MaI!<]1 17, 11)0."). J 



SCIENCE. 



481 



now proi)osed to reopen and subject to a new 

 decision based largely on personal caprice. 

 How is thus stated: "This may be done by 

 direct statement [on the part of the author] 

 that a certain species is a type species [a 

 statement at present always respected and 

 welcomed J, the leading species, the 'chef de 

 file,' or by other ijhraseology conveying the 

 same idea [information always welcomed and 

 in these days earnestly searched for and re- 

 garded] ; it may be indicated by the choice of 

 a Linna?an or other specific name as the name 

 oi a genus [also, as said above, recognized as 

 a guiding- principle], or by some statement 

 which shall clearly indicate an idea in the 

 aii.tlior's mind corresponding in fact, if not in 

 name, to the modern conception of the type of 

 a genus. [Here, unfortunately, is the loop- 

 hole for diversity of opinion as to whether the 

 author had such an idea, and, if so, which of 

 several species best meets the author's unex- 

 pressed conception. The decision of one 

 author, in many instances, is likely, in the 

 nature of the case, to be different from that of 

 another, and the firm ground absolutely neces- 

 sary for the proposed revolutionary procedure 

 is wanting. Finally,] The type of a Lmnsean 

 genus must be, in the phraseology attributed 

 to LinnjEUS, ' the best known European or offi- 

 cinal species,' included by that author within 

 the genus [ — an injunction already in force]." 



We have here then several sound principles, 

 which are not new but already in force, and 

 a new proposition to enable an author who is 

 in too much of a hurry or too indolent to find 

 out what other authors have done under the 

 principle of elimination toward fixing the type 

 of a genus not otherwise determined, to fix the 

 type ofi^hand for himself on the basis of his 

 own conception of what the author's idea was 

 as to the type of his group, when, in a large 

 proportion of cases, the author almost unques- 

 tionably never gave the matter a thought, or 

 even entertained the idea of a type in the 

 modern sense. What he may have thought is, 

 in most cases, purely a matter of guesswork. 



It is not quite true, as said in the new 

 iehthyological code, that ' the method of elimi- 

 nation can not be so defined as to lead to con- 

 stant results in different hands.' The results 



will vary somewhat with the experience and 

 qualifications of the user of the method, if the 

 conditions of the question are especially com- 

 plicated and perplexing; but my experience 

 has been that experts in such cases rarely 

 reach different conclusions, especially if they 

 are able to confer and discuss the case. 



Canon XL of the new code is in line with 

 Canon X. It reads : " In case a genus requir- 

 ing subdivision or modification contains as 

 originally formed more than one species, and 

 the author of the genus does not in any way 

 clearly indicate the type, the first species 

 named in the text by the author as certainly 

 belonging to the genus shall be considered as 

 its type." The enforcement of this rule would 

 obviously, in some instances at least, lead to 

 the gratuitous displacement of generic names 

 which have long since reached a stable equilib- 

 rium under the principle of the determination 

 of the generic type by elimination — the dis- 

 turbance of simple cases universally accepted 

 as settled, and, therefore, a well nigh wanton 

 proceeding. 



4. The Recognition of Variants of Generic 

 Names. — Modern codes of nomenclatui"e are 

 practically unanimous in ruling that a generic 

 name is untenable * which has been previously 

 used for some other genus in the same king- 

 dom.' It has been so generally understood 

 that ' name ' is to be taken in the philological 

 sense of a district word, that no ruling ap- 

 pears to have been deemed necessary as to 

 what really constitutes a name in a nomen- 

 clatorial sense; but usage — one may almost 

 say universal usage — shows that words varying 

 merely by endings denoting gender, or com- 

 pound words differing only in the connective 

 vowel, or in which certain consonants, notably 

 I and r, are used single or double, or, in cer- 

 tain words of Greek origin, the retention or 

 elimination of the aspirate, or the use of i in 

 place of y, or vice versa, etc., do not constitute 

 distinct words or ' names ' in a nomenclatorial 

 sense. In other words, it is held that names 

 of genera must be etymologically distinct, 

 however similar they may be in form or pro- 

 nunciation. This is affirmed by the uniform 

 practise of systematists for a century. 



In view of the discovery in recent years of 



