April 25, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



651 



The present use of the word typonym, 

 though somewhat different, does not neces- 

 sarily conflict with that in which it has 

 been employed by Dr. Gill* for names 

 founded on types instead of on descrip- 

 tions, since under the method of types, 

 which requires that all genera be connected 

 with species, this distinction regarding 

 typonyms is no longer important. Al- 

 though objecting to the naming of genera 

 on types and wdthout diagnoses Dr. Gill 

 well says : ' ' Certainly it is more rational 

 to use a tj^onym than to require a defini- 

 tion for show rather than use." As a mat- 

 ter of fact the great majority of the older 

 generic definitions are of little use or tax- 

 onomic value except for historical pur- 

 poses, and it is a great practical advantage 

 to be able to gain an idea of a genus from 

 specimens, figures or detailed descriptions 

 of a type species instead of being limited 

 to the reconstruction of concepts based, too 

 often, on slight Imowledge and careless 

 record. Moreover, as all systematists 

 know, it is quite possible for many of their 

 number to write long acounts of genera 



Rostafinski treated under Lachnobolus glohosus in 

 1875. More recently Lister has carried the con- 

 fusion a step further by relegating L. gloiosus 

 back to Arcyria while retaining the name Lach- 

 nobolus for still a third generic group represented 

 by L. cincinans Fries, for which no correct generio 

 name exists. 



Lister is also in error in citing Fries, 1835 (Fl. 

 Scand., 356), as the original reference for the 

 genus Lachnobolus, which was published ten 

 years before {Sys. Orb. Veg., 1: 148), with L. 

 oribrosus as the only species. Lister's suggestion 

 (Mon. Mycetozoa, 112) that Lachnobolus crib- 

 rosus Fries may have been a confluent form of 

 Btemonitis splendens does not furnish a justifi- 

 cation for the use of the generic name in a dif- 

 ferent family. The genus called Lachnobolus by 

 Lister, which differs from Arcyria in having the 

 sijoraugia sessile and the wall persistent, must 

 be renamed, and may be called Arcyodes, the type 

 being A. inoarnata {Licea incarnata Albertini & 

 Schweinitz, Consp. Fung., 109, 1805). 



* Proo. A. A. A. S., 45: 155, 1896. 



without betraying any facts of diagnostic 

 importance, a point to receive further at- 

 tention below. 



METONYMS. 



Synonyms of the third class, which may 

 be called metonyms, differ from typonyms 

 in not being based on the same types as 

 the older names with which they are held 

 to be synonymous, and unlike homonyms 

 and typonyms, they may often be restored 

 to active use, even after long periods of 

 retirement. Improvement in the system- 

 atic treatment of many groups has been 

 extremely slow, and even periods of reac- 

 tion are sometimes encountered. Some 

 biologists are as far ahead as others are be- 

 hind the times, and there have been numer- 

 ous instances where taxonomic work of 

 high quality has remained unheeded for 

 many decades, or until general progress 

 had reached the plane where the genius of 

 its author could be appreciated. Strange- 

 ly enough, some botanists who hold to lib- 

 erty of literary and historical interpreta- 

 tion and deprecate legislation in the inter- 

 est of uniformity, have given their support 

 to the rather barbarous proposition that 

 systematic study which is not accepted by 

 somebody inside of fifty years becomes out- 

 lawed. The desire to wipe away old scores 

 of casuistry and confusion can be readily 

 understood, but that to do this it should 

 be thought necessary to place a premium 

 upon reaction and ignorance has brought 

 the ultra-literary botanists within easy 

 range, it would seem, of an appreciation of 

 the absurdity of their own position. 



The complications for which the 'Ber- 

 lin Rule ' of a fifty-year limit gives partial 

 relief are much more thoroughly obviated 

 under the method of tjrpes, and that with- 

 out discriminating against conspicuous 

 ability and advanced ideas, and without 

 requiring the discoverers of rare plants 

 and animals to see that their genera are re- 



