14 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 



list, if found accurately to agree with their definition, was regarded by them as the 

 type. A specific name or its synonyms will also often serve to point out the particu- 

 lar species which by implication must be regarded as the original type of a genus. 

 In such cases we are justified in restoring the name of the old genus to its typical 

 signification, even when later authors have done otherwise. 



We submit, therefore, that 



4. The generic name should always be retained for that portion of the original 

 genus which was considered typical by the author. 



Example. The genus Picumnus was established by Temminck and included two 

 groups, one with four toes, the other with three, the former of which was regarded 

 by the author as typical. Swainson, however, in raising these groups at a later 

 period to the rank of genera gave a new name, Asthenurus, to the former group and 

 retained Picumnus for the latter. In this case we have no choice but to restore the 

 name, Picumnus Temm., to its correct sense, canceling the name Asthenurus Sw. and 

 imposing a new name on the three-toed group which Swainson had called Picumnus. 



When no type is indicated,, then the original name is to be kept for that subsequent subdi- 

 vision which first received it. Our next proposition seems to require no explanation. 



5. When the evidence as to the original type of a genus is not perfectly clear and 

 indisputable, then the person who first subdivides the genus may affix the original 

 name to any portion of it at his discretion, and no later author has a right to transfer 

 that name to any other part of the original genus. 



A later name of the same extent as an earlier to be wholly canceled. When an author 

 infringes the law of priority by giving a new name to a genus which has been prop- 

 erly defined and named already, the only penalty which can be attached to this act 

 of negligence or injustice is to expel the name so introduced from the pale of the 

 science. It is not right, then, in such cases, to restrict the meaning of the later 

 name so that it may stand side by side with the earlier one, as has sometimes been 

 done. For instance, the genus Monaulus Vieill., 1816, is a precise equivalent to 

 LopJiophorus Temm., 1813, both authors having adopted the same species as their 

 type, and therefore, when the latter genus came, in the course of time, to be divided 

 into two, it was incorrect to give the condemned name, Monaulus, to one of the 

 portions. 



To state this succinctly: 



6. When two authors define and name the same genus, both making it exactly of the 

 same extent, the later name should be canceled in toto, and not retained in a modified 

 sense. 



This rule admits of the following exception: 



7. Provided, however, that if these authors select their respective types from dif- 

 ferent sections of the genus, and these sections be afterwards raised into genera, then 

 both these names may be retained in a restricted sense for the new genera, respect- 

 ively. 



Example. The names (Edemiaand Melanetta were originally coextensive synonyms, 

 but their respective types were taken from different sections, which are now raised 

 into genera, distinguished by the above titles. 



No special rule is required for the cases in which the later of two generic names 

 is so defined as to be less extensive in signification than the earlier, for if the later 

 includes the type of the earlier genus, it would be canceled by the operation of 4; 

 and if it does not include that type, it is in fact a distinct genus. 



But when the later name is more extensive than the earlier, the following rule 

 comes into operation: 



A later name equivalent to several earlier ones is to be canceled. The same principle 

 which is involved in 6 will apply to 8. 



8. If the later name be so defined as to be equal in extent to two or more pre- 

 viously published genera, it must be canceled in toto. 



