304 
A. W. LINDSEY 
actually designated by the word type or an equivalent of un- 
mistakable meaning, whether or not it is already the type of an- 
other genus, they make it possible to eliminate much historical 
work in fixing genotypes, and to arrive at a definite result with 
the greatest possible degree of certainty that no pertinent matter 
has been overlooked. The chief source of trouble in the rules 
seems to be the arbitrary limitation of valid type fixations to 
those in which the word type is used. Some argue that in French 
this word does not have the same meaning as in English, but ac- 
cording to all available dictionaries it has the proper meaning, 
am.ong others, even as in English it may mean only a representa- 
tive. Any objection to the use of these rules, however, is weak. 
Its purpose must ever be the preservation of some familiar use 
of terms, and no system can he applied to zoological nomenclature 
as a whole which will not overthrow some such usage. Moreover 
some arbitrary rule is necessary, advanced and supported by au- 
thority, to override the multitude of personal opinions which will 
otherwise never find a common ground. Nomenclatorial re- 
search is a fascinating pursuit, but it cannot be said to advance 
scientific knowledge an inch. It should be settled definitely for 
all time, and the writer does not hesitate to express his opinion 
that those who oppose the use of the International Rules are act- 
ing selfishly and against the interests of the science which they 
pretend to serve. 
I feel these things very deeply. In common with many other 
systematists, I have spent a considerable amount of time during 
five or more years to reduce the described genera of my favorite 
group to a definite basis. In view of some correspondence which 
has reached me recently and has brought my interest in the mat- 
ter up to its present pitch, I cannot but feel that such efforts 
are, at least for the present, wasted. These genera have never 
been consistently worked over. It would be relatively simple to 
fix the type of each by the International Rules, but what would be 
gained if Richard Roe should insist that he could not accept cer- 
tain results, and John Doe that certain others are against his 
beliefs? The result does not hinder their work, for in order to 
object intelligently they must understand all phases of the points 
involved. The greatest difficulty accrues to those who are not 
students of nomenclature, perhaps even indifferent systematists. 
In other words, by insisting upon points of personal opinion in 
matters which are not vital, the systematist hinders him whom he 
