126 
Psyche 
[June 
least, are so dishonest and unreliable that type specimens 
in general cannot be relied upon to be what they claim to be, 
i. e., the original specimens from which descriptions or 
figures have been drawn, and in many cases designated as 
type by the author himself. If this implication of dishon- 
esty and unreliability were true, who could guarantee that 
any published description was applicable to any organism 
existing in nature? If a worker is dishonest enough to 
manipulate types or type labels, he is dishonest enough to 
write descriptions of species based on nothing more than 
fancies of his imagination, with no counterpart in nature 
whatever. To be dishonest with respect to scientific descrip- 
tions or type specimens is like cheating at solitaire — one 
is only cheating himself. It is true that rogues may be 
found in every field of human activity, but they are usually 
comparatively rare in scientific professions. With respect 
to honesty and reliability, I believe that taxonomists as a 
group will compare favorably with any other group of 
scientists, or with other selected professional groups, and 
the implication that type specimens in general are unrelia- 
ble, due to the dishonesty of taxonomic workers, seems to 
me to be entirely unjustifiable. 
The theory that the description is everything is one that 
is not universally tenable. Article twenty-five of the Inter- 
national Rules of Nomenclature states : “The valid name 
of a genus or species can be only that name under which 
it was first designated on the condition (a) that this name 
was published and accompanied by an indication, or a defi- 
tion, or a description.” Opinion one of the International 
Commission states : “The word * indication ’ in Article 
twenty-five-a is to be construed as follows : with regard to 
specific names, an 'indication’ is (1) a bibliographic refer- 
ence, or (2) a published figure (illustration), or (3) a 
definite citation of an earlier name for which a new name 
is proposed.” In the case of two of these there is no 
description which can be everything. A bibliographic ref- 
erence is a substitute for a description in validating a name. 
A published figure is either a substitute for a description, 
if the latter is lacking, or it is a supplement to the descrip- 
