268 Proposed Reform of Zoological Nomenclature. 
name should be retained for that portion of it which exhibits in 
the greatest degree its essential characters as at first defined. 
Authors frequently indicate this by selecting some one species as 
a fixed point of reference, which they term the “ type of the 
genus.’ When they omit doing so, it may still in many cases be 
correctly inferred that the jirst species mentioned on their list, if 
found accurately to agree with their definition, was regarded by 
them as the type. A specific name, or its synonyms, will also 
often serve to point out the particular species which by implica- 
tion must be regarded as the original type of a genus, In such 
cases we are justified in restoring the name of the old genus to its 
typical signification, even when later authors have done otherwise. 
We submit therefore that 
§ 4. The generic name should always be retained for 
that portion of the original genus which was considered 
typical by the author. 
Example—The genus Picumnus was established by Temminck, 
and included two groups, one with four toes, the other with three, 
the former of which was regarded by the author as typical. 
Swainson, however, in raising these groups at a later period to 
the rank of genera, gave a new name, Asthenurus, to the former 
group, and retained Picumnus for the latter. In this case we 
have no choice but to restore the name Picumnus, Temm., to its 
correct sense, cancelling the name Asthenurus, Sw., and imposing 
anew name on the 3-toed group which Swainson had called 
Picumnus. 
[When no type is indicated, then the original name is to be kept 
for that subsequent subdivision which first received it.] 
Our next proposition seems to require no explanation :— 
§ 5. When the evidence 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. | 
[A later name of the same extent as an earler to be wholly 
cancelled. | 
When an author infringes the law of priority by giving a new 
name to a genus which has been properly defined and named 
already, the only penalty which can be attached to this act of 
negligence or injustice, is to expel the name so introduced from 
the pale of the science, It is not right, then, in such cases to 
