S.A. Miller—Glyptocrinus and Reteocrinus. 109 
which retains the larger number of species should retain the 
old name (DC.), but the latter cannot be applied to a restricted 
group containing none of the species referred to the primitive 
group by its author at the time when it was described or when he 
enumerated the species contained in it.” 
given when the genus was originally described? No 387. 
Doubtful 2. Yes 5. No answer 1.” 
I will cite only one more authority. Professor Meek in dis- 
cussing the type of the genus Straparollus says: : 
“It seems to us, however, that if the name Huomphalus is to 
_ be retained at all, we should apply it to the forms for which it 
was originally proposed, and that we have no right to transfer 
it to another type, because Sowerby subsequently, in another 
place, refers this other type to his genus Huomphalus.”—Geol. 
Surv. Ill. vol. ii, p. 158. 
The rule that a subsequent author cannot revise a genus and 
substitute as its type a species different from that relied upon 
essor Hall, mistaking the type of the genus Metzia, proposed 
and defined the genus Rhynchospira ; afterward ascertaining that 
Aynchospira was a synonym for Retzia, he abandoned it and 
roposed Lhynchotreta for the form which he had originally 
. 
and the reason is obvious. . If they can substitute another than 
the original species as the type of a genus, I can substitute yet 
another, and you can another, and so we destroy all fiaity in 
