522 Biological Nomenclature. [ August, 
so state, and on this assumption to proceed to change 
the said name to make it agree with the assumed 
proper construction in any case? and especially when 
by the asserted reformation the generic name becomes 
identical with one previously proposed for some other 
animal or plant, and hence will fall into synonymy ? 
0,25. Doubtful, 2. Yes,6. No answer, 12. 
xample. Schu ans Severin a genus which he called Paxy- 
don, giving no derivat subsequent author described a genus 
s Arait giving yin ilok A third writer assumed that Schu- 
macher d the same e derivation as Pachydon, and that both, 
if correctly writen, would Pachyod The last mentioned then 
proposed a new name for AF E me which he nes ge made to ap- 
se apii ed. ` Was this allowable? No. 26. Doubtful, 3. 
, 8. No answer, 8 
XI. Should a generic name, otherwise properly constituted, 
ut derived from the specific name of its typical 
species, or similar to that of one of the species in- 
cluded under it, be rejected on that account? No, 40. 
song: 4 Yes; F 
Ne s proper to state that this is an piade pre since 
Linnæus elar and others, PEET many gen in this 
manner, and a large number of such names are éil ae 
pose er in botany and among waviehidte animals. 
XII. Shall a rns author be permitted in revising a 
composite genus (of which no type was specified when 
it was described) to name as its type a species not in- 
cluded by the original author of the genus in that 
latter author’s list of species given when the cies 
was originally described? No, 37. Doubtful, 
Yes, 5: No r, I. 
xamp very fev 
species. After many species had been deastibed others, a later 
i umber of 
appellations. 
XIII. pews an old genus without a specified type has been 
ivided by a subsequent author, and one of the old 
species retained and specified to be the type of the 
NEPS genus bearing the old name, —is it competent 
a third author to discard this and select another 
of the original species as a type, when by so doing 
changes are necessitated in nomenclature? No. 39- 
Doubtful, 4. No answer, 2. - 
XIV. Shall an author be held to have any greater ara over d 
or greater privileges with relation to nam of his : 
own proposing, after the same have Sa duly 
_ published, than any other subsequent author? No, 
Foo? Doubtful, 2. Yes, 2. No answer, I. 
