594 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. IV. No. 95, 



retained as they are (if there is no other 

 objection) , on the assumption that more con- 

 fusion would result from sacrifice of priority 

 than of classical excellence. 



From names as names, I proceed to the 

 consideration of fitting them to groups. 



TYPONYMS. 



The question what is necessary to insure 

 reception of a generic name is one of those 

 concerning which there is difference of 

 opinion. By some a definition is considered 

 to be requisite, while by others the speci- 

 fication of a type is only required. But the 

 demand in such case is simply that the defi- 

 nition shall be made. It may be inaccurate 

 or not to the point ; it may be given up at 

 once, and never adopted by the author him- 

 self afterwards, or by any one else. Never- 

 theless, the condition is fulfilled by the at- 

 tempt to give the definition. In short, the 

 attempt is required in order that the com- 

 petency (or its want) of the namer may be 

 known, and if incompetency is shown 

 thereby — no matter ! The attempt has 

 been made. The indication by a type is 

 not sufficient. 



Any one who has had occasion to investi- 

 gate the history of some large group must 

 have been often perplexed in determining 

 on what special subdivision of a disinte- 

 grated genus the original name should be 

 settled. The old genus may have been a 

 very comprehensive one, covering many 

 genera, and even families, of modern zool- 

 ogy'', and of course the investigator has to ig- 

 nore the original diagnosis. He must often 

 acknowledge how much better it would have 

 been if the genus had been originally indi- 

 cated by a type rather than a diagnosis. 

 Many naturalists, therefore, now recognize 

 a typonym to be eligible as a generic name. 

 Among such are those guided by the code 

 formulated by the American Ornithologists' 

 Union, to which reference may be made, 

 and in which will be found some judicious 



remarks on the subject under 'Canon XLII.' 

 Certainly it is more rational to accept a 

 typonym than to require a definition for 

 show rather than use. Nevertheless, I fully 

 recognize the obligation of the genus- maker 

 to indicate by diagnosis, as well as type, his 

 conception of generic characters. 



FIRST SPECIES OF A GENUS NOT ITS TYPE. 



On account of the difficulty of determin- 

 ing the applicability of a generic name 

 when a large genus is to be subdivided, it 

 has been the practice of some zoologists to 

 take the first species of a genus as its type. 

 This, it has been claimed, is in pursuance 

 of the law of priority. It is, however, an 

 extreme, if not illegitimate, extension of 

 the law, and has generally been discarded 

 in recent years. But in the past it had 

 eminent advocates, such as George Robert 

 Gray in Ornithology, and Pieter Van 

 Bleeker in Ichthyology. A few still adhere 

 to the practice, and within a few months 

 two excellent zoologists have defended their 

 application of names by statements that the 

 first species of the old genera justified their 

 procedure. The contention of one involves 

 the names which shall be given to the cray- 

 fishes and lobsters. 



It is evident that the fathers of zoolog- 

 ical nomenclature never contemplated such 

 a treatment of their names, and the appli- 

 cation of the rule to their genera would re- 

 sult in some curious and unexpected condi- 

 tions. Let us see how some genera of Lin- 

 naeus would fare. The first species of 

 Phoca was the fur seal, the first species of 

 Mustela the sea-otter, the first of Mus 

 the guinea pig, and the first of Cervus was 

 the giraffe. These are sufficient to show 

 what incongruities would flow from the 

 adoption of the rule. 



CHOICE OF NAMES SIMULTANEOUSLY PUB- 

 LISHED. 



There is another issue of nomenclature 

 involving many genera. In the same work 



