ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
17 
IX. Is a name, when used in a generic sense, and otherwise properly 
constituted, subject to have its orthography changed by a sub- 
sequent author, on the ground that a proper construction from 
its classical roots would result in a different spelling? No, 21, 
Doubtful, 3. Yes, 19. No answer, 2. 
X. If the previous question be answered in the affirmative, it may 
be further enquired whether an author has a right to assume 
that a given name is derived from classical roots, when the 
author of the name did not so state, and on this assumption 
to proceed to change the said name to make it agree with the 
assumed proper construction in any case? and especially when 
by the asserted reformation the generic name becomes identi- 
cal with one previously proposed for some other animal or 
plant, and hence will fall into synonymy? No, 25. Doubtful, 
2. Yes, 6. No answer, 12. 
Example. Schumacher described a genus which he called 
Paxydon, giving no derivation. A subsequent author de- 
scribed a genus Pachydon , giving the derivation. A third 
writer assumed that Schumacher’s name had the same deriva- 
tion as Pachydon , and that both, if correctly written, would 
be Pachyodon. The last mentioned then proposed anew name 
for Pachydon , which he had thus made to appear preoccupied. 
Was this allowable? No, 26. Doubtful, 3. Yes, 8. No 
answer, 8. 
XI. Should a generic name, otherwise properly constituted, but de- 
rived from the specific name of its typical species, or similar 
to that of one of the species included under it, be rejected on 
that account? No, 40. Doubtful, 4. Yes, 1. 
Note. It is proper to state that this is an important ques- 
tion, since Linnaeus himself, and others, formed many generic 
names in this manner, and a large number of such names are 
currently accepted, especially in botany and among vertebrate 
animals. 
XII. Shall a subsequent author be permitted in revising a composite 
genus (of which no type was specified when it was described) 
to name as its type a species not included by the original 
author of the genus in that latter author’s list of species given 
when the genus was originally described? No, 37. Doubtful, 
2. Yes, 5. No answer, 1. 
Example. Linnaeus described a genus Chiton with a very 
few species. After many species had been described by 
others, a later author divided the genus into a number of 
genera, and reserved the name of Chiton (restricted) for a 
species described many years after the death of Linnaeus and 
belonging to a section of the Chitonidce unknown to Linnaeus ; 
while to the Linnaean chitons he gave new appellations. 
2 
A. A. A. S., VOL. XXVI. 
