522 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVI. No. 668 



the most common or the medicinal species. (Lin- 

 nsean rule,- 1751.) 



(i) If a genus, without designated type, con- 

 tains among its original species one possessing as 

 a specific or subspecific name, either as valid 

 name or synonym, a name which is virtually the 

 same as the generic name, or of the same origin 

 or same meaning, preference should be shown to 

 that species in designating the type, unless such 

 preference is strongly contraindicated by other 

 factors. (Type by virtual tautonomy.) Ex- 

 amples: Bos taurus, Equiis cdballus, Ovis aries, 

 Scomher scomhrus, Sphwrostoma globiporum; 

 contraindicated in Dipetalonema (compare spe- 

 cies Filaria dipetala, of which only one sex was 

 described, based upon one specimen and not 

 studied in detail) . 



{)) If the genus contains both exotic and non- 

 exotic species from the standpoint of the original 

 author, the type should be selected from the non- 

 exotic species. 



(fc) If some of the original species have later 

 been classified in other genera, preference should 

 be shown to the species still remaining in the 

 original genus. (Type by elimination.) 



(I) Species based upon sexually mature speci- 

 mens should take precedence over species based 

 upon larval or immature forms. 



(m) Show preference to species bearing the 

 name communis, vulgaris, medicinalis or offi- 

 cinalis. 



(«) Show preference to the best described, best 

 figured, best known, or most easily obtainable 

 species, or to one of which a type specimen can 

 be obtained. 



(o) Show preference to a species which belongs 

 to a group containing as large a number of the 

 species as possible. (De Candolle's rule.) 



ip) In parasitic genera, select, if possible, a 

 species which occurs in man or some food animal, 

 or in some very common and wide-spread host- 

 species. 



(g) All other things being equal, show prefer- 

 ence to a species which the author of the genus 

 actually studied at or before the time he proposed 

 the genus. 



(r) In case of writers who habitually place a 

 certain leading or typical species first as " chef 

 de file," the others being described by comparative 



' Si genus receptum, secundum jus natura et 

 artis, in plura dirimi debet, turn nomen antea 

 commune manebit vulgatissimae et officinali plan- 

 tte. 



reference to this, this fact should be considered 

 in the choice of the type species. 



(s) In case of those authors who have adopted' 

 the " first species rule " in fixing generic types, 

 the first species named by them should be taken 

 as types of their genera. 



{t) All other things being equal, page prece- 

 dence should obtain in selecting a type. 



Opinions Rendered by the Commission. — In 

 response to certain questions, especially in 

 reference to the Law of Priority (Art. 25) and 

 its application (Art. 26), submitted for con- 

 sideration, the Commission herewith unani- 

 mously renders the following opinions : 



The meaning of the word "indication" in 

 Art. 25a. — The word "indication" in Art. 25a 

 is to. be construed as follows : 



(A) with regard to specific names, an 

 " indication " is (1) a bibliographic reference, 

 or (2) a published figure (illustration), or (3) 

 a definite citation of an earlier name for which 

 a new name is proposed. 



(5) with regard to generic names, (1) a 

 bibliographic reference, or (2) a definite cita- 

 tion of an earlier name for which a new name 

 is proposed, or (3) the citation or designation 

 of a type species. 



In no case is the word " indication " to be 

 construed as including museum labels, mu- 

 seum specimens or vernacular names. 



The Nature of a Systematic Name. — The 

 Commission is unanimously of the opinion 

 that a name, in the sense of the Code, refers 

 to the designation by which the actual objects 

 are known. In other words, we name the 

 objects themselves, not our conception of said 

 objects. Names based upon hypothetical 

 forms have, therefore, no status in nomencla- 

 ture and are not in any way entitled to con- 

 sideration under the law of priority. Ex- 

 amples: Pithecanthropus Haeckel, 1866, being- 

 the name of an hypothetical genus, has no 

 status under the Code and does not therefore 

 invalidate Pithecanthropus Dubois, 1894; 

 Gigantopora minuta Looss, 1907, n. g., n. sp., 

 has no status under the code, since it is ad- 

 mittedly the name of a fantastic unit, not 

 based upon any actual objects. 



The Status of Publications Dated 1758. — 

 The tenth edition of Linne's " Systema 



