38 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 



CASE OF Chaos LINNAEUS, 1767. 



Volvox chaos Linnaeus (1758a, 821; 1760, 821) was based directly 

 upon Roesel's (1755) Der kleine Proteus (Insecten-Belustigung, Niirn- 

 berg, v. 3, 622-624, pi. 101, figs. A-T), with the diagnosis "V[olvox\ 

 polymorpho-mutabilis. Habitat in aquis dulcibus. Forma propria 

 destitutus omnes anomalas assumens et citissime immutans, Proteo 

 incostantior." In 1767, chaos was raised to generic rank, as follows: 



Chaos Linmeus, 1767, 1326, with five species: 



redivivum Linnaeus, 1767, renamed Vibrio anguillula, 1773, confined to Anguil- 

 lula glutinis, 1783 = type of Anguillula, 1786. 



protheus Linnaeus, 1767 (Volvox chaos, 1758, renamed, and specifically based 

 upon RoesePs, 1755, Der kleine Proteus, pi. 101, figs. A-T, and Lederm., 

 micr., 88, f. 48; with the diagnosis "C[haos] gelatinosum polyrnorphomu- 

 tabile. Habitat in aquis dulcibus. Figura propria determinataque nulla, 

 assumens citatissime figuras millenas anomalas " = type of Amiba, 1822. 



fungorum Linnseus, 1767. 



ustilago Linnaeus, 1767. 



infusorium Linnaeus, 1767. 



It is clear that the original specific name chaos, 1758, was raised to 

 generic rank, Chaos, 1767, and the new Linnaean specific name pro- 

 theus, 1767 ( = proteus Pallas, 1766), introduced. Here we have a clear 

 case of type by absolute tautonymy, the correct name being Chaos 

 chaos [!]. 



Amiba Bory, 1822a (later changed to Amoeba Ehrenberg, 1830a, and 

 still later changed to Ameba], was proposed with the same species 

 (= Chaos chaos] as type: "Le type du genre est le Protee de Mueller, 

 que ce savant forma d'un animalcule decouvert par Roesel." 



In a recent discussion on nomenclature one author has referred to 

 the possibility of reviving the generic name Chaos, and from the con- 

 text of his article it would appear that he would not approve of such 

 a course upon the premises then known to him. The premises as given 

 in the foregoing, however, were probably unknown to him. 



This generic name is here unhesitatingly revived, both as generic 

 and specific. It has as clear a standing in nomenclature as has an} 7 

 name ever used by Linnseus; it was based upon the same species as 

 Amiba, Amoeba, or Ameba, and no one who does not object to Amiba, 

 Amoeba, or Ameba can logically object to Chaos as generic name; no 

 one who does not object to proteus or prothem can logically object to 

 chaos as specific name. 



A storm of objection because of this action can easily be foreseen, 

 but there need be no fear for the ultimate adoption of Chaos cfwos. 

 This case will afford excellent material for sarcastic criticism on the 

 part of authors who disapprove of consistency in nomenclatural 

 matters. 



If an} 7 author objects on principle to type by absolute tautonymy, 

 he might interpret Chaos in either of two other ways: 



