1930 ] 
Descriptions and Types 
123 
the unit, the standard is the ultimate and only source of 
comparison by which any particular characteristic of the 
unit may be determined. 
(5) . Kleine’s (1928) complaint is cited to the effect that 
the types in most cases are not accessible to the worker 
and shortly it will be quite impossible to write a mono- 
graph if an examination of the types is to be considered a 
necessary prerequisite for such work. Under present condi- 
tions, with types scattered in various places, there can be 
little question but that the amount of work and expense 
necessary to produce a monograph of any group of organ- 
isms would be greatly reduced if the examination of type 
specimens could be dispensed with, and any scientific 
worker is certainly at liberty to write a monograph based 
on nothing more than the descriptions of the species in- 
volved. But the author of such a monograph must remem- 
ber that the scientific world will judge his contribution by 
the accuracy and exactness which he has been able to 
achieve by his method of treatment. The scientific world 
has learned from sorrowful experience that monographic 
works based on nothing but published descriptions are so 
inaccurate and untrustworthy as to be practically valueless, 
and while monographs prepared according to that method 
may still be produced, they are not very likely to receive 
serious consideration. The very fact that taxonomists have 
come to realize that scientifically sound and accurate work 
cannot be produced when based solely on descriptions, is 
the motivating force that has driven them to use a type 
specimen as a standard when some disputed point is to be 
decided. The use of type specimens has enabled taxonomists 
to achieve results of greater scientific value than the use 
of descriptions alone, and as long as types continue to con- 
tribute such a quality to taxonomic work, just so long will 
they be used, regardless of additional work or expense. 
(6) . Another objection to the use of types raised by 
Professor Strand is as follows: “That the entomological 
public is obviously apt to place more confidence in the new 
examiner of the type, than in the original describer. Who 
