302 REPORT ON THE STATE CABINET. 



he says should be embodied in it, and intimates that this " rule bears 

 directly on the question, because many naturalists are under the impres- 

 sion that the first species placed on the list must necessarily be regarded 

 as the type where the author is silent on that point. But according to 

 the above (and common sense), it is only so if found accurately to agree 

 with the definition. Sjnrigera concentrica does not agree either with the 

 name Athtris, nor with M'Cot's generic description, nor with/«s typical 

 figure.* Thei"efore, it cannot be arbitrarily selected as a type, and the 

 name Athyris, in consequence, retained for that group. Indeed, in many 

 instances, it would be impossible that the first species placed in the genus 

 should be the type, /or the author might not have the true type in the collection 

 under investigationP That an author may describe a genus, and " not have 

 the true type in the collection under investigation^'' seems a little latitudinarian ; 

 arid so, perhaps, he may abandon all he has at first placed under the 

 genus, and at some later day claim something else as his type. We have 

 had a little of this sort of work in Palaeontology of late years, with 

 generic descriptions broad enough to include whatever you please, and 

 indefinite enough to be shifted to any form that subsequent exigencies 

 might require. 



In the present case, Prof. M'Cot has asserted that the beak of A. con- 

 centrica is often closed ; and yet Mr. Billings asserts that he could not 

 have intended A. concentrica^ because his description and typical figure do 

 not accord with that species ; and in order to prove that the beak is not 

 closed, he has copied J., concentrica " with the aperture in the beak made 

 larger than it is in the original figure." Can a genus be founded on a 

 " typical figure " which is given without name or description *? 



I have occupied more space with these remarks than I intended ; and 

 I should not have noticed the article at all but for the suggestion of an 

 author whose opinion I value. I cannot avoid the conviction that a critical 

 study of interior structure will aid us much more than long discussions on 

 nomenclature ; and believing that our knowledge in this respect has been 

 somewhat advanced within the past few years, I shall concern myself 

 very little regarding this question of words. Before leaving the subject, 

 however, I may remark that Mr. Billings, in the, concluding pages of 

 his paper, cites his own previously published opinions to strengthen the 

 case that was so well fortified by collateral support in the outset. Refer- 

 ring to an article in the Canadian Journal, he says : 



* Athyris concentrica agrees with the generic description of 1844 — perhaps not with that of 

 1852, unless we add the correction of Prof. M'Cot, cited on the preceding page. 



