30 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 



Echinocephalus Molin, 1858, 154; type by present designation, uncinatus. 



uncinatus considered valid by Molin, 1858, 154. 



cygni given as species inquirenda by Molin, 1858, 154. 

 Proleptus Dujardin, 1845a, 105; type by present designation, acutus. 



acutus Dujardin, 1845a, 105; only positive species. 



obtusus Dujardin, 1845a, 105; given by Dujardin as doubtful. 

 Thominx Dujardin, 1845a, 22-23; type by present designation, manica. 



manica Dujardin, 1845a, 22-23; only positive species. 



trident Dujardin, 1845a, 22-23; given as doubtful. 



Cases of this kind should not be confused with cases like Strongylus, 

 where the genus was distinctly based upon one species, described, dis- 

 cussed, and in some cases figured, but where the author incidentally 

 mentioned that some one found another (unnamed, undescribed, and 

 unfigured) congeneric species. 



In addition to the ruling on the four genera given above, it may be 

 mentioned that in all four cases, page precedence, if adopted, would 

 call for the same four species, respectively, as type; further, Cosmocerca, 

 is a doubtful homonym; uncinatus could also be construed as type by 

 virtual tautonymy. It is possible that Thominx should be considered 

 as a case under the rule of doubtfully referred species (tridens) instead 

 of species inquirendae. 



3. GENERA ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED WITH A SPECIES DEFINITELY DESIGNATED AS 

 TYPE (TYPE BY ORIGINAL DESIGNATION). 



RULE. When in the original publication of a genus one of the species 

 is definitely designated as type, this species should be accepted as type, 

 regardless of any other considerations. 



Thus, genus X-us, 1890, originally published with the following 

 species: 



albus, 1890, specifically designated as type. 

 ,, niger, 1885, type of genus Y-us, 1885. 

 flamdus, 1890, type of Z-us, 1900. 

 minutus, 1880, not known to be a type. 

 radiatus, 1875, doubtful species. 



If an author definitely designates a given species as type, he selects 

 a form which expresses his standard of reference for the genus. If 

 any other species is subsequently selected as standard of reference, 

 such selection is theoretically equivalent to the proposition of a new 

 genus, which may or may not be considered identical with the original 

 genus. Practically, the second selection is therefore, in many cases, 

 at least, the proposition of a stillborn homonym; in other cases it 

 involves an erroneous quotation of the original author's intentions. 

 It is clear, therefore, that the acceptance of the originally designated 

 type is in accordance with the law of priority. 



Unfortunately, comparatively few of the earlier authors foresaw 

 the necessity of definitely designating types, and to this lack of fore- 



