230 
Psyche 
[September 
etc., and to this is to be added that such misplacements can 
be made intentionally and that in the case of a printed 
description this is quite out of the question. Here we must 
do what Reitter did not do, expressly emphasize that the 
description is quite an absolutely constant, invariable thing 
which is accessible to the whole world. Accordingly, mis- 
apprehensions may at any time be corrected by anyone and 
from different viewpoints while the examiner of “types” is 
often in the position so he can decree his “discoveries” to 
the credulous entomological public without any disputation 
from others. Another point which Reitter does not mention 
but which in my opinion is of very great importance , is the 
following: the entomological public is obviously always apt 
to place more confidence in the new “examiner” of the 
“type” than in the original describer. That is quite wrong 
for logical as well as for psychological reasons ; the reverse 
is right. It is most certainly the author of the species who 
has every reason, including his personal interest, to examine 
the “types” precisely and conscientiously. The new “ex- 
aminer”, however, is liable to present himself, either un- 
consciously or not, to the public as a discoverer, wiser 
person, and improver, and this liability can easily cause 
him to “discover” differences in the “type” which in reality 
exist only in his own imagination. If the eye of the “reviser” 
has been influenced by personal animosity, envy or hatred, 
then it is no wonder that the results of the “examination” 
are often peculiar. Moreover, we should bear in mind that 
what is to be seen on an entomological type, depends greatly 
upon the examiner himself ; one may see distinct differences 
which another who has the best intentions and makes the 
greatest efforts does not see. Who guarantees that the new 
examiner of the type is abler than the original describer in 
this respect? I think that it has often happened that the 
“reviser” has degraded a number of species into synonyms 
because he did not see the distinctive marks which the 
original describer stated, and which in reality are present. 
Reitter speaks (l. c.) of the pronounced endeavor of many 
authors to change the usual synonymy on account of more 
or less problematic “types” and to degrade the species of 
other authors into synonyms and he asks what the end will 
