364 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



species which by implication must be regarded as the original 

 type of a genus. In such cases we are justified in restoring 

 the name of the old genus to its typical signification, even 

 when later authors have done otherwise. We submit therefore 

 that 



§ 4. The generic name should always be retained for that 

 portion of the original genus which was considered typical by 

 the author. 



Example. — The genus Picummia was established by Tem- 

 minck, and included two groups, one with four toes, the other 

 with three, the former of which was regarded by the author 

 as typical. Swaiuson, however, in raising these groups at a 

 later period to the rank of genera, gave a new name, Asthenu- 

 rus to the former group, and retained Picumnus for the latter. 

 In this case we have no choice but to restore the name Picum- 

 7iiis, Temm., to its correct sense, cancelling the name Asthenurus, 

 S\v., and imposing a new name on the 3-toed group which 

 Swaiuson had called Picumnus. 



[ When no type is indicated, then the ori/jinal name is to be kept 

 for that subsequent subdivision ivhich 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 already, 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 later name so that it may 

 stand side by side with the earlier one, as has sometimes been 

 done. For instance, the genus Monaulus, Vieill., 1816, is 

 a precise equivalent to Lophophorus, Temm., 1813, both authors 

 having adopted the same species as their type, and therefore, 



