442 



which occurs earliest, even with respect to a page or line, is the name 

 we must use, not by any compulsion, but simply if we are to be con- 

 sistent with this rule. 



But in the case of "types" we are dealing with a totally different 

 problem, which has to be solved in the presence of its own peculiar 

 circumstances by a different mode of proceedure and hence by differ- 

 ent rules. Though , none the less, the rule of priority would still be 

 followed in the case of the fixation of types, when for instance two 

 species were cited as typical, then, if these be no other method appli- 

 cable, since we are determined that one species shall be the type, we 

 select the first, simply for the sake of convenience. There is no 

 special merit in the Law of Priority in itself; we do not bow the 

 knee before a mystic "Firstness" and make a "Mumbo Jumbo" 

 of it! Does Dr. Dahl suppose that we apply this rule of priority 

 to every problem in systematic zoology? If so we shall be compelled 

 to accept the Linnaean classification of the Araneae and recognise 

 one genus only Ar an e a. We simply adopt the rule of priority for the 

 purpose of avoiding confusion, not because there is any particular 

 virtue in the name first given or credit to the author who gave it. We 

 must recognise one name, and one only, and we agree to take the 

 first given. As for the credit, in a great many cases the real credit 

 is due to the men who years after have all the thankless labour of 

 determining to what forms these names should apply. 



I will make my position however perfectly clear on this question 

 of names and types. 



A. The first rule applied to the problem of the settlement of the 

 names of species, is, that the name which was first given 

 to a species shall serve. 



B. The first rule applied to the problem of the fixation of the types 

 of genera is that one of the species originally included 

 in the genus shall serve as the type, and that this shall be 

 either the last left in by elimination, or the first definitely 

 cited as the type. 



In the second case we are dealing with a totally different set of 

 circumstances and we start confronted by the fact that many species, 

 very often including the first, have been already removed to new 

 genera. We recognise the right of this removal; and it follows that 

 none of the species removed can serve as the type of the original 

 genus; making this proviso — that one at least must be left in. If 

 all have been removed, then the last removed, being really the last 

 left in, serves as the type. We do not worship "Lastness" or attach 



