314 APPENDIX A. 



« 



priamus the type of Papilio, ocdlata the type of Sphinx, atlas the 

 t)-pe o{ PJialaciia, prasinana the type of Tortrix, sociclla a PyraHde 

 the type of Tinea, etc. 



It would be well here to remember Linne's own words in his 

 PJiilosopJiia botaiiica (p. 197): 'Si genus receptum, secundum jus 

 naturae et artis, in plura dirimi debet, tum nomen antea commune 

 manebit vulgatissimae et officinali plantae.' 



As to the special questions, I give here in short my views in 

 accordance with the principles mentioned above : — " [Referred to 

 the Questions to which they relate, vide Aurivillius 102, 113, 123, 

 135. Durrant.] 



82. Staudinger (O.). 5 March 1897. 



" Da der Begriff einer Gattung (genus) selbst, nach den individu- 

 ellen Ansichten der Systematiker, ein wechselnder war, ist und 

 bleiben wird, so halte ich die manchen Zoologen so liberaus 

 wichtige 'Type-Frage' ftir recht unwichtig. Wenn eine Gattung 

 nach ei?ier Art aufgestellt wird, so ist diese zweifellos der Type 

 dieser Gattung. Setzt aber ein Systematiker in eine Gattung 

 mehrere (viele) Arten, die spater theihveise in andere Gattungen 

 gestellt oder nach denen neue Gattungen gebildet werden, so 

 scheint mir die Feststellung eines Type's sehr schwierig, falls man 

 in solchen Fallen nicht die zuerst aufgefuhrte Art als Type ein fur 

 alle Mai annehmen will." 



83. Grote (A. R.). 2sMay\2>g7. 



" By the process of exhaustion, where the type is not indicated 

 by name. In this process it is not necessary to have regard to the 

 supposed intentions of the author further than to avoid taking as 

 typical any species about the location of which under the title the 

 author expresses himself as doubtful, by using an interrogation 

 mark or otherwise. The first species cited has, from this cir- 

 cumstance alone, no claim to be considered the type. All the 

 other species cited can become types under subsequent restrictions. 



Where a diagnosis of the genus is given which by its terms 

 excludes virtually one of the species cited, it would seem to be 

 sensible to exclude that species as a possible type. I am of 

 opinion that Linne did not understand by a genus what we mean 

 to-day, but that his terms Papilio and Sphinx at least have come 

 gradually to have our modern generic sense attached to them 

 through their use in literature. I do not think we can deprive 

 them of it at this date and that it would be the lesser evil to use 

 them in a modern sense in connection with their specific types as 

 now assumed: i.e. of 'Papilio,' macJiaon, of 'Sphinx,' lignstri. All 

 names used in a plural form: 'Equites,' 'Plebeii,' etc. should be 

 rejected, since generic titles should be in the singular number. 



