20 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 



e.g., (2) Hiibner published the h etero typical genus Notocelia, Verz. bek. Schm. 

 379-80 (1826). Stephens' first use of this name is as a subgenus of Spilonota Stph., 

 in which sense ocellana F. became the type of Notocelia Hb. 



But a few pages later he employed Notocelia in a generic sense with the type 

 uddmanniana, L., describing the genus and remarking on its synonymy. It is, there- 

 fore, obvious that it was his intention to retain the full generic value of the name, 

 and his second limitation should be adopted in preference to his first. 



GILL, 1896. 



Gill (1896, 20-21), in discussing types, makes the following 

 remarks: 



TVPONYMS. 



The question, what is necessary to insure reception of a generic name, is one of 

 those concerning which there is a difference of opinion. By some a definition is 

 considered to be requisite, but by others the specification of a type is only required. 

 But the demand in such case is simply that the definition shall be made. It may be 

 inaccurate or not to the point; it may be given up at once and never adopted by the 

 author himself afterwards or by anyone else. Nevertheless, the condition is fulfilled 

 by the attempt to give the definition. In short, the attempt is required in order 

 that the competency (or its want) of the namer may be known, and if incompetency 

 is shown thereby no matter! The attempt has been made. The indication by a 

 type is not sufficient. 



Anyone who has had occasion to investigate the history of any large group must 

 have been often perplexed on determining on what special subdivision of a disin- 

 tegrated genus the original names should be settled. The old genus may have been 

 a very comprehensive one, covering many genera and even families of modern 

 zoology, and of course the investigator has to ignore the original diagnosis. He must 

 often acknowledge how much better it would have been if the genus had been orig- 

 inally indicated by a type rather than a diagnosis. Many naturalists, therefore, now 

 recognize a typonym to be eligible as a generic name. Among such are those guided 

 by the code formulated by the American Ornithologists' Union, to which reference 

 may be made and in which will be found some judicious remarks on the subject 

 in Canon XLII. Certainly it is more rational to accept a typonym than to require a 

 definition for show rather than use. Nevertheless, I fully recognize the obligation 

 of the genus-maker to indicate by diagnosis, as well as type, his conception of 

 generic characters. 



FIRST SPECIES OK A GENUS NOT ITS TYPE. 



On account of the difficulty of determining the applicability of a generic name when 

 a large genus is to be subdivided, it has been the practice of some zoologists to take 

 the first species of a genus as its type. This, it has been claimed, is in pursuance of 

 the law of priority. It is, however, an extreme, if not illegitimate, extension of the 

 law, and has generally been discarded in recent years. But in the past it had emi- 

 nent advocates, such as George Robert Gray in Ornithology and Pieter Van Bleeker 

 in Ichthyology. A few still adhere to the practice, and within a few months two 

 excellent zoologists have defended their application of names by statements that the 

 first species of the old genera justified their procedure. The contention of one 

 involves the names which shall be given to cray-lishes and lobsters. 



It is evident that the fathers of zoological nomenclature never contemplated such 

 a treatment of their names, and the application of the rule to their genera would 

 result in some curious and unexpected conditions. Let us see how some genera of 



