May 21, 1909] 



SCIENCE 



813 



Professor Ernst Lecher, of Prague, has 

 been called to the chair of experimental phys- 

 ics in Vienna. 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 

 genera without species 



In response to the suggestion made in Sci- 

 ence of February 26, p. 340, I have received 

 a number of communications, in substance as 

 follows : 



I agree throughout with your opinions as ex- 

 pressed in Science for February 26; ... I hold 

 a genus is not established unless a type species 

 is named. — J. C. Arthur, Purdue University.. 

 (Fungi.) 



I entirely agree with you that generic names 

 published without any mention of included species 

 are to be regarded as invalid. It seems to me 

 that a genus can not possibly be constituted with- 

 out reference to a species. — C. J. S. Bethune, 

 Ontario Agricultural College. (Entomology.) 



1. A genus is an aggregation of one or more 

 species. The type of a genus is, must be, an in- 

 cluded species, that is, an originally included one. 

 Therefore if there are no species at all how is it 

 possible to have a genus ? Genera without species 

 are certainly nomina nuda. 



2. The author of a genus or species is he who 

 first gives it valid standing. A genus without 

 species is a nomen nudum and thus without valid 

 standing. Therefore the first writer to give it 

 validity is the author and its date is that at 

 which this validating is done. It would be absurd 

 in my estimation to do otherwise as in such case 

 we might have some good genus invalidated 

 through preoccupation by a nomen nudum. — ^A. N. 

 Caudell, U. S. National Museum. ( Orthoptera. ) 



Mr. Caudell adds that Messrs. Dyar (Lepi- 

 doptera, etc.), Knab (Diptera) and Busck 

 (Lepidoptera), of the National Museimi, agree 

 with the above statement. 



Genera without included species " are nomina 

 nuda." — A. A . Girault, University of Illinois. 

 (Hymenoptera.) 



I fully agree with you that the rule of the code 

 quoted by Mr. Coquillett merely means that the 

 genus name itself must be uninominal, and has 

 no bearing on the question under discussion. A 

 genus name without a type species is, I think, 

 untenable; but if it be stated that the genus is 

 founded on an undescribed species, then it might 

 stand as you suggest. — Chas. A. Hart, Ills. State 

 Lab. of Natural History. (Entomology.) 



I saw your article in Science yesterday, and 

 was much interested in it. There are several 

 cases in botany where it seems to me a strict 

 sticking to the letter of the law is a little awk- 

 ward. Are we to write Bossekia Neck, or Rubaeer 

 Rydb. ? It seems to me that Greene has proved 

 that they are the same, yet Eydberg published 

 combinations in Rubaeer before Greene published 

 them in Bossekia. 



Mohrodendron and Carlomohria are in the same 

 category. Everybody knows what Greene referred 

 to when he published the name, yet he did not 

 make any combinations at that time, and Britton 

 did. If we follow the law exactly in such cases, 

 we are departing somewhat from priority, and 11 

 does not seem altogether right to me. — ^A. A. Hel- 

 ler, Nevada Agric. Exper. Sta. (Flowering 

 Plants.) 



On question of validity of generic names when 

 proposed without reference to published descrip- 

 tion of included species or in connection with such 

 description, please record my vote in the negative. 

 — ^A. W. Morrill, U. S. Bureau of Entomology. 



A genus name can stand only when meeting re- 

 quirements of binary names, it being recognized 

 that a genus is a group of one or more species. — 

 E. L. Morris, Museum of Brooklyn Institute. 

 ( Botany. ) 



I do not think a generic name should be recog- 

 nized unless connected definitely with a binomial 

 species. This is in accord with the American 

 Botanical Code and is essential in order to provide 

 types and definitely fix genera. — C. L. Shear, U. S. 

 Dept. Agriculture. (Botany.) 



It is probable that generic names published 

 without reference to included species would be 

 rejected by the majority of American zool- 

 ogists and botanists, though at least some 

 eminent authorities favor their recognition. 

 Probably a more precise estimate of current 

 opinion could be gained by sending out voting 

 papers to all the more active or eminent work- 

 ers. I venture to suggest that such a plan 

 might be taken up by the American Associa- 

 tion for the Advancement of Science. It 

 would not be held or suggested that the votes 

 thus obtained on controversial matters had any 

 legislative significance; but they would un- 

 doubtedly have their influence in moulding 

 opinion, while the invitation to vote would in 

 many cases stimulate thought. It seems to 

 me that in the publication of the results of 

 any vote, the names should always be given. 



