Proposed Reform of Zoological Nomenclature. 269 
restrict the meaning of the later name so that it may stand side 
by side with the earlier one, as has sometimes been done. For 
instance, the genus Monaulus, Vieill. 1816, is a precise equi- 
valent to Lophophorus, Temm. 1813, both authors having adopted 
the same species as their type, and therefore, when the latter genus 
came in the course of time to be divided into two, it was incorrect 
to give the condemned name Monaulus to one of the portions. 
To state this succinctly, 
§ 6. When two authors define and name the same genus, 
both making it exactly of the same extent, the later name 
should be cancelled ¢n foto, and not retained in a modified 
sense.* 
This rule admits of the following exception :— 
§ 7. Provided however, that if these authors select their 
respective types from different sections of the genus, and 
these sections be afterwards raised into genera, then both 
these names may be retained in a restricted sense for the 
new genera respectively. 
Ezample—The names Gidemia and Melaneita were originally 
co-extensive synonyms, but their respective types were taken from 
different sections which are now raised into genera, distinguished 
by the above titles. 
[No special rule is required for the cases in which the later of 
two generic names is so defined as to be less extensive in significa- 
tion than the earlier, for if the later includes the type of the earlier 
genus, it would be cancelled by the operation of § 4; and if it 
does not include that type, it is in fact a distinct genus. ] 
But when the later name is more extensive than the earlier, the 
following rule comes into operation :— 
[A later name equivalent to several earlier ones is to be cancelled.] 
The same principle which is involved in § 6 will apply to § 8. 
§ 8. If the later name be so defined as to be equal in 
extent to two or more previously published genera, it must 
be cancelled an toto. 
Example.—Psarocolius, Wagl. 1827, is equivalent to five or 
six genera previously published under other names, therefore 
Psarocolius should be cancelled. 
If these previously published genera be separately adopted (as 
* These discarded names may, however, be tolerated, if they have been 
afterwards proposed in a totally new sense, though we trust that in future no 
one will knowingly apply an old name, whether now adopted or not, to a new 
genus. (See proposition q. infra.) 
NEW SERIES.—VOL. XVIII. NO, I11.—OCTOBER 1868. 2M 
