May 3, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



709 



cently' he has presented a list of twenty-one 

 changes that he claims would be necessary. 



It is well known to all that the first species 

 and elimination methods are only used as 

 methods of last resort; and cases where the 

 author in the original publication has indi- 

 cated a type do not come under the operation 

 of either method. Four of Dr. Allen's alleged 

 changes may thus be cancelled at once. 



Spinus Koch, 1816, type Fringilla spinus L. 

 by tautonomy. 



Zonotrichia Swainson, 1831, types ' leu- 

 cophrys, pennsylvanica, melodia,' designated 

 by the author. We are bound to pick our type 

 from these three ' typical ' species and by 

 either method leucophrys is the type and no 

 change is required. 



Pooecetes depends upon the last and falls 

 with it. 



Cyanurus Swains., 1831, is similarly re- 

 stricted by the author to tropical species. 



Golyrnbus Linn., 1Y58, does not come under 

 the first species rule. 



Erioneita Coues, 1884, is a monotypic genus 

 and how it can become nameless by the opera- 

 tion of the first species rule I can not con- 

 ceive. What does happen is that it is re- 

 placed by Somateria, the type of the latter 

 being Anas iorealis not by first species rule 

 but because it is the only species definitely 

 quoted. 



One other case, Aix, I included among those 

 in which the type shifted to a congeneric 

 species, the A.O.TJ. committee having voted 

 not to divide the genus Aix. 



Removing these seven cases from Dr. 

 Allen's list we have left fourteen, exactly the 

 number I gave. 



In my paper I claimed that fifteen changes 

 would result from consistent elimination. 

 Dr. Allen claims but three changes. I can 

 not of course comment upon his results until 

 the details of his eliminations are published. 



In the eliminations of vulturine genera that 

 he has published I called attention to several 

 inconsistencies. One of these he now admits 

 and changes the type of Sarcorhamphus irom. 

 auricularis to gryphus. In his republication 

 of tiie Yultwr case, however, he makes another 



» Science, XXV., p. 552, April 5, 1907. 



slip, forgetting that since gryphus is now the 

 type of SoATCorhamplius, 1806, it must be re- 

 moved from VuUur at that date, leaving 

 harpyia or papa as the type of VuUur, the 

 choice being a nice question of priority. 



Sarcorhamphus thus replaces VuUur of Dr. 

 Allen's scheme and VuUur wiU replace either 

 Harpyia or Gypagus. 



There seems to be only one alternative, i. e., 

 to remove gryphus at the date it became the 

 type of Sarcorhamphus. If we do this, how- 

 ever, we must do the same with the other 

 genera : Aura wiU go out at 1816, and papa at 

 1854, the latter being thus the type of VuUur. 



This is an excellent illustration of the com- 

 plexity of the elimination method and the 

 opportunities it offers even to experts to fall 

 into errors. 



Dr. Allen's comments upon the points of 

 my recent paper do not cause me to alter my 

 statements and further discussion along those 

 lines seems useless. The consideration of 

 Linnsean names and priority of Swainson's 

 papers are quite apart from the main issue. 

 WiTMER Stone 



Academy Natueal Sciences, 

 Philadelphia, April 6 



LACK OP RECUPERATIVE POWER OP ITALIAN 

 WORKMEN 



To the Editor op Science: On reading Dr. 

 Meltzer's most interesting paper in Science 

 for March 29 I was reminded of a remark 

 made to me some four or five years ago in 

 regard to the lack of power of Italian work- 

 men, in Italy, to recover from injuries. My 

 informant had for many years been in charge, 

 as foreman, of large numbers of Italian ma- 

 chinists and laborers (and of some English 

 ones as well) in the Armstrong gun carriage 

 and repair shops at Pozzuoli. In reviewing 

 his impressions of the operatives he said that 

 they were abla to do fair days' work but tiiat 

 they were likely to be long ill or even to die 

 from injuries that would not prove serious 

 to an English workman. This he attributed 

 wholly to the less substantial diet of the 

 Italian. It is a noteworthy fact in this con- 

 nection that the poorest Neapolitans set the 

 subsistence limit at six soldij i. e., six cents. 



