>9°5 J Allen, Stains of Certain Sxvainsonian Genera. 4-03 



same author, with species not intended as their types ? Such a 

 proceeding is contrary to the traditions and usages of systematists 

 in such matters, and quite contrary to the spirit of the lex priori- 

 tads, since in determining generic types where no type is specified, 

 the author's meaning and intention, if ascertainable are, by com- 

 mon consent, given consideration. How much more then should 

 a strained technicality be waived where an author has distinctly 

 indicated his type species. Does the first association of a specific 

 name with a generic name necessarily determine the species thus 

 mentioned as the type of the genus in question? Ordinarily it 

 most certainly would, but in the present case such a procedure 

 antagonizes and contravenes the purpose of the author in estab- 

 lishing his genus. Viewed from any standpoint of logic, such a 

 proceeding would be in the highest degree absurd. 



If no type had been distinctly specified by Swainson, as a part 

 of his diagnosis, for his new genera, it would be necessary to take 

 as the type the first species he associated with them, and in that 

 case his paper on Mexican birds would determine the type for 

 the genera here under special notice. For example, he proposed, 

 among others, the genus Spermagra (Zool. Journ., Ill, 1827, p. 

 346) without indicating a type, but in the paper on Mexican birds 

 he described under this genus the single species Spermagra 

 erythrocephahr, which thus became of course its type. Spermagra, 

 however, is a synonym of I'iranga Vieillot, 1807, and the species 

 is now recognized as Piranga erythrocephala (Swainson). 



If some other author had by chance published a paper in which 

 any of Swainson 's generic names had been used in connection 

 with a properly designated species, or if Swainson's paper on 

 Mexican birds had been written by some other author and pub- 

 lished in advance of Swainson's paper containing his new genera, 

 the case would be different, since under such circumstances the 

 earliest publication would have to be taken. In the apparently 

 unique case of Swainson's two papers, it is far more sensible, and 

 saves serious complications, to accept Swainson's designations of 

 the types of his own generas, as they have heretofore been univers- 

 ally accepted. 



There are times, therefore, when the exercise of common sense 

 in the enforcement of even a rigid rule is commendable. The 

 avowed purpose of all rules of nomenclature is to secure stability 



