124 
Psyche 
[June 
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.” The truth is that the entomological 
public has no more confidence in the reviser, or new exami- 
ner of the type, than it has in the original describer. The 
work of both must stand or fall on its merits. As a matter 
of fact the original describer is better protected against 
injustices if he designates a holotype, than he is if he 
refuses to acknowledge the usefulness of types and clings 
to the theory that the description is everything. A descrip- 
tion may be so poor that it is indistinguishable from that 
of several related species and if the description was every- 
thing the species would then be relegated to synonymy ; but 
if a holotype has been designated, a standard can be exam- 
ined and the status of the disputed species determined in 
relation to other species of its group. For every species 
that has been relegated to synonymy unjustly due to an 
examination of a type, three or four can be cited which 
have been elevated from synonymy to validity due to the 
fact that a type specimen was available for examination, and 
three or four more could be cited which are probably valid 
species, but which have been placed in synonymy because 
they are indistinguishable from previously described species 
on the basis of the description, and either no type is avail- 
able, or if available, has not been examined. The best 
guarantee which a taxonomist can secure against injustices 
in the estimation of his work is a properly designated holo- 
type for every species described, said holotype deposited in 
an institution where all may see. 
(7). The comparison of specimens with the type by per- 
sons other than the reviser or specialist is resorted to rela- 
tively few times in entomological taxonomic work. That is, 
comparing the number of types actually examined by the 
reviser, with the number examined by proxy, the latter will 
be found to be relatively small. Judging from my own 
experience, the safeguards set up by the reviser to prevent 
