598 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXII. No. 567. 



investigations along exactly the lines printed in 

 the Bulletin, with many others, but to have him 

 do so in conjunction with simultaneous field 

 studies * * * etc. 



To one who is unacquainted with either 

 party to the controversy, on the nature of 

 which he is also very little posted, the follow- 

 ing questions naturally arise : 



1. By what uncharted route under the civil 

 service did Dr. Buckingham reach his present 

 position in the Department of Agriculture? 



2. Does one who secures a position in the 

 department by the means implied, consider 

 himself owned by one outside of the depart- 

 ment, so that the latter shall complain, ' Is 

 the creature greater than the creator ? ' 



3. Is Dr. Buckingham owned in Madison, 

 Wisconsin? Arthur John Hopkins. 



October 22, 1905. 



SPECIAL ARTICLES. 



THE METHOD OF ELIMINATION IN FIXING GENERIC 

 TYPES IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



One of the most perplexing problems in 

 zoological nomenclature is to decide on the 

 proper application of a generic name used in 

 a comprehensive sense by an early author, to 

 one of the component parts of the original 

 group. The genus of Linnaeus and his fol- 

 lowers of the eighteenth century corresponds 

 fairly to the family of the twentieth century. 

 It is agreed that a generic name should stand 

 or fall by its typical species. But the writers 

 of the eighteenth century had little conception 

 of type-species in the modern sense. We 

 musti therefore, find some method of fixing 

 their types for them. 



This may be done by choosing the ' best 

 known European or officinal species,' to quote 

 an expression attributed to Linnaeus. When 

 such a species is clearly indicated, this ought 

 to settle the matter. But it does not do so 

 in all cases, as some genera have no species 

 either European or officinal. As many of the 

 earlier writers took Linnsean specific names 

 for their genera (tautonomy), it is safe to 

 regard such a practise as fixing the type in 

 question. Bodianus hodianus is an example 

 of this sort. Virtual tautonomy (as Tetrao 



tetrix, Scomher scombrus) amounts to the 

 same thing. 



The method of beginning with a leading^ 

 species or chef de file, as typical representative 

 of each genus to be described in full, while 

 the others were disposed of in comparative 

 sentences, was adopted by Lacepede, Cuvier, 

 Valenciennes, Poey and other authors. In 

 ichthyology this has given reason for the 

 choice of the type of the genus by page pre- 

 cedence. This method was raised to the 

 dignity of a universal rule by Dr. Bleeker and 

 others. It is a pity that it was not sys- 

 tematically adopted earlier, for it would have 

 given fixity, a matter which in nomenclature 

 far outweighs all others. But Linnaeus,, 

 among others, usually placed his type-species 

 in the middle of the series, the less known or 

 more aberrant forms at either end of it. 



The rule of the first reviser is generally 

 recognized, and is given precedence over all 

 other methods of fixing the type by many 

 authors. The objection to it is that no one 

 has yet defined the first reviser, so as to sepa- 

 rate his rights from the rights of different 

 meddlers. If we admit none to be revisers^ 

 unless they definitely limit a genus and 

 definitely associate its name with some one 

 or more of its original constituent species, to 

 the exclusion of others, this rule may be avail- 

 able, although its application involves a good 

 deal of otherwise profitless labor in bibliog- 

 raphy. 



In recent years a rule of fixing types by 

 elimination has come into vogue, the Amer- 

 ican Ornithologists' Union having given it 

 especial prominence. As a guide to the opera- 

 tions of a first reviser, who finds no type 

 assigned by previous writers, the rule is not 

 open to serious objection. 



But it has been largely applied without re- 

 gard to previous revisers, and the meanings of 

 various generic names have been frequently 

 shifted in accordance with its supposed de- 

 mands. It is evident that it is in great need 

 of definition. 



Eor example, let A, B, C, D represent the 

 species of a comprehensive genus called X. 

 If each of these is successively made the type 

 of a new genus TJ ,, Y, Y , Z, then Z, the last 



