302 
A. W. LINDSEY 
Stephens’ treatment of Nisoniades Hbn.^^ Scudder oast out 
Stephens’ citation of tages alone under this genus for other rea^ 
sons.^^ The one commendable feature of this rule is exemplified 
by the history of Polyommatus Latr. It seems reasonable that an 
author’s modification of his own genus, especially when he treats 
all of the species concerned, should be recognized even without 
actual citation of a type. The difficulty here lies in impossibility 
of drawing the line at all if we wish to admit some restrictions, 
and if we admit all, it is impossible ever to predict the stability 
of the nomenclature. At any time some obscure work of no great 
value may be brought forward to play havoc with current usage. 
The second code is that published by Banks and Caudell.^^ It 
is an admirably worded, clear and concise series of rules, and 1 
am aware of but one objection to it, viz., that it permits a species 
to be the type of only one genus, unless, of course, it should be- 
come the orthotype of a second through oversight. This is in- 
nately weak in that it robs actual type citations of their concrete 
value. Under such a rule the citation of the type is useless with- 
out a reasonable degree of certainty that it has not previously 
been cited as the type of another genus. The most important ob- 
jection to this rule, perhaps, is that it conflicts directly with the 
International Rules. 
These, the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, are 
the code which has by all means the best claim to the consider- 
ation of Zoologists. They were formulated by a committee of the 
International Congress of Zoologists, supposed to be representa- 
tive of the various opinions obtaining on the subject of nomencla- 
ture in scientific circles. The rules are supposed to arbitrate 
differences of opinion and to arrive at the solution of greatest 
fairness to all concerned. One of our leading lepidopterists ob- 
jects to following them on the ground that the congress was not 
truly representative, and that, in his opinion, certain type fix- 
ations not in accord with the rules are perfectly valid. An au- 
thority on another order of insects insists that Lamarck^-^ did 
exactly the same thing as Latreille-® in citing examples of genera, 
and that his citations should be regarded as valid type fixations, 
even though he did not use the word type. True enough, but this 
“ Stephens, Cat. Brit. Lep. 22, 1850. 
Scudder, Historical Sketch 228, 1875. 
Banks, N., and Caudell, A. N., The Entomological Code, 1912. 
Lamarck, Syst. An. sans Vert., 1801. 
Latreille, Consid. Gen., 1810. 
