Forum on problems of taxonomy: Types. Trans. 4th Internat


Holland, W.J.

Transactions of IV. Intern. Congress of Entomology 2: 688-694

1929


Forum
on
Problems
of
Taxonomy:
Types.
Dr.
W.
J.
Holland,
Pittsburgh,
Penna.
A
name
is
a
word
by
which
a
thing
is
known.
According
to
the
ancient
Hebrew
scriptures
there
was
assigned
to
Adam
the
task
of
naming
the
things
which
were
about
him.
We
read:
"Whatsoever
the
man
called
every
living
creature
that
was
the
name
thereof."
But
Adam
does
not
appear
to
have
completed
the
undertaking
assigned
to
him.
After
his
decease
there
occurred
that
little
mishap
at
the
Tower
of
Babel,
and
even
the
partial
work
which
Adam
had
accomplished
was
undone.
There
arose
a
great
confusion
in
names,
as
we
all
know
to
our
sorrow.
Linnaeus,
nomen
venerabile!,
undertook
the
work
of
classifying
all
things
"in
the
heavens
above,
the
earth
beneath,
and
in
the
waters
under
the
earth."
He
indeed
had
had
predecessors
in
past
ages,
but
the
matter
was
still
not
much
further
along,
if
even
as
far
along,
as
when
Adam
went
to
his
grave.
Linnaeus
invented
a
system
of
nomenclature
in
order
to
the
classification
of
things,
and
thus
in
order
to
prepare
the
way
for
the
intelligent
study
of
all
matters
pertaining
to
the
things
themselves.
A
correct
and
fixed nomenclature
is
an
imperative
antecedent
to
all truly
scientific
investigation
and
discussion.
Linnaeus
was
for
his
time
a
very
learned
gentleman.
However,
he
was
not
omniscient.
He
was
a
much
better
botanist
than
zoologist.
He
knew
a
great
deal
more
about
the
plants
of
Sweden
than
he
did,
for
instance,
about
the
lepidoptera
of
North
America.
His
method
of
classifying
plants
had
its
day,
but
has
in
later
years
been
replaced
by
what
is
known
as
"The
Natural
System",
invented
by
his
friend
and
fellow-student,
D
e
Jussieu,
enlarged
and
amplified
by
De
Candolle
and
a
host
of
others.
His
system
of
classification,
so
far
as
it
relates
to
the
animal
kingdom,
point-
ed
the
way
for
his
successors,
but,
like
his
system
for
the
classification
of
plants,
it
too
has
been
abundantly
modified
as
the
result
of
the
labors
of
a
host
of
those
who
have
followed
him.
As
an
entomologist,
and
more
specifically
as
a
lepidopterist,
I
may
observe
that
his
classification
of
all
the
lepidoptera
of
the
world
in
three
categories,
or
genera,
proved
not
only
unsatisfactory
to
himself,
but
to
his
followers.
It
quickly
became
necessary
for
those
who
came
after
him
to
modify
his
system
by
erecting
more
genera
and
regrouping
not
only
his
genera
but
those
of
other
early
writers
under
dominant
categories
which
he
and
they
had
not
employed.
Nevertheless
his
work
as
a
path-finder
has
always
been
most
highly
respected
and
in
one
matter
has
remained
enduring.
I
refer
to
the
specific
names
which
he
applied
to
plants
and
animals.
These
specific
names
have
priority
and
are
universally
accepted,
whenever
it
is
possible
to
determine
what
the
being
Holland
:
Types.
689
was
to
which
he
applied
a
specific
name.
This,
as
we
know,
is
not
always
easy.
Linnaeus
and
his
cotemporaries
knew
nothing
about
"types."
Their
immediate
successors
likewise
ignored
this
comparatively
modern
term.
As
a
student
of
mammals
I
venture
to
say
that
it
is
impossible
now
to
find
even
a
trace
of
the
type
of
the
creature
which
in
1754
Linnaeus
named
Elephas
indicus,
and
which
in
the
"Systema
Naturae"
he
subsequently
in
1758
designated
as
Elephas
maximus.
