No. 636] SHORTER ARTICLES AND DISCUSSION 95 



should date from the time formally recognized and should bear 

 the name then given. It is a travesty on priority to credit an 

 author with conceptions he never entertained, and to use for 

 them mis-spelled names for which he no doubt often had occa- 

 sion to regret his inadvertence. In brief, regard all emendations 

 as typographical errors unless there is definite evidence to the 

 contrary. With the treatment suggested, such cases as Pogonius, 

 Pogonias, Pogonia (a name spelled three ways in the same publi- 

 cation), and similar instances lose their troublesome aspect, and 

 suggestions for homonymizing them, much of their force. The 

 chief cause for anxiety in connection with the one-letter rule 

 seems to be that numerous emendations may be revived, but it 

 can confidently be asserted that, from a practical viewpoint, most 

 emendations are clear sjnionyms from the beginning and their 

 status would not be changed under the one-letter rule. 



Moreover changes under this rule need be feared only in 

 branches of zoology in which the practice advised by the A. 0. U. 

 Code has been followed, that is the study of birds and mammals. 

 Certainly the one-letter rule has been used, since the adoption 

 of the International Code, if not before, by most American stu- 

 dents of animal parasites,^ echinodemis, crustaceans, insects and 

 fishes" and as shown in preceding paragraphs their practice^" 

 in this respect is overwhelmingly supported by the various zoolog- 

 ical codes. 



8 See discussions by Ch. Wardell Stiles (Zool. Jahrb., 15, 1902, pp. l72- 

 175). "The difference of a single letter, entirely regardless of the etymol- 



p^sibility of their being homonyms" (pp.^l72--173). ^ ^^^^^ 



America," Vol. I, 1896, p. v, "We regard all generic names as different 

 unless originally spelled alike." 



10 An attempt to develop what usage, in this respect, is followed in a 

 larger number of zoological specialties, was made by mailing a brief ques- 

 tionnaire to 30 systematic zoologists. The questions asked were: 



1. In your specialty have one-letter differences been regarded in recent 

 years (at least since adoption of International Code) as sufficient to estab- 

 lish the distinctness and validity of generic names? 



homonymizing terms differing only in endings indicating gender, etc., been 



followed? 



