1524 The Zoologist — January, 1869. 



is given by tbe founder, the first species in the genus is to be taken as the type, and 

 ought to be so taken in any subsequent dismemberment or division of the genus. But 

 the adoption of such a rule and ihe application of it retrospectively would cause so 

 much confusion that the remedy would be worse than the disease ; and he should be 

 extremely sorry to see Mr. Kirby's theory carried into practice, to the subversion of ^ 

 established nomenclature. 



Mr. A. G. Buller discussed several of the particular instances mentioned by 

 Mr. Kirby, and dissented from his conclusions. He argued that Papilio of Linnaeus 

 was not a genus, but included tbe whole of llie butterflies ; Linnaeus's generic divisions 

 were his Equites, Plebeii, 8cc. Fabricius did describe genera, and usually indicated his 

 type species: he was the first to describe Papilio as a genus, Prianuis was not ihe type 

 of the Fabrician Papilio, but the insects now known by the name Papilio did come 

 within that genus as limited by Fabricius. 



Mr. Pascoe thought ihat Liniuviis and the older authors had no types at all: the 

 notion of a type-species was of modern date: he saw no ground whatever for regarding 

 the first species in a t;enus as the type: his notion was to discover the species which, 

 at the time when ihe genus was first named, was, by reason of its size or its abundance 

 or any other circumstance, most prominent amongst those which the author grouped 

 together imder ihe same name, and (hat insect he took to be the type of the genus. 

 That the first species in the list could not be the type was conclusively shown by the 

 fact that, in successive editions of his works, Fabricius in many instances placed 

 different species at the head of the same genus, probably without any other guiding 

 principle than that of putiing the largest species at the head; the largest species of 

 yesterday was deposed in favour of the later but larger discovery of to-day. 



Mr. Stainton agreed with the previous speakers that the rule of priority could not 

 be applied to yenera in the manner suggested by Mr. Kirby; and he tlid not think 

 tiiat, in the absence of indication, the first species in a genus was necessarily the type. 

 Take, for instance, the genus Tryphsena, of which almost every one would be ready to 

 admit that Pronuba was the type; yet in almost every list the species Orbona was 

 placed first, and Pronuba came about the middle of the genus. When the author has 

 not indicated any particular species or section of his genus as typical, the subsequent 

 author who subdivides the genus has the right to determine to what section of the old 

 genus the old name shall be restricted, and bis determination on that point ought to 

 bind all future writers. 



Mr. Janson agreed that the subsequent author has the right to allot the original 

 name to any division of the original genus, but if he does so it is rather as a matter of 

 courtesy to the original author than of right on the part of the latter to have the 

 original name retained. Suppose ihe original description of Aleochara by A. is silent 

 as to the tarsi ; B. on revising the species congregated under that name finds a group 

 of fifty species with four-jointed tarsi, and another group of fifty species with five- 

 jointed tarsi ; B. is at liberty, if out of courtesy to A. he chooses to do so, to retain the 

 name Aleochara for either of the groups, thoujjh neither group is the Aleochara of A. ; 

 but since neither group alone is the Aleochara of A., B. is equally at liberty to give, 

 and is logically more correct in giving, a new name to each of the groups, and so 

 discard Aleochara altogether. 



Mr. Frederick Smith (who observed that, on Mr. Kirby's principle, the honey-bee 

 would cease to be an Apis), Mr. Edward Sheppard, Mr. J. Jeuner Weir and Mr. 