He
cites
illustrations
given
by
S
e
b
a
and
A
1
d
r
ova
n
d
i.
He
perhaps
had
once
seen
the
brute
in
a
zoological
garden,
or,
if
there
were
in
his
day
prototypes
of
Barnum
and
Bailey,
he
may
have
seen
one
in
a
"show."
But,
though
the
actual
type
of
Elephas
indicus
L.
cannot
be
found
in
any
museum,
the
creature
carries
today
the
generic
and
specific
names
applied
to
it
by
"The
Father
of
Modern
Natural
History."
Mammalogists
are
not
drawn
into
lengthy
nomenclatorial
disputes
because
the
"type"
of
Elephas
indicus
is
non-existent.
So
also
it
is
with
the
genus
Homo,
to
the
single
species
of
which
recognized
by
Linnaeus
he
gave
what
has
always
seemed
the
highly
inappropriate
specific
name
sapiens.
It
may
be
distressing
to
mammalogists
to
be
forced
with
Diogenes
of
old
to
confess
their
inability
to
find
a
specimen
to
which
this
specific
name
is
strictly
applicable.
Furthermore,
we
are
here
confronted
to
a
most
remarkable
degree
by
the
phenomenon
of
"individual
variation."
When
you
come
to
study
the
subject
closely,
whether
you
are
the
Chancellor
of
a
University,
as
I
have
been,
or
the
Warden
of
a
Penitentiary,
as
I
have
not
been,
the
"type"
of
Homo
sapiens
L.,
like
that
of
Elephas
indicus,
apparently
has
been
hopelessly
"lost".
But
why
worry?
The
elder
naturalists
in
the
eighteenth
and
the
earlier
years
of
the
nineteenth
centuries
knew
nothing
of
"t
y
p
e
s".
I
have
examined
the
literature
emanating
from
their
pens
and
I
nowhere
find
the
words
t
y
p
e
,
cotype, allotype,
paratype, topotype, holotype,
le
c
to
typ
e,
genotype,
etc.,
etc.
We
have
been
informed
by
Dr.
Walther
Horn
that
there
are
in
existence
one
hundred
and
nineteen
words
compounded
with
the
word
type,
which
in
quite
recent
years
have
found
a
place
in
zoological
literature.
The
nearest
approach
to
the
word
"type"
which
occurred,
when
those
gracious
and
charming
old
gentlemen
corresponded
and
made
exchanges
with
each
other,
was
when
they
sent
a
specimen
to
a
brother
naturalist
and
wrote
on
the
label
the
words
"s
p
e
-
cimen
t
y
p
i
c
u
m
which
meant
that
that
particular
specimen
corres-
ponded
with
their
concept
of
what
the
species
really
was.
The
fathers
of
botany
and
zoology
did
not
describe
individual
plants
or
animals,
but
they
described
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
or
what
they
took
to
be
species.
The
definition
of
a
species
which
they
had
in
their
minds
was
that
of
a
certain
vegetable
or
animal
form
which
"bred
true"
in
nature.
It
was
not
until
a
little
before
the
middle
of
the
nineteenth
century
that
investigators
and
describers
of
species
began
to
attach
to
their
labels
the
word
t
y
p
e.
Among
lepidopterists
B
o
i
s
d
u
v
al
was
one
of
the
first
to
do
this.
I
have
in
my
possession
a
number
of
specimens
the
labels
of
which
in
B
o
i
s
d
u
v
a
l's
handwriting
carry
the
word
"type"
after
the
specific
name.
The
practice
became
infectious.
An
author
having
a
number
of
specimens
before
him,
all
of
which
he
believed
to
belong
to
the
species
which
he
was
describing,
affixed
the
word
t
y
p
e
to
the
entire
suite
of
44
6
90
Transactions
of
IV.
Intern.
Congress
of
Entomology.
specimens.
Then
a
new
departure
was
made.
