40 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 
take species subsequently added to the group, and which the original author did not 
know when he established his genus. No arbitrary rule will suffice to determine, off- 
hand, questions of so much complication as is often the decision in regard to the type 
of an ancient genus which has been studied by a number of authors. 
In the first of the above cases lists are often arranged in alphabetical or faunistic 
order, or the aberrant species are placed at or near the beginning and end of the list, 
while the more generalized and characteristic species are put between the others. In 
the second case aberrant species might be added, and subsequently taken away from 
the genus, carrying with them the name consecrated by the primitive author to the very 
group which the subsequent reviser might then seize on for his own. Still more the 
aberrant species carrying the primitive generic name might subsequently be found to 
belong to a genus described before the one revised. Then the name originally given to 
a valid group might be subject to rejection as a synonym, while the valid group itself 
which originally bore that name was rejoicing under a new appellation received from 
the industrious revisers I Absurd as it may appear, mutations similar to this might be 
mentioned. 
The answers received to questions on this point in the circular, will be seen to be 
by a large majority in concurrence with this section. 
§ LIII. In dividing a genus of which there are already synonyms, if 
these synonyms or any of them are typified by the same species or group 
of species as that or those originally selected as types for the primitive 
genus, the names should be cancelled in toto, and not used for the re- 
stricted subdivisions. (B. A.) 
To use strictly equivalent synonyms, in a new sense for different divisions in one 
family, is sure to create confusion and necessitate lengthy discriminating passages in 
subsequent synonymical work. When the so-called synonyms are founded on species 
belonging to different sections of the genus, although the names may have been con- 
sidered as co-extensive in their application, it is desirable to use these names to indi- 
cate the divisions of the genus when it may be revised. (B. A.) In fact there is hardly 
any difference between the latter case and the revival of a valid but forgotten name for 
the group properly designated by it, and to which another legal name cannot be applied. 
§ LIV. In the case of the consolidation of two or more groups of the 
same nature the oldest name must be retained for the whole. If both or 
all are of the same date, the reviser may select the one to be retained. 
(B. A., DC.) 
If a name of a genus be so defined as to be equal in extent to two or more previ- 
ously published genera it must be cancelled in toto. (B. A.) Example, Tritonium 
Muller, was so defined as to be equal to Buccinum, Strombus and Murex of Linnaeus. 
Hence it should be wholly injected. Psaracolius Wagler, is equivalent to five or six 
previously published genera, and must, therefore, be cancelled. (B. A.) 
It follows from the above, that when it is necessary to unite several groups already 
named, the earliest unobjectionable name must be retained for the consolidated group, 
with a modified diagnosis. 
§LY. When it is necessary to divide a nominal species into several 
species, the form which first received the old specific name is the one 
which should retain it. (D. C., etc.) 
§ LVI. When a section of a genus or a species is transferred to an- 
other genus in which a variety or other subdivision of a genus or species 
is already called by the same name as the group transferred, the group of 
