68 BITKEAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTBY. 



22. SYNONYMY BY ORIGINAL PCBLICATION. 



Cases like the following have given rise to difficulty among- certain 

 authors. Let it be assumed that the genus 



X-us, 1810, contains two species (without designation of type): 



albus, 1810, and 



niger, 1810; and let the genus 

 Y-us, 1850, contain three species (without designation of type): 



albus, 1810 = X. albus, 



niger, 1810 = X. niger, and 

 flavidus, 1850. 



Some authors have construed Y-us, 1850, as direct synonym of X-us 

 on the ground that it contains all of the original species of X-us, hence 

 it must contain the type of X-us. Other authors have construed Y-us 

 as being used in a broader sense than X-us, have returned albus and 

 niger to X-us, and considered Y-us valid with flavidus as type. The 

 rules here adopted (see p. 42) make Y-us a synonym pure and simple 

 of X-us, both genera containing the same type. This construction is 

 entirely in accord with the spirit of the law of priority, for Y-us 

 should never have been proposed. See also Spiroptera and Acuaria, 

 and 6 to 8 of the B. A. Code, quoted on page 14. 



As an instance of a case in which two opinions may be legitimately 

 defended, mention may be made of the following: 



Suppose an author examines certain animals and describes them 

 under a new name, but at the same time mentions one or more earlier 

 specific names as positive or doubtful synonyms, what is the relation 

 of the new name used to the old names quoted in synonymy? Thus: 



X-us albus, 1900, new name; 



X-us aureus, 1800, given as positive synonym; and 



? X-us niger, 1850, given as doubtful synonym. 



Probably all nomenclaturists will admit that (1) if the author of 

 albus, 1900, did not examine specimens personally, then albus is simply 

 aureus renamed, hence, albus is an absolute synonym of aureus; (2) if 

 the author of albus did examine specimens, and if these were actually 

 identical specifically with aureus, then, also, albus is an absolute syn- 

 onym of aureus. 



If, however, the author of albus examined specimens, and later 

 reexamination of these shows that all but 1, 2, 3, or a? are identical 

 specifically with aureus, then what is the relation of albus to aureus? 



Different views may be defended covering such cases. 



(1) It might be maintained that since the author of albus, 1900, 

 admitted that this was synonymous with aureus, the publication of 

 albus was absolutely unjustified, and aureus should have been adopted. 

 Against this proposition no just objection is evident to us. 



