v 
W.B. -2 
in the literature as Leous flori danus mal lurus (Thomas). This to me 
is preposterous, and it seems to me exactly comparable to your 
case of the black duck. I am inexpressibly glad therefore to 
find that my mental works are not so badly out of repair as might 
have been inferred from my previous solitary position in the matter; 
and it is most gratifying to me to know that such men as yourself 
and Walter Faxon hold the same view. 
It seems to me that the proposition may be stated fairly in 
this way: Is the type of a species the name or the thing? If it 
is the name , we are in the wrong. If it is the thing we are in the 
right. I supposed we were all agreed on the principle that a type 
once established could not be changed. This rule applies to genera, 
species, and subspecies. 
Since dictating the above I have discussed the matter with 
several of our men on the Biological Survey. Nelson agrees to 
the principle that the type is the animal and not the name, but 
by some process of reasoning which I am unable to follow he argues 
for accepting the oldest remaining name in cases, like those in 
question,where the oldest name must be replaced. On the other 
hand, Henshaw, Preble, Howell, arnd Osgood agree with you and me, 
although Osgood hedges a little. He agrees to the principle but 
maintains that it is a new one and has never been properly brought 
before the Committee and argued. He thinks it ought to be written 
up. We all agree that in the case of Melospiz a. Lepus. and doubt¬ 
less some other genera which we cannot at the moment remember, the 
practice has been the other way. 
T 
T. .f _ _ tfr .. -n .. j. 
Mr. Wm. Brewster, 
145 Brattle St. 
