474 SOME QUESTIONS OP NOMENCLATURE. 



more confusion would result from sacrifice of priority than of classical 

 excellence. 



From names as names I proceed to the consideration of fitting them 

 to groups. 



TYPONYMS. 



The question, What is necessary to insure reception of a generic name? 

 is one of those concerning which there is difference of opinion. By 

 some a definition is . considered to be requisite, while by others the 

 specification of a type is only required. But the demand in such case 

 is simply that the definition shall be made. It may be inaccurate or 

 not to the point; it may be given up at once, and never adopted by 

 the author himself afterwards, or by anyone else. Nevertheless, the 

 condition is fulfilled by the attempt to give the definition. In short, 

 the attempt is required in order that the competency (or its want) of 

 the namer may be known, and if incompetency is shown thereby, no 

 matter; the attempt has been made. The indication by a type is not 

 sufficient ! 



Anyone who has had occasion to investigate the history of some 

 large group must have been often perplexed in determining on what 

 special subdivision of a disintegrated genus the original name should 

 be settled. The old genus may have been a very comprehensive one, 

 covering many genera and even families of modern zoology, and of 

 course the investigator has to ignore the original diagnosis. He must 

 often acknowledge how much better it would have been if the genus 

 had been originally indicated by a type rather than a diagnosis. Many 

 naturalists, therefore, now recognize a typonym to be eligible as a 

 generic name. Among such are those guided by the code formulated 

 by the American Ornithologists' Union, to which reference may be 

 made, and in which will be found some judicious remarks on the sub- 

 ject under Canon XLII. Certainly it is more rational to accept a 

 typonym than to require a definition for show rather than use. Never- 

 theless, I fully recognize the obligation of the genus-maker to indicate 

 by diagnosis as well as type his conception of generic characters. 



FIRST SPECIES OF A GENUS NOT ITS TYPE. 



On account of the difficulty of determining the applicability of a 

 generic name when a large genus is to be subdivided, it has been the 

 practice of some zoologists to take the first species of a genus as its 

 type. This, it has been claimed, is in pursuance of the law of priority. 

 It is, however, an extreme, if not illegitimate, extension of the law, and 

 has generally been discarded in recent years. But in the past it had 

 eminent advocates, such as George Robert Gray in ornithology and 

 Pieter van Bleeker in ichthyology. A few still adhere to the practice, 

 and within a few mouths two excellent zoologists have defended their 



