308 APPENDIX A. 



5. The first species, or the first species agreeing with the description to 

 be considered the type. 



[It is to be assumed that specification (or actual indication of the 

 type) by the founder when describing the genus would be accepted by 

 Hampson, but that restriction or citation by subsequent writers would be 

 ignored in favour of the first species that conformed.] 



Hampson i. [2 Staudinger (Reply 60)]. 



Result — ; majority agamst. 

 10 



[Hampson must now be considered to have retired from the discussion 

 and the Committee to consist of 9.] 



6. Stibsequent citation or restrictions nmst be accepted in chronological 

 sequence : 



6. A. If they are not at variance with the original intention of the 

 author. 



I Walsingham, 2 Meyrick, 3 Kirby, 4 Fernald, 5 Smith, (6 Scudder), 

 7 Grote. Staudinger apparently would not dissent. 



Result 7±^-^ 

 9 



6. B. Disregarding the supposed intentiotis of the author but not any 

 clear or evident ititention. 

 I Grote. 



Result — ^— . 

 9 



6. C. Providing that the subsequent author expressly fixed the type 

 or intentionally divided the gefius and that he retai?ied the old natne for 

 one part ; the effect of omissio7i of species from merely fauuistic works to be 

 ignored. 



I Aurivillius. 



1 1 + 8 

 Result " . 



9 



6. D. A species subsequejitly removed by the founder to another genus 

 ceases to be a type of the original genus. 



1 Walsingham. 



T3 ,1 + 8 

 Result -- . 

 9 



7. When the historical method has been exhausted the species {or group 

 of species) which agrees best tvith the description should be rega?'ded as typical. 



I Walsingham, (2 Meyrick), 3 Fernald, 4 Smith, 5 Aurivillius. 

 Result ~ ; probably all would agree to this. 



