650 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXV. No. 640 



stitution for the two current names having 

 the same types." In reply to this it is only 

 necessary to recall that in the case of VuUur 

 two overlooked names did not in the least 

 affect my elimination of types. Furthermore, 

 Mr. Stone knows, and I and some others know, 

 that since the publication of the last supple- 

 ment to the A. O. TJ. Check-List in 1904, it 

 has been found that more than thirty of the 

 current generic names of North American 

 birds will have to be replaced by others solely 

 on the ground of priority, or will be carried 

 back to other authors and to eailier dates, 

 without affecting the type of any of the 

 genera involved. We can imagine almost 

 anything. But such hypothetical speculations 

 are hardly to be looked for from one who 

 especially deprecates ' extravagant statements,' 

 and relies so emphatically upon ' facts and 

 figures.' 



7. In regard to the ' action of revisers,' it 

 must be noted that there are all sorts of 

 revisers, who in times past have revised in all 

 sorts of ways, even to designating as types of 

 genera species not originally contained in 

 them, and even transferring names to groups 

 wholly different from those for which they 

 were originally proposed. This was pretty 

 commonly practised prior to about 1850; yet 

 where genera were restricted and a type 

 properly designated, that is, in conformity to 

 the requirements of modern codes of nomen- 

 clature, it is of advantage to accept them, and 

 often a distinct aid in settling complicated 

 cases, like the large genera of early authors. 

 If a reviser selects his type in contravention 

 of generally accepted rules his work is not of 

 course entitled to recognition. 



8. In this connection, Mr. Stone refers to 

 the fixing of ' the types of the genera 

 Cathartes, Sarcorhamphus and Gypagus by 

 Mr. Eidgway in 1874, and independently by 

 Dr. Bowdler Sharpe in the same year,' and 

 adds that it is interesting to note (foot-note, p. 

 150) that both authors " in each instance 

 selected the first species as the type and one 

 would be inclined to suspect that they were 

 following, consciously or unconsciously, the 

 first species rule." But Mr. Stone fails to 

 give us the subsequent history of this piece of 



work. Ten years later Mr. Eidgway and Dr. 

 Stejneger, to whose excellent work in fixing 

 the types of the North American genera of 

 birds in the A. O. TJ. Check-List we are so 

 greatly indebted, reversed the work of Mr. 

 Eidgway in 1874, making aura the type of 

 Cathartes and papa the type of Gypagus, aa 

 they have since stood in Mr. Eidgway'a 

 ' Manual of North American Birds,' as well 

 as in the Check-List. Dr. Sharpe in 1902, in 

 his invaluable ' Hand-List of Birds,' reversed 

 his position of 1874, making aura the type of 

 Cathartes and citing both Rhinogryphus and 

 QHnops as synonyms of Cathartes, giving also 

 generic recognition to Gypagus with papa as 

 its type. Thus my recent independent deter- 

 mination of the types and the use of these 

 genera is in harmony with current usage by 

 the best authorities on both sides of the At- 

 lantic. If Eidgway and Sharpe determined 

 the types of these genera by the first species 

 rule in 1874, they have done otherwise since. 

 Evidently when Mr. Stone cited this case he 

 really had seen ' too many Vultures ' to 

 clearly discern the present nomenclatural con- 

 ditions of the grouj) — conditions which were 

 evidently not reached by the strict application 

 of the first species rule. 



9. Mr. Stone quotes an eminent zoologist 

 as saying that " elimination is absolutely 

 dead and ought not to be revived in any code 

 or thought of in any connection." It is a 

 suggestive ' coincidence ' that another zoolo- 

 gist, especially eminent in invertebrate zo- 

 ology and a recognized authority in several 

 classes of animals, has expressed to me the 

 same sentiments in practically the same 

 language about the first species rule! 



10. Great emphasis is placed by Mr. Stone 

 upon the fact that the first species has so 

 often become the type, even where the type 

 has been determined by elimination. I have 

 stated that this has often resulted by ' coin- 

 cidence ' rather than from a conscious reser- 

 vation of the first species in the process of 

 subdividing polytypic genera. There is abun- 

 dant evidence that such is the case, but space 

 can not here be taken to cite examples in 

 detail. 



In the case of Brisson's genera the type, by 



