DETERMINATION OF GENERIC TYPES, ETC. 69 



(2) Let this error in publishing albus be admitted, but let it be 

 assumed that all the specimens of albus, except one (or x), are specific- 

 ally identical with or distinct from aureus, or let it be assumed that 

 all of the specimens of albus are specifically distinct from aureux, is the 

 status of albus not altered? Do not these specimens represent the 

 types of albus ^ and should not albus be judged on its types? 



(3) With the premises mentioned in (2), does not albus also include 

 the original types of aureus, and does this case not, therefore, repre- 

 sent a name which covers an older t} 7 pe, hence, simply a new name 

 unwarrantedly proposed ? 



Admitting that there are two sides to this question and that the posi- 

 tion mentioned under (2) is not without certain justification, this seems 

 to be a case of deciding between the lesser of two evils, and the lesser 

 evil seems to be to rule that the newer name is a synonym of the older, 

 as advanced in (1) and (3). Further, while this lesser evil, though at 

 times it ma,y seem Draconian, can be carried out consistently, the 

 greater evil (2) can not be carried out consistently and it must con- 

 stantly give rise to doubts as to the course to be pursued. Suppose, 

 for instance, albus was based upon two specimens, a male and a female, 

 and one of these is identical with mireus, while the other is distinct, 

 what would be the status of albus? 



Draconian as the position seems to be, we contend that in case an 

 author unreservedly admits that an earlier name is synonymous with 

 the name he publishes as new, the latter is a "synonym by original 

 publication," even if part or all the specimens the author of the new 

 name examined are specifically distinct from the specimens upon which 

 the older name was based. 



23. RULE OF HOMONYMS. 



A homonym may be defined as one and the same name used for two 

 or more different systematic units of the same rank. All recognized 

 codes agree that only the first use of such name can be admitted as 

 legitimate. The second and later uses of the name, for other units of 

 the same rank, are cases of stillbirth, and the name, as used in these 

 later cases, is forever dead. 



In the case of absolute homonyms, it is not usually a matter of great 

 importance whether the type is fixed or not. Nevertheless, it seems 

 advisable as a rule to designate such. Under some circumstances the 

 fixing of a type for a homon3 7 m may determine the type for a valid 



