50 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 
It might, at first sight, seem as if the reverse of the rule proposed would be desir- 
able, i. e., that the name, if used again at all, should be valid only in another order than 
that in which it was first proposed. But, in the great multiplication of genera brought 
about in recent years, many are necessarily tentative, and depend for their adoption 
on the judgment of the best authorities for the particular order. Some may hold a 
genus valid, others reject it. It is not reasonable that students of one group should be 
kept waiting until a definite decision is arrived at (even if that were possible) in another 
group with which they are not familiar, and until the students of the latter group have 
decided whether to adopt or reject a name which has been used in both orders* 
(Scudd.) 
Shall the student of Brachiopods wait until the Dipterologist shall decide the value 
of Robineau Desvoidy’s genus Megerlia , before the former shall be able to adopt or 
definitely reject Megerlia of King? It has not been done in forty-five years, and Meger- 
lia, King, is still in the limbo of names without a clear title. This is undesirable and 
wrong. Let the student of flies decide for himself whether he can retain Desvoidy’s 
name or not, but let the mere fact that it has been used in a different class (chassis) 
enable the student of brachiopods to reject it and place his own terminology on a sound 
foundation. 
Upon the validity of the genus Pelagia , Peron and Leseuer depends the right to 
exist of eight or nine other generic names in different classes. By the method usually 
tolerated, these questions can never be settled. Let all, except the student of Acalephs, 
then, have the right to wipe out the name, Pelagia. 
It would be vastly better if this principle could be applied to all names; but it will 
be at least a partial and important relief to be permitted to apply it to those of modern 
date. 
§LXVIII. When an inelegant combination has been the result of using 
for the name of a new genus, a name or a modification of a specific name 
borne by a species which is to be contained within the new genus, the 
fact is not a sufficient reason for rejecting the generic or changing the 
specific name. (L., Ag., Th., etc.) 
This necessarily follows from §LXV, but it seems desirable definitely to state it. 
The practice is objectionable on account of its producing tautological inelegance* 
and because it has resulted in the formation of a number of generic names of adjective 
form. 
On the other hand in connection with certain of the Linnsean and other ancient and 
universally known species, it had several beneficial effects. It recalled the typical 
form for which the genus was constituted, and in many cases it might rightly be re- 
garded rather as a change of rank than the creation of a new name. The ancient spe- 
cies (ex. Voluta oliva, Lin., genus Oliva Biaig.) olten covered an assemblage of forms 
equivalent to a modern genus. A vast number of the old names were thus constituted 
by Linnaeus, Lamarck, Cuvier, Agassiz, and the fathers of science. 
Their practice was to replace the old specific name by a new one. This practice 
was reaffirmed by the B. A. committee in 1842, as follows: — “ § 13. A new specific 
name must be given to a species, when its old name has been adopted for a genus 
which includes that species.” The usage was very properly condemned by the Com- 
mittee, as its benefits do not extend to little known modern specific names, while the 
objections to it are as forcible as ever. 
But in 1865 the Committee decided that the usage of a, century must be reversed, 
and the following modified rule was the result. 
“§13. A specific name must not be altered to use that name for the genus; where 
this has been already done the old specific^name must be restored, and a new generic 
name given to prevent an inharmonious repetition.” 
This innovation, the sweeping character of which the Committee cannot have real- 
ized, if carried into effect would uproot hundreds of the generic names best known to 
science, and so familiar that the fact that they were originally specific names has been 
