310 



THE AMERICAN NATURALIST [Vol. XLYIII 



typonym. A name based on a different type species, but con- 

 generic with the type of an older genus, is termed a metonym. 

 A name rejected for lack of an identified type is a hyponym, 

 and one rejected for linguistic reasons, a caconym. All rejected 

 names fall readily into these five classes. 



The other new term, "monobasic," is used by Mr. Viereck to 

 indicate genera with only one species at the original place of 

 publication. In botanical literature the word "monotypic" is 

 often employed in this sense, though also applied to genera that 

 consist of only one species. If previous use disqualifies mono- 

 typic, the same objection lies against monobasic. In addition to 

 an older chemical meaning, the same word was employed several 

 years ago in a biological sense, to describe a condition of descent 

 in simple lines. 3 Apart from being preoccupied, the word mono- 

 basic has a niislr.-idiiiu' implicit ion. since under the method of 

 types each generic name is referred to a single type species. 

 The idea of a genus being based on many types is discarded 

 with the method of concepts. Appreciation of this incongruity 

 may explain why no such term as "symbasie" or "polybasic" 

 is used in contrast with monobasic, to indicate genera that were 

 first proposed in connection with more than one species. 



Evidently there is need of a simple and consistent terminology 

 for indicating relations between generic names and type species. 

 The normal relation under the method of types is the designa- 

 tion of the type species at the original place of publication of 

 the genus. Genera provided with types by original designation 

 may be described as orthotypic, or normal-typed. With ortho- 

 typic genera there is no occasion to raise the question of how 

 many species were included at the original place of publieati"n. 



3 Cook, 0. F.. and Swingle, W. T., 1905, "Evolution of Cellular Struc- 

 tures," Bull. 81, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Department of Agricul- 



would be described as monobasic. The Second edition of the Standard I> - 

 tionary defines monobasis as follows: "The derivation of a stock from a 

 single parentage by inbreeding, or by propagation of buds or cuttings; 

 opposed to symbasis." Thus the danger of ambiguity in using monobasis 

 for nomenclatorial purposes is greater than in using monotypic, though it 



