368 
DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 
ERRONEOUS GENERIC DETERMINATIONS OF 
BEES 
THE history of almost any considerable group 
will show that a subgenus is only a suppressed 
genus. In an introduction to Wilson’s “ Amer- 
ican Ornithology,” 1852, T. M. Brewer makes 
the following statement which gives an an- 
achronistic setting to recent protests: 
I have also judged it inexpedient to imitate 
the needless subdivisions into genera, which is 
the prevailing fault in modern ornithology. 
Without entering into a discussion of this con- 
troverted question, I have only to urge, in de- 
fense of my adhesion except in such instances 
as it appeared to be wrong to do so, to old 
genera—my conviction that the present mode 
of subdivision, instead of tending to simplify 
science, as its advocates assert, but adds to the 
difficulties of the beginner, and serves to dis- 
courage his efforts to master the subject. 
In a synopsis at the end of this work, for 
example, all of the hawks and eagles are re- 
ferred to Falco and the owls to Strix. The 
subgenera mentioned there are now recognized 
as genera and some of them have been subdi- 
vided into genera. | 
Primitive people, ignorant and stupid peo- 
ple, old fogies and beginners prefer large 
genera. But of all the people who use language 
the taxonomists known as “lumpers” are the 
only ones ever known to object to the forma- 
tion of categories. A new genus is like vice, 
“a monster of so frightful mein.” It is first 
an “alleged genus,” then a subgenus, then a 
genus. In a large genus, if you can distin- 
guish a group of species by any distinct char- 
acters, name the group. If you only point out 
the characters, some one else will name your 
group for you. In 1802 Kirby subdivided the 
bees into Apis and Melitta, but he separated 
them into many groups, not named but desig- 
nated by signs. In the same year, and later, 
Latreille named many genera which were 
practically identical with the groups distin- 
guished by Kirby. Since that time students of 
bees have been slow to take Kirby as a warn- 
ing and Latreille as an example. 
Confusion regarding genera results from the 
_ SCIENCE 
[N. 8S. Von. XLVIII. No. 1241 
efforts of conservatives to force the conceptions 
associated with the theory of special creation 
upon those who accept the scientific theory of 
evolution. Under the former view genera were 
originally distinct. Under the latter view they 
were originally connected by transitional 
forms. The most distinct genera oceur in old 
groups which have been broken into widely 
separated fragments by a process of extinc- 
tion which has destroyed most of the original 
forms: The transitional form may be one of 
several things, but suppression of a genus on 
account of it usually involves an argument 
based on exceptions. If two genera contain- 
ing many species could be separated all over 
the world, the lumpers would suppress one of 
them on account of a transitional form in 
Ogygia. The absurdity of suppressing groups 
on account of transitional forms is shown in 
the case of large and plastic assemblages where 
the more categories are needed the more they 
are suppressed. . 
Generic determinations should be made by 
comparing each species with the. type of the 
genus. If a species differs in structure from 
this type, the determination is probably errone- 
ous. A species may be referred to a given 
genus on account of its resemblance to the 
type or in spite of its differences. Often the 
type of the genus has never been ascertained 
and determinations are made by comparing 
with species which have been referred to it 
without any careful examination. ; 
As a criterion for erroneous generic deter- 
minations, about all that can be done is to base 
inferences upon what the history of nomen- 
clature shows. Accordingly we may take it 
for granted that genera will be subdivided in 
the future as in the past. Large genera in 
orders which haye been neglected will be sub- 
divided so that they will contain as many spe- 
cies as in orders which have been more thor- 
oughly studied. 
Smith’s catalogue of the insects of New 
Jersey, the catalogue of the hymenoptera of 
Connecticut, local insects taken on flowers and 
the entomophilous flowers on which they were 
taken show the following averages of the spe- 
