206 Annals Entomological Society of America [Vol. IV, 



knowledge of specimens, the types of these descriptions grow 

 in importance as the sum of our knowledge of species increases. 

 The best description is not perfect, but, more often than not, 

 deficient in some important taxonomic character. Hence the 

 need of later systematists to refer to the type as the absolute 

 standard of comparison. A nomenclature of types has accord- 

 ingly been developed in recent years which is given the same 

 importance as that which taxonomists attach to species nomen- 

 clature. While less diversified than the latter, it should become 

 of equal interest to the taxonomist, as it remains for him to 

 apply it. 



With the close of the year 1906 we have a series of five pri- 

 mary types and four supplementary types designed to meet the 

 needs of both systematist and type custodian. Some of these 

 designations will possibly be disregarded or even found insuffi- 

 cient; this depends upon the individual, whether he be "splitter" 

 or "lumper." 



The first step toward a logical nomenclature of types was 

 made when taxonomists began to set aside one of a series of 

 specimens as the type proper, and to name the remaining 

 specimens cotypes. Too often it had been found that a series 

 which the protologist defined as one species actually represented 

 two or more species. Hence the advisability of naming only 

 one specimen the type and the others differently. The name 

 "cotype", although used so universally, is in such case a mis- 

 nomer and was finally set aside for the more pertinent and 

 exact "paratype" — to signify specimens of the original series 

 other than the type specimen. As the word "type" is subject 

 to many interpretations according to the combination in which 

 it is used, Schuchert in 1807 devised the word "holotype" — 

 meaning "sole type" — for the single specimen on which a des- 

 cription should be based. The name "cotype", however, was 

 not discarded; its applicability only was limited. "Cotype", 

 in its present interpretation, is properly applicable only in 

 paleontology; for instance, when we have a fossil and its 

 reverse. Another instance, from zoology, would be the follow- 

 ing: two flies caught in coitu and not separated in death. If 

 mounted together neither male not female can be called holo- 

 type; there is no necessity of singling out one of the specimens, 

 as there can be no doubt of the two belonging together. 



The following is a summary of type nomenclature: 



