Apbil 5, 1907] 



SCIENCE, 



553 



types explicitly designated; and these types 

 had been accepted by all subsequent authors, 

 down to 1904, or for over Y5 years, when it 

 was proposed to take the first species asso- 

 ciated with the generic name as tha type, 

 instead of the type designated by the author 

 a few months later in the same year. In each 

 case the generic name is transferred to a 

 wholly different group, and different names, 

 some of them new, have to be substituted for 

 the groups long known under the displaced 

 names. These names are: 



Ammodramus, changed to Coturniculus. 



Cotumiculus, renamed Ammospiza. 



Euetheia, changed to Tiaris. 



Tiaris, renamed Charitospiza. 



Belminthophila, changed to Vermivora. 



Dendrornis, changed to Xiphorhynehus. 



Xiphorhynchus, renamed XipTiornis. 



These changes affect 18 species and 10 sub- 

 species of North American birds, and about 

 30 species and subspecies of Mexican and 

 South American birds. 



The revised A. O. TJ. Code (as yet un- 

 published) has a rule to the effect that an 

 author may designate the type of a new genus 

 in any part of the work or paper in which the 

 genus was originally proposed, and (by in- 

 ference) not elsewhere. But it has happened 

 many times in the past that an author has 

 designated the type of his own genus in some 

 subsequent work, and such designation has 

 been respected as valid. It hence seems de- 

 sirable to add to the new A. O. U. rule the 

 following provision, namely: The type of a 

 genus designated hy its author in a publica- 

 tion subsequent to the one in which the genus 

 was originally proposed may he taken as its 

 type provided that the species thus designated 

 as type was one of the original species and 

 had not in the meantime heen made the type 

 of some other genu^. This would prevent the 

 ruthless overturn of such long established 

 names as those mentioned above. 



12. In conclusion, a word on the subject of 

 methods of elimination. I fail to see in elimi- 

 nation but a single principle, the rule of 

 priority. As Dr. Stiles has well said:* "If 



' " The ' First Species Rule ' vs. the ' Law of 

 Priority' in Determining the Types of Genera," 



this principle is just when applied to generic 

 names, why is it not equally just when applied 

 to the generic types ? " I also fail to see how 

 there can be more than one way of applying 

 the rule, or anything difficult or abstruse in 

 it, beyond a proper knowledge of the litera- 

 ture of the subject. Experts evidently do 

 reach the same results ; those who try to apply 

 the principle without thoughtful considera- 

 tion of how to do it naturally meet with 

 trouble. As said before, it is unfortunate 

 that there has been so rarely a definite state- 

 ment of the process, which should have long 

 since been set forth in the codes of nomen- 

 clature for the guidance of the inexperienced. 

 The statement of the method given in an 

 earlier number of Science (Vol. XXI V., 

 p. 7Y7) covers the whole matter. Where 

 trouble arises it is not from any obscurities 

 of the method but conies from the taxonomic 

 side, the doubts that arise in relation to the 

 validity or value of groups that have been set 

 aside as genera or subgenera. But this would 

 arise equally under any method of determin- 

 ing types. 



The convenience of the first species rule is 

 its only asset; every other consideration, as 

 emphasized by Dr. Stiles (I. c), scores against 

 it. It ignores all types hitherto established 

 under any other method, in the case of genera 

 whose types are not determinable by one of 

 the three universally accepted rules. As Dr. 

 Stiles has well said, when a "type is once 

 designated, by any method whatever, so long 

 as the species selected was an original species, 

 valid from the original author's point of view, 

 and unreservedly classified in his genus, why 

 reopen the question ? " As a matter of fact, 

 the A. O. tr. Committee in preparing the 

 Check-List established the types of such 

 genera of North American birds as had not 

 had types previously properly designated, and 

 why now reopen the cases except for cause? 

 The proposal of a new rule, obviously dis- 

 astrous to the stability of nomenclature, is 

 certainly not a sufficient cause. 



Dr. Stiles makes reference to the rule laid 

 down by Linnaeus himself for the determina- 

 SciENCE, N. S., Vol. XXV., No. 630, pp. 145-147, 

 January 25, 1907. 



