainson himself states 

 later, the manuscript was sent to the editors of the ' Zoological 

 Journal ' for publication. 



During the interval between the transmission of this paper to 

 the 'Zoological Journal' and its publication (in the case of the 

 second part, a period of about twelve months), his second 

 paper, on Mexican birds, appeared in the ' Philosophical Maga- 

 zine ' (New Series, Vol. I, 1827), also published in two parts, 

 the first part (pp. 364-369) appearing in the number for May, 

 the second part (pp. 433-442) in the number for June. It is fair 

 to infer that the two parts are respectively citable as appearing in 

 May and June, 1827, or two and six months before the paper on 

 the new genera. 



In the introduction to the second paper (/. c, p. 365), Swain- 

 son makes the following statement : " The generic definitions will, 

 I hope, shortly appear in another Journal, to which they have 

 been sent with the intention of preceding the publication of this 

 paper, ever since last November. By this unfortunate delay, I 

 am reduced to the unpleasant necessity of referring to a book not 

 yet published, for what the reader should have the immediate 

 power of consulting." 



In the case of new species belonging to these genera, fifteen 

 in number, he gave, a reference to the first paper, as follows: 

 "G. [enus] Tyrannula" (or whatever the name may be), fol- 

 lowed by " Swains, in Zool. Journ. No. 10." In eleven of these 

 cases the only species mentioned happened to be the one he had 

 previously designated as the type of the genus. 



We have here a case where an author described a number of 

 genera in the most formal way, giving diagnoses of them and 

 specifying their types, but through the earlier publication of a 

 subsequently written paper by the same author, — due to fortuitous 

 circumstances wholly beyond his control, and also greatly to his 

 regret, — some of these genera were first published in associa- 

 tion with other species than those he had originally designated 

 as the types. Is it reasonable, or consistent with the best inter- 

 ests of nomenclature, that in such a case an author's plain and 

 deliberate designation of types should be ignored because the gen- 

 era accidentally became associated, a few weeks earlier, by the 



