1930 ] 
Descriptions and Types 
129 
The practice of individual taxonomists in retaining types 
in their private collections is a distinct disadvantage to 
entomological taxonomy as a whole. In the first place it is 
an incentive to an individual for the mere describing of 
new species in order that he may gain the holotype for his 
own collection. If any incentives are allowed to exist in 
present-day matters to benefit entomological taxonomy as 
a whole, they should operate to discourage mere describing 
of new species, and encourage careful, monographic work. 
This the practice does not do. In the second place a holo- 
type once designated and published, no longer rightfully 
belongs to the individual, but belongs to the whole entomo- 
logical fraternity. This principle has been recognized with 
regard to the published description. The latter once pub- 
lished, belongs to entomological science and not to any indi- 
vidual. Any rights which the author may have had with 
regard to it are lost to him upon publication. This principle 
is much more true with regard to holotypes upon which 
descriptions are based. The holotypes are the standards 
with which other individuals of the same species may be 
compared. Standards, as such, belong to the entomological 
community as a whole and not to any individual. What 
nation would allow any individual for one moment to pos- 
sess any standard of weight, measure, etc., as private prop- 
erty and exercise his rights of private property over it? 
Such standards are recognized as belonging to the com- 
munity and are preserved by national governments as such. 
The retention of holotypes in private collections then, 
should be discouraged, and individual workers should be 
encouraged, if not compelled to deposit holotypes in some 
one of the many existing institutional collections. Many of 
the petty disputes and personal enmities which have arisen, 
and will continue to arise, over the matter of access to holo- 
types in private collections would thereby be mostly elimi- 
nated. It is admitted that the original describer might occa- 
sionally have to visit the institution where his types were 
deposited, but this would be no greater hardship for him 
than for any other taxonomist working in the same field. 
All of the rights of the original describer would thereby be 
