DETERMINATION OF GENERIC TYPES, ETC. 51 



medicine, and even as used by zoologists these genera are very indefi- 

 nite, while one of them is admitted by Railliet to be arbitrary. 



In connection with the above discussion it might be well to examine 

 Dispharagus from another point of view. 



Dujardin (1845a, 71) distinctty states that he placed here by conjec- 

 ture five species of Spiroptera, and all systematists will doubtless agree 

 that none of these five species should come into consideration as type. 

 He mentions (pp. 77-78) bidens as one of these, attributing the diagnosis 

 to Rudolphi. He further attributes the diagnoses to Rudolphi in the 

 case of laticeps, quadrilobus, laticauda, and bicuspis, none of which he 

 appears to have examined. The conclusion seems justified, therefore, 

 that these are the five conjectural species in question. 



Dujardin (1845a, 72) fails to name three species he examined, namely, 

 "Dispharage du hobereau," " ?Dispharage de 1'epervier (B.)," and 

 " ?Dispharage de 1'epervier (D);" and probably all systematists will 

 agree in excluding these also from consideration as type. 



Dujardin examined, named, and described as new: tennis from Saxi- 

 cola rubetra; subula from /Sylvia rubecula; decorus from Alcedo ispida; 

 brevicaudatus from the "butor;" and denudatus from Cyprinus eryth- 

 ropJitlialinus. He also examined personally and classified as members 

 of Dispharagus (without indicating any question in his mind as to the 

 correctness of his generic determination): attenuatus (Rudolphi) from 

 Hirundo rustica and II. urbica; nasutus (Rudolphi) from Fringilla 

 domestica; anthuris (Rudolphi) from Corvus glandarius, C. pica, C. 

 frugilegus, Caryocatactes, Corvus corax, C. corone, C. comix, Pyrrho- 

 corax alpinus, Coracias garrula, and Oriolus galbula; truncatus (Crep- 

 lin) from Upupa epops; and cystidicola (Bosc) from Salmo fario and 

 Salmo thymalus lotus. 



It is interesting to note that if this case were ruled upon by page 

 precedence, either decorus, laticeps, or tenuis might be selected, accord- 

 ing to the different views of interpreting page precedence, although 

 laticeps should certainly be ruled out, since the generic determination 

 was only conjectural. 



Thus, it is probable that in determining the type of Dispharagus, 

 most authors would be inclined to select it from: tennis, subula, 

 decorus, brevicaudatus, denudatus, attenuatus, nasutus, anthuris, trun- 

 catus, and cystidicola. But of these ten species, two species (anthuris 

 and cystidicola}, or 20 per cent, are already types of genera, hence 

 Dujardin united older genera, involving five available names, into a 

 genus for which he proposed a new name; be was well aware of the 

 fact that at least one of the species (cystidicola} was type of an earlier 

 genus and he also knew that at least four of the five names were available. 

 If, now, from his point of view, Spiroptera is transferred to another 

 group, at least one type (cystidicola) with two generic names (Cystidi- 

 cola and Fissula} were available for use; and in addition Anthuris 



