GENERIC NOMENCLATURE 225 
: long sought in vain for an authoritative statement of this method, 
but have until very recently been unable to learn of any attempt 
to formulate it. Thanks to Dr. Underwood,?”? who has bravely 
attacked the problem of generic types, we have the following 
_ ‘Statement: “The method of ‘residues’ works on the principle 
B that the last species remaining in the genus from those originally 
famed by its author when the genus was founded shall consti- 
tite the type of the genus and shall hold the generic name.”’ 
The fatal objection to this and to the other methods is that, 
: being capable of and depending upon the varied interpretation 
by different authors, it cannot lead to uniformity. Besides this 
there are Many instances in which several genera, each contain- 
” a number of species, were established at nearly the same 
some which make it impossible to adjust generic limitations by 
‘eans of this method. : 
The fundamental failing of all these plans is that the generic 
Serpe movable, and is capable of being shifted about 
~~ ne end of a series of species to the other, these species 
_ _» ‘€presenting different genera and sometimes families. — 
Dr. Jordan’ aptly puts it: “These methods have lacked the | 
— important element of inevitableness.”” The first and funda- — 
= Me to be taken is to fix generic names at one point by 
of an assigned type, in case none was originally desig- — 
author. 
oe in generic limitations, as _ 
age naturally differ in regard to the scope of gen- 
ue practicable method can be devised for anchor- : 
~“@Mes at fixed points, we shall always know where to 
ss ucleus of the genus, however much it may have _ 
: ae contracted since its orngin. - ae 
method in regard to species has gained general a 
“ST as present practice is concerned, though we 
that one still occasionally sees new species ee 
‘JoRDaN, D.S., Science N. S. 13: 499. 29 Mr root, 
‘cong N.S. 8: 186-190. 12 Ag 1808; 513-516. 14 oO 1898. ie 
