ZOOLOGICAL NOMEXCLATURE. 331 



carry them to London and elsewliere." From this account 

 there can be no doubt of the species intended. Accordingly 

 the Cornisii naturalist, as if with a prophetic eye to future 

 controversy, at the earliest available moment here distinctively 

 proclaims Astacus to be thie genus of the common lobster, 

 writing as he does in and concerning a county in wbich the 

 rival claimant, tbe river crayfish, neither then nor now was ever 

 known to occur. This is ouly an argumentvAn ad liominem. 

 But it should be conclusive with those w'ho think that, when 

 any large loosely defined genus is eventually broken up into 

 several genera, the original name is bound to go with that 

 species which was first mentioned separately as a member of 

 the genus. 



A genus may be founded for a single species, and from that 

 species, as long as the genus stands, it can never be separated. 

 But a genus may be founded for a dozen species, no two of 

 which in process of time are allowed to stand under the same 

 generic name. Then the nice Sadducean question arises, which 

 of the twelve has a right to the name of the original genus, 

 once enjoyed by them all in common? A species indicated by 

 the author as typical has the best claim. A species indicated 

 by him as doubtful has no claim at all. But in old obscurely 

 defined genera these helps are rarely at our command. We 

 must then have recourse to Article 30 of the International 

 code, which provides that, " If the original type of a genus was 

 not indicated, the author who first subdivides the genus may 

 apply the name of the original genus to such restricted genus 

 or subgenus as may be judged advisable, and such assignment 

 is not subject to subsequent change." To this rule are appended 

 certain cautions and useful recommendations. But neither 

 the precision of the rule nor Dr. von Maehrenthal's elaborate 

 comment seems to meet all the problems which ingenuity 

 and research have recently evolved. One might innocently 

 suppose that the autlior who first subdivides a genus is the 

 author who first subdivides it, and that no more need be said. 

 But in so supposing one is likely to find oneself egregiously 

 mistaken. 



To make the matter intelligible, it will be necessary for me to 

 tax your patience by bringing forward concrete examples. Tou 

 will ezcuse my taking them from the branch of zoology with 

 which I am most conversant. Do not think it unchivalrous 



