404 Mr. F. O. P. Cambridge—A Revision 
we must be quite certain that we have made up our minds 
first of all as to whether, in the interests of practical systematic 
zoology, a type species is to be selected or not. 
It is still an open question for some. The general 
morphologist, for instance, who is under the impression that a 
thorough knowledge of the anatomy of the common stag- 
beetle sufficiently warrants him in speaking authoritatively 
on leading questions involving the whole family of the Coleo- 
ptera, may perhaps not appreciate the necessity; but the 
systematist who has to deal with countless generic divisions, 
subdivisions, and names, and to determine what characters 
those names are to connote and what species to denote, who is 
familiar with the hopeless chaos arising because no two 
authors agree on those points, and who wishes to see some 
definite settlement of them, this man will not hesitate as to 
the course to be adopted. And although Dr. Dahl gaily 
enters the lists in this criticism of methods, he has evidently 
not made up his own mind as to whether it is necessary to 
select a type species or not; for he says, “‘L think we are 
acting in perfect accordance with the spirit of the rules of 
nomenclature if we... tn certain cir cumstances even acknow- 
ledge several typical species jor one genus.’ 
Well, Dr. Dahl is of course perfectly entitled to his own 
opinion on the matter; but one wonders how came he into 
this galley at all? If hel does) mot acknowledge the necessity 
of selecting a type species for a genus, he has evidently had 
no great practical acquaintance with modern systematic 
zoology—not sufficient, at any rate, to justify him in a whole- 
sale criticism of the comparative merits of the various methods 
of selecting types. 
If Dr. Dahl’s attitude be really, as he suggests, in accord- 
ance with the spirit of the ‘* Rules of Nomenclature ’—a spirit 
which allows him to select a single type in one case and three 
or four in another,—well, then, so much the worse for those 
rules, and the sooner they adapt themselves to the needs of 
systematic zoology the better will it be for those who are 
practically engaged therein. 
In criticizing ‘the methods followed in my paper Dr. Dahl 
declares that “the writer follows his own rules of nomenclature.’ 
I must say I] am surprised that Dr. Dahl should be so very 
ill-acquainted with the whole problem of the selection of types 
as to credit me with the invention of methods which have 
been well known for years to the majority of the ablest 
systematists of the day in most branches of zoology. 
He, moreover, states that those methods are contrary to the 
spirit ‘and letter of the International Rules of Nomenclature. 
