EXCURSUS ON THE NAMES OF SHRIKES 539 



some one species as type of the genus, affix the original name 

 to this, and then apply other names to the other generic groups 

 at our discretion ; such being practically the universal custom. 



Gray's rule appears to be, to select as the type the first 

 species given under the head of the genus ; and accordingly 

 he considers L. cristatus (which is an Indian species) as the 

 type of the genus Lanius Linn., 1758. The rule works well 

 enough in some cases, but obviously cannot be rigidly en- 

 forced. Dire confusion would follow the attempt to carry it 

 out to its full consequences. Scores, if not hundreds, of cases 

 might be cited, in which such a course is clearly impracticable. 



It is impracticable, for instance, in this very case of Lanius, 

 for in 1766, in the 12th edition, the first species given under 

 Lanius is L. forflcatus ; whence it is clear that Linnseus had 

 no particular type in view. 



Eecognizing such points, naturalists agree that a writer who 

 subdivides a typeless genus may restrict the original name to 

 any section he chooses, and rename the rest, and that his action 

 in these premises shall be in effect the same as if he himself had 

 first proposed the name. 



The genus Lanius continued for some years to be used in 

 substantially its Linnsean acceptation ; but presently various 

 species of Linnsean Lanius were made the types of successive 

 new genera. Though the authors proposing these new names 

 did not formally subdivide the genus, we may concede that 

 their action was tantamount to this. In 1817, the Lanius forfl- 

 catus of Linnaeus, 1763, became the type of Udolius of Cuvier ; 

 in 1826, the Lanius collurio of Linnaeus was made by Boie the 

 type of his genus Enneoctonus ; in 1829, Kaup used Collurio for 

 what Boie had called Unneoctonus, and also proposed Phoneus 

 for another closely related section ; in 1831, Vigors used 

 Collurio for the group of which L, excubitor Linn, is the type. 

 Not to go further into the record, it may be said, in fine, that 

 every name which authors have imposed upon species of the 

 Linnsean Lanius has been based upon some other section of the 

 genius than that of which L. excuMtor is typical, down to 

 Collurio Vigors, 1831, which latter is antedated by Collurio 

 Kaup, 1829. Whence it appears that if Lanius is not tenable 

 for L. excubitor, it is not tenable at all. Yet it cannot be 

 abolished entirely. 



It is with no little satisfaction that I find myself able to 

 restore the name Lanius to the present genus, upon principles 



