648 



SCIENCE. 



[JM.S. Vol. XXV. No. 640 



last species. Actitis is currently recognized 

 as a valid genus, witli Tringa hypoleucos as 

 type, but Mr. Stone, without hesitation, would 

 relegate the name Actitis to synonymy and 

 bring in some other name for the genus com- 

 monly known as Actitis. 



4. Mr. Stone says his " chief objection to 

 the method (i. e., elimination) is that it will 

 give difierent results in the hands of different 

 workers owing to the almost infinite variety 

 of ways in which it may be applied." In the 

 opening sentence of his second paper, Mr. 

 Stone says that the ' extravagant statements 

 of the probable revolution that would be thus 

 occasioned by the adoption of the first species 

 rule in our nomenclature ' are what led to his 

 preparing a ' statement of the matter based on 

 fact and not on theory.' If anything more 

 ' extravagant ' than his repeated assertions 

 about the ' diversity of results ' from elimina- 

 tion and ' the almost infinite variety of ways ' 

 in which it is conducted have found their 

 way into this controversy I have yet to be 

 apprized of them. He proceeds to illustrate 

 this infinity of ways by citing two methods 

 which he assumes to be in current use, one of 

 them with two subdivisions, making in all, we 

 will say, four ways of conducting elimination. 

 There is always a common sense way of doing 

 things and other ways. He says : 



(a) Some remove only the species which has 

 been made the type of a subsequent genus at the 

 date at which the genus was established. 



(6) Others remove along with the type any 

 other strictly congeneric species, and here again 

 there are two practises according as we interpret 

 congeneric to mean congeneric from the standpoint 

 of the author of the genus, or congeneric from the 

 standpoint of the eliminator. 



I am glad that Mr. Stone has put these 

 several ' methods ' on record, for it throws 

 great light upon his possible points of view 

 of elimination, and also goes far toward ex- 

 plaining how his ' facts and figures ' were 

 compiled. I may here say, at the outset, that 

 I first became aware that there was any such 

 method as his method ' a ' only some six 

 months ago through correspondence with Mr. 

 Stone, or that any one could take ' congeneric ' 

 in this connection from any other standpoint 



than that of the eliminator! To me both of 

 these propositions are unthinkable, for I do 

 not see how any results — at least, any rational 

 results — can be obtained if " we interpret con- 

 generic to mean congeneric from the stand- 

 point of the author of the genus." The sug- 

 gestion is on its face an absurdity, as it would 

 permit of no elimination whatever; and we 

 must credit the author of a genus with put- 

 ting an assemblage of species into a single 

 genus which he knew were only in part con- 

 generic and in part really belonged somewhere 

 else. Of course, an author often states that 

 certain species are referred to a given genus 

 provisionally, or are given as doubtfully be- 

 longing to it. In all such cases the rules of 

 our standard codes prohibit the taking of any 

 such doubtfully referred species as the type of 

 a genus. 



5. In criticizing my treatment of the genus 

 Vultur and the genera into which it became 

 subsequently divided Mr. Stone says : " I fail 

 to see why we have to ascertain the types of 

 the involved genera when we eliminate Vul- 

 tur." In determining the type of Vultur, or 

 of any other heterotypic genus, each of its 

 specific components must be traced to its final 

 generic resting-place. It is thus necessary to 

 determine first the types of all the genera to 

 which species of Vultur were successively re- 

 moved. As the involved genera were also 

 good illustrations of the working of the two 

 methods of determining types, each was taken 

 up in historic sequence, bringing out the fact 

 that the status of neither Sarcorhamphv^ nor 

 Gypagus could be determined by looking at 

 the description of the genus to see what was 

 the first species ; in other words, that a knowl- 

 edge of the literature was necessary to get 

 correct results in nomenclature even under 

 the first species rule. 



Mr. Stone, in his criticisms, has properly 

 enough taken advantage of a pure blunder on 

 my part in the elimination of Sarcorhamphus 

 — an incomprehensible slip which, through 

 haste in preparing the paper for an occasion 

 other than its publication in Science, I over- 

 looked and failed to observe in revising the 

 proof. This warrants his statement that I 

 have really, in this case, " interpreted ' con- 



