PRINXIPLES, CANONS, AND RECOM\fENDATIONS. 53 



existed ; and the species is to be reintroduced into science under a new 

 name, as a new sjiccies, and witli a proper description. 



Tlie autiienticity of a type specimen is often a matter of the highest im- 

 portance. The evidence will vary in different cases ; it may be merely 

 circumstantial, but of such a nature as to be positive in character; or the 

 specimen may bear a label in the handwriting of the original describer signi- 

 1 fyinji; it to be his type ; or the history of the specimen may be so well known 

 I to those hiving it in charge that there can be little reason for doul)t in the 

 I matter. But tradition, in the general sense of the term, cannot be regarded 

 I as satisfactory evidence ; and nothing short of the written statement of the 

 5 author, securely attached to the specimen, affirming it to be the type, should 



iin future be CfJnsidercd satisfactory evidence. Still, this requirement cannot 

 be insisted upon for the past, since in few cases have types been heretofore 

 I thus dcsi;inated, though their authenticity may be in many cases beyond 

 j cavil. Your Committee would recommend that in future authors should not 

 I only specify their types in their descriptions, and label them as their types, 

 but should designate the collection in which they are deposited. 



Canon XLIV. In determining the pertinence of a description 

 i or figure on which a genus, species, or subspecies may respect- 

 j ively rest, the consideration of pertinency is to be restricted to the 

 \ species scientifically known at the time of publication of the de- 

 scription or figure in question, or to contemporaneous literature. 



I 



I Canon XLV. Absohitc identification is requisite in order 



I to displace a modern current name by an older obscure one. 



Remarks. — The purpose of the foregoing rules (Canons XLIII.-XLV.) 

 is to check the tendency to replace current names by earlier ones, the 

 identification of which may be determined only by a process of elimination 

 — on the ground that they can relate to nothing else — based on our pres- 

 ent knowledge of Zoology, but which cannot be determined from the imper- 

 fect description given by the original describer, alone or supplemented by the 

 contemporaneous literature of the subject; — in short, the identification of 

 which rests on our present knowledge of the species inhabiting the assigned 

 habitat of the form in question. 



Canon XLVI. In describing an organism which is consid- 

 ered to represent a new genus as well as a new species, it is not 

 necessary to formally separate the characters into two categories, 

 generic and specific, in order to render tenable the names given 

 to the organism in question, although such a distinction is 

 desirable. 



