1526 The Zoologist — January, 18C9. 



the author's intenlion ; we may and ought to resort to any and every source or means 

 of information to determine what species presents the most perfect embodiment of the 

 idea which was in the mind of the founder, and possesses the most perfect develop- 

 ment of the characters which the founder has assigned as distinctive of his geuus. The 

 publication of figures and dissections of a particular species; the predominance of an 

 insect at the time and place when and where the author wrote, either by reason of its 

 size, beauty, abundance, destructiveness, or any other prominent trait; or the very 

 name given to the genus, may frequently serve as sufficient indication. Thus (to lake 

 an instance referred to by Mr. Kirbv) the name Polyommatus shews that Latreille had 

 in his mind's eye the species which bear on their under surface the numerous eye-like 

 spots distinctive of our " common blues," and he gives a figure of P. Corydon ; yet most 

 modern classifiers, neglecting these indications, place the polyommatous or " many- 

 eyed " species in the genus Lycajna, and apply the name Polyommatus to species 

 which have no eye-like spots at all. In the case of a genus which is originally 

 established on a single species, the negative evidence afforded by the non-indication of 

 other species as belonging to the genus, is almost tantamount to an express indication 

 of typicality. 



But (to come now to Mr. Kirbj's paper), when the founder entirely omits to give 

 any indication, is the first in his list of species necessarily to be taken as the type- 

 species ? is the first section of the genus necessarily the typical section ? Mr. Kirby's 

 proposed reform is based entirely on this proposition, which he terms an " axiom." 

 But instead of being axiomatic, either self-evident, or an established proposition, 

 I think it is capable of distinct disproof; and that so far as Linue, Fabricius, and the 

 older authors are concerned, it can be shown to demonstration that in many cases, 

 whilst they have not indicated what was their type, they have indicated that their first 

 species, or first section, was nol. In the first place, an insect that is once the type of a 

 genus must ever remain the type; yet (as mentioned by Mr. Pascoe) Fabricius, in the 

 successive editions of his works placed diETerent species at the head of the same genus, 

 and (if my memory serves) Liiine did the same. Again, the species of which dis- 

 sections, &c., are given are fretjueutly nol the first species in the genus. And (what 

 seems to my mind decisive on the point) look at Linne's description of Cimex: "ala 

 quatuor, cruciato-complicatse: supeiioribus anterius coriaceis:" the first section of 

 Cimex is '^apteri," and at the head of the genus is the wingless C. lectularius. The 

 notion of a wingless insect being the type of a four-winged group is somewhat 

 amusing '. I believe other instances, not quite so startling, but in principle the same, 

 might be adduced in abundance; but Cimex, if it stood alone, is enough to show that, 

 so far as Liune is concerned, the notion of taking the first species, or first section, as 

 the type, is simply the reverse of what the author intended. It may be that the Cimex 

 of Liune (as was argued by Mr. Butler respecting Papilio) is not properly a genus at 

 all; but whatever it be, it must I ihink be clear that in the contemplation of Liune 

 himself, the first section or species of Cimex was not his type of Cimex. 



In a detached paper, containing descriptions of genera taken haphazard and at 

 random, there may be some presumption in favour of the notion that the species first 

 described is typical of the geuus; and even in a complete systematic work, there may 

 be a slight presumption in favour of the typicality of the first species of the geuus 

 which (like Papilio) was placed (as it were) at the top of the tree. But as regards any 

 other genus than the first in the list, it seems to me that in a systematic work or 



