1929 ] 
Doivn with the Type-Cult 
229 
not discover and notice such particulars themselves. A 
partial explanation may lie in the fact that the type-cult, 
as a matter of fashion, is not readily eliminated. A fashion 
may be quite ridiculous, nevertheless the masses adore it. 
The most reasonable explanation may be, however, that 
the “specialists”, who are to-day dominating systematic 
natural history can most easily maintain their hegemony 
through the type-cult and thus are personally interested in 
it. Now and then, however, voices are heard which protest 
against the worst sides of the type-cult. We find e. g., in the 
Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 1928, p. 63, seq., a paper 
by R. Kleine on the types of the Brenthidae, in which he 
points out in his introduction that the description is and has 
to be a primary and the type a secondary consideration. 
The types in most cases are not accessible to the worker, 
and shortly it will be quite impossible to write a monograph 
if an examination of the types is to be considered a neces- 
sary prerequisite for such work. Only he who is in favor 
with the keeper of the types can get access to them ; more- 
over, Kleine asks : “who guarantees that the animal design- 
ated as ‘type’ really is the type?”, for he adds: “the strang- 
est things have at times taken place” (he is doubtless quite 
right) . He also asks how the types in many cases are pre- 
served, further where are they preserved, and finally he 
concludes, that the description represents everything and 
that we must proceed so far as to release monographers 
from the necessity of examining the types. What Kleine 
thus emphasizes so far is quite right; however, as we shall 
see it represents only half the truth and when he (Z. c. p. 
63) quotes the assertion of an American entomologist that 
hardly one-quarter of the 20,000 American insects which 
have so far been described can be determined from the 
description alone, I am astonished that he is so credulous. 
More extensively and more clearly, but not sharply 
enough, Edmund Reitter expresses his opinion on the same 
topic in the Wiener Entomologische Zeitung, vol. 31, p. 
21-26 (1912). He emphasizes how unjust and absurb it is 
to declare species null and void, when so called “types” are 
not in accordance with the description. Types may be 
easily misleading as a result of misplaced labels, damage, 
