32 report — 1865. 



eluded two groups, one with four toes, the other with three, the former of 

 which was regarded by the author as typical. Swainson, however, in raising 

 these groups at a later period to the rank of genera, gave a new name, Asthe- 

 nurus, to the former group, aud retained Picumnus for the latter. In this 

 case we have no choice but to restore the name Picumnus, Temm., to its cor- 

 rect sense, cancelling the name Asthenurus, Sw., and imposing a new name 

 on the three-toed group which Swainson had called Picumnus. 



[ When no type is indicated, then the original name is to be kept for that 

 subsequent subdivision which first received it.'] 



Our next proposition seems to require no explanation : — 

 § 5. When the evidence as to the original type of a genus is not perfectly 

 clear and indisputable, then the person who first subdivides the genus may 

 affix the original name to any portion of it at his discretion, and no later 

 author has a right to transfer that name to any other part of the original 

 genus. 



[A later name of the same extent as an earlier to be wholly cancelled.] 



When an author infringes the law of priority by giving a new name to 

 a genus which has been properly defined and named ahead}-, the only penalty 

 which can be attached to this act of negligence or injustice, is to expel the 

 name so introduced from the pale of the science. It is not right, then, in 

 such cases to restrict the meaning of the latter name so that it may stand 

 side by side with the earlier one, as has sometimes been done. For instance, 

 the genus Monaulus, Yieill. 1816, is a precise equivalent to Lop>hophorus, 

 Temm. 1813, both authors having adopted the same species as their type, 

 and therefore, when the latter genus came in the course of time to be di- 

 vided into two, it was incorrect to give the condemned name Monaulus to one 

 of the portions. To state this succinctly :— 



§ 6. When two authors define and name the same genus, both making it 

 exactly of the same extent, the later name should be cancelled in toto, and 

 not retained in a modified sense*. 



This rule admits of the following exception : — 



§ 7. Provided, however, that if these authors select their respective types 

 from different sections of the genus, and these sections be afterwards raised 

 into genera, then both these names may be retained in a restricted sense for 

 the new genera respectively. 



Example — The names (Edemia and Melanetta were originally coextensive 

 synonyms, but their respective types were taken from different sections which 

 are now raised into genera, distinguished by the above titles. 



[No special ride is required for the cases in which the later of two generic 

 names is so defined as to be less extensive in signification than the earlier, 

 for if the later includes the type of the eaidier genus, it would be cancelled 

 by the operation of § 4 ; and if it does not include that type, it is in fact 

 a distinct genus.] 



But when the later name is more extensive than the earlier, the following 

 rule comes into operation : — - 



\_A later name equivalent to severed earlier ones is to be cancelled.] 

 The saiue principle which is involved in § 6 will apply to § 8. 



* These discarded names may, however, be tolerated, if they have been afterwards 

 proposed in a totally new sense, though we trust that in future no one will knowingly 

 apply an old name, whether now adopted or not, to a new genus, (See proposition, 

 c[. infra.) 



