336 APPENDIX A. 



the genus Tortrix from the single species atrajia, subsequently he 

 received viridana and referred it to the genus Tortrix, thinking it 

 congeneric with atrana. The genus was always monotypical so far 

 as Jones was concerned, but he published it in a heterotypical form. 

 Jones's reason for placing viridana first in the series was that he 

 considered his new genus should be inserted between two known 

 genera, the preceding one consisting of green species, while the 

 following one contained black ones. This personal explanation 

 (which in such cases is not usually forthcoming) tends to prove that 

 there can be no real argument in favour of selecting the first species 

 as the type, but as Jones did not himself state in print which was 

 his type, subsequent authors were at liberty to fix the historical 

 type, ignoring intentions which were not stated. In this instance 

 the historical method has fixed as the type the species which was 

 so regarded by "Jones" {alias John Hartley Durrant).' " 



152. Hampson (Sir G. F.). 20 Jime 1897. 

 [Vide Hampson 141. Durrani?^ 



"It seems to me that the additional matter imported into the 

 problem* as to the type of Tortrix and Pandeniis has entirely 

 altered the nature of the problem. I think we all took it to 

 be a purely fictitious case as to which we had the whole of the 

 available information given in the question. If there was any 

 means of knowing that Jones described the genus Tortrix m 1849 

 from atrana and subsequently imported viridana into it, the former 

 would of course be the type of the genus by my method of fixing 

 it." 



[* Vide Walsingham 151. Durrant?\ 



153. [Durrant {y. H.). i Jnly iSg^. 



The information given by 'Jones' (vide 151) would not in the 

 ordinary course of events be attainable. It was supplied too late to 

 have any effect upon the action of his successors ; when he published 

 his genus he had full opportunity for stating what was his type ; 

 this he neglected to do, and nomenclature could not be upset by 

 his statement of the unpublished history of his genus ; this assumed 

 history was first made known when 'Jones' gave the information to 

 Lord Walsingham (vide 151). 



The conundrum was drawn up for two reasons, first to ascertain 

 how various entomologists would deal with a similar genus from 

 Hubner's VcrzcicJiniss ; Jones, Smith and Robinson all represented 

 Hubner (but of course the problem was simplified and slightly 

 exaggerated), secondly it was given to demonstrate that the first 

 species may sometimes be not the species from which the genus was 

 described, and that therefore a hard and fast rule selecting the first 

 species as the type rests on no sound basis. It may be the easiest 

 way of choosing an exponent of the genus, but it can hardly be 



