Zoological Nomenclature. 99 
When no type i is indicated, then the original name is to be kept for that me 
sequent subdivision whi ich h first received ut.]}—Our next proposition seems 
require no explanation 
§ 5. When the avidiehes as to the original type of a genus 
is not perfectly clear and indisputable, then the person who 
first subdivides the genus may affix the original name to any 
portion of it at his discretion, and no later author has a right 
to transfer that name to any other part of the original genus. * 
[4 later name of the same extent as an earlier to be — — wi fon 
an author infringes the ‘lew of priority by givin us 
which has been properly defined and named already, the pl “penalty seh 
can be attached to this act of negligence or injustice, is to expel the name so 
introduced from ani ale of the science. It is not right, then, in ‘sock cases 
w ae the la + genius came in the cours “rg time to be divided into he it 
was fncieeet vn give the condemned poate: Monaulus, to one of the portions. 
To state this a eh ote 
6. When two authors define and name the same genus, both 
making it exactly of the same extent, the later name should 
be canceled iz toto, and not retained in a modified sense.t 
ok eee ee a ee ee oe ee eee eee oe Ht oF Se ee 
This rule admits of the following exception :— 
§ 7. Provided, however, that if these authors select their 
respective se a from different sections of the e genus, and these 
sections be afterward raised into genera, then both these 
_ Names may be retained in a restricted sense for the new genera 
 -respectivel 
Example.—The names, Edemia and Melanetta, were originally coextensive 
synonyms, but their respective pant were taken from different sections, which 
are now raised into genera, distinguished by the above titles 
[No special rule is ag eg or the cases * which the later of two generic 
names is so defined as to be Jess extensive signification than the earlier, 
for if the later en the type of the paid genus, it would be canceled 
y the —— of § 4; and if it does not include that type, it in fact 
a Minti t genus. ] 
. 
his law, though very important and necessary, is too a neglected. and 
ee times seems pony of unplioale. Thus Astrea Lam 01, had two species 
rds 
adopt Astrea, for the latter, in accordance with this rule, but later observations 
ow that it does not belong to the fam ays Sede, nor éven to the same sub- 
the I 
order, but to Fungide, so ges if we adopt this view it would require nu- 
merous changes in the names of the families, subfamilies, = cerone er. On the 
other hand Favia has become oars well established as the of a large and 
well-known genus, and sede it appears necessary to reject i it aa reso —y, 
These discarded 
ward snap ina totally new sense, though we trust that in future no one will 
knowingly apply an old name, whether now adopted or not, to a new genus. 
(See re Ce infra a). 
