228 
Psyche 
[September 
DOWN WITH THE TYPE-CULT. 
By Professor Embrik Strand 
Director of the Institute of Systematic Zoology 
and of the Hydrobiological Station of the 
Latvian University at Riga, 
F.E.S., F.Z.S., F.L.S. 
The “Type”, i. e ., the object on which the definition or 
description of a zoological novity is founded, is an idea that 
did not become of great importance in zoology until modern 
times. Among the earlier workers on systematics “types” 
practically did not exist. Later on we find in the literature 
the designation “type” here and there, but still no one 
thought of determining the priority of species on the 
“types”. To-day we are so “advanced” that numerous au- 
thors, especially those who choose to call themselves 
“specialists”, found their species almost exclusively on the 
“types”, while the description and eventually the figure are 
considered as a matter of quite secondary importance, or 
as merely a matter of form, in spite of the fact that the 
modern rules of nomenclature, as well as those which Linne, 
Fabricius, etc. used exclusively acknowledge a definition or 
a description as the basis which alone can be the foundation 
of priority. Thence it follows, that the establishment of 
species on the basis of “types” is opposed to the rules of 
nomenclature, and even if one asserts that the types have 
been used only in order to verify and better the descriptions, 
that is likewise an abuse, if it leads to conclusions that are 
quite contradictory to the description. In using “types” 
there are so many particulars which may turn out to be 
quite misleading or may lead one astray and give rise to 
abuse, that it is difficult to understand why people, who are 
not wholly lacking in a knowledge of men and matters, do 
