July 28, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



117 



intended to be recorded, we are clearly on the 

 wrong road. And this is exactly where we 

 should be were we to decide in the above stated 

 question that the record of albus Jones, 1900, 

 is not a record of albus Jones, 1900, but a 

 record of albus Smith, 1890, knowing the con- 

 trary to be the case. The wording of the 

 question itself in Dr. Stiles's title carries the 

 correct solution. The species upon which a 

 genus is based is necessarily the type of that 

 genus. If it be found that the species has 

 been erroneously determined, the determina- 

 tion must be corrected, and if it is found to 

 be undescribed it should be at once char- 

 acterized by the discoverer of the erroneous 

 determination or some one else; otherwise the 

 genus might by some be held to fall, being 

 left without a described type species that can 

 be designated. I would suggest that a special 

 provision be made for such cases, whereby the 

 genus need not fall in event of its type 

 species proving undescribed. It can always 

 be referred to by the name used in the orig- 

 inal record, as albus Jones, 1900 (non 

 Smith, 1890), until it can be better char- 

 acterized. The species, whatever it prove to 

 be, remains the type in the end. 



Suppose the case of A and B, two men who 

 are look-alike twins. I am acquainted with 

 A, but I am ignorant of the existence of B. 

 I see B, whom I believe to be A, commit a 

 crime, and I give evidence in court, in my 

 mistaken but conscientious belief, due to a 

 misidentification of individuals, that A com- 

 mitted the said crime. Does this make A the 

 criminal in the case, or does B remain the 

 criminal? I think no argument is needed to 

 show clearly that the person whom I saw com- 

 mit the crime is bound to remain the crim- 

 inal in the case, regardless of the name by 

 which I designate him; my A is synonymous 

 with B. Entities must be maintained. If 

 individuals are confounded, their individual- 

 ity is lost. 



Following still further the principle of mis- 

 taken identity, it is evident that an author 

 can not correctly put a previously published 

 record into his synonymy without correctly 

 ascertaining the identity of the forms con- 



cerned. It is equally evident that, whether 

 he has or has not correctly ascertained the 

 same, he personally, and no other, is respon- 

 sible for the synonymy published under or 

 over his name. Still further, it is evident 

 that, if his synonymy be found incorrect, it 

 does not hold, and the status of the particu- 

 lar forms which he has wrongly so indicated 

 remains the same as before. No synonymy is 

 entitled to recognition unless founded on ma- 

 terial studied, hence the detection of error 

 carries with it a location of the material under 

 consideration at the time by the said author. 

 If the points involved in the same ever be- 

 come of sufficient importance to warrant, then 

 the forms represented in the said material 

 must properly, for synonymic purposes, take 

 the names by which the said author recorded 

 them plus his own name and date. 



The element of protection demands consid- 

 eration. It is evident that a taxonomic unit 

 once correctly defined and named must be 

 recognized and protected from distortion. 

 What protection has albus Smith, 1890, if we 

 allow it to be cited as the type of a genus 

 that not only was manifestly not intended 

 for it by its author but may even prove to be 

 incompatible with it in its characters? If 

 the characters of the genus X-us Jones, 1900, 

 are not stated by its author, the same are to 

 be found only in the material of albus Jones, 

 1900. If no such material has been studied 

 and the new genus has been proposed on the 

 strength of the description of the genotype 

 cited, then no misidentification exists and 

 the case as stated does not apply. Likewise 

 if the type material of the genotype is cited 

 the case does not apply. All phases which do 

 not carry the misidentification principle may 

 be similarly eliminated from the present con- 

 sideration. 



Those who would maintain, in the face of 

 the above remarks and under the conditions 

 of the question, as stated by Dr. Stiles, that 

 albus Smith, 1890, is the genotype of S-us 

 Jones, 1900, can in my opinion have no other 

 excuse for their action than the desire to 

 shirk taxonomic responsibilities because they 

 involve increased labor. Clearly an author 