A
conscientious
describer,
recognising
the
range
of
individual
variation
in
the
specimens
before
him,
and,
either
lacking
the
necessary
gray
matter
to
express
in
generalized
terms
the
common
factors
belonging
to
the
whole
series,
or
else
being
too
lazy
to
do
so,
chose
a
single
individual,
which
appeared
to
him
to
most
nearly
represent
the
common
features
of
the
individuals
before
him,
and
described
this
one
specimen,
affixing
the
word
type
to
its
label.
He
then
affixed
the
word
cotype"
to
the
labels
carried
by
the
rest
of
the
specimens
which
were
under
his
eye.
Against
the
use
of
the
word
"cotype"
my
friend,
the
late
Lord
W
a
1
s
-
ing
ham,
protested.
W
a
1
s
i
n
g
h
a
m
declared
that
the
word
is
mongrel,
compounded
of
the
Latin
preposition
con
and
the
Greek
noun
typos.
His
soul
was
stirred
within
him
and
from
the
standpoint
of
a
classicist
he
called
attention
to
the
vulgarity
of
such
a
term.
He
proposed
the
substitution
of
the
word
"paratype
,
which
did
not
grate
upon
his
nerves.
He
was
speedily
followed
by
others,
who
with
grace
accepted
his
Lordship's
admonitions
as
to
the
use
of
language.
He
also
invented
and
defined
a
number
of
the
other
words
compounded
of
the
Greek
word
type
with
significant
prefixes,
derived
from
the
old
Greek
quarry;
and
these
have
come
into
more
or
less
general
use.
Now
what
is
a
t
y
p
e?
Today
most
zoologists
would
reply:
"The
specimen
upon
which
an
author
based
his
original
description
of
the
species."
But,
in
the
light
of
what
I
have
already
said,
this
definition,
while
indeed
conforming
to
most
recent
practice,
is
hardly
broad
enough.
Harking
back
to
Linnaeus,
in
a
multitude
of
cases
he
did
not
have
before
him a
specimen
of
the
thing
to
which
he
gave
a
specific
name.
His
brief
descriptions
are
based
upon
illustrations
contained
in
the
writings
of
older
authors,
descriptions
given
by
them,
or
specimens
which,
he
had
noted
as
contained
in
cabinets
which
he
had
inspected.
Take
the
well
known
instance
of
our
Monarch
butterfly.
He
cites
unter
the
name
Papilzo
plexippus
a
specimen
contained
in
the
collection
of
P
e
t
i
v
e
r,
the
London
apothecary,
whom
he
had
visited.
He
cites
R
a
y
's
"Historia
Insectorum.
He
cites
the
figure
given
by
Sir
Hans
Sloane
in
his
famous
folio
illustrating
the
Natural
History
of
Jamaica.
He
cites
the
plate
given
by
Ca
t
e
s.b
y
in
his
"Natural
History
of
the
Carolinas,"
and
then
follows
with
a
line
of
description
comparing
the
specimen
with
the
following
species
of
his
list,
which
happens
to
be
P.
chrysippus.
Although
in
this
original
description
of
plexippus
he
says:
„Habitat
in
America
septentrionali",
he
later,
in
1764,
speaks
of
the
insect,
as
it
was
represented
in
the
Cabinet
of
the
Queen,
as
from
China,
and
C
1
e
r
ck,
his
pupil,
figures
the
Chinese
insect
under
the
name
P.
plexippus,
A
careful
study
of
the
whole
subject
shows
that
the
insects
referred
to
in
the
"Systema
Naturae"
include
together
with
the
Monarch,
which
is
correctly
figured
by
Ca
t
e
s
b
y,
Danais
berenice,
evidently
referred
to
by
R
a
y
and
figured
by
Sloane,
belonging
to
the
variety
later
named
by
Bates
as
jamai-
censis;
P
et
iv
e
r's
specimen,
which
is
the
well
known
Basilarchia
disippe,
which
mimicks
the
Monarch,
and,
if
we
follow
Linnaeus's
description,
the
Danaid
of
the
orient,
which
by
many
others
has
been
called
D.
g
e
n
u
t
i
a.
This
is
a
fine
mess!
Little
short
of
the
ingenuity
of
a
Champollion
can
disentangle
the
perplexities
in
which
we
are
involved.
I
think
a
final
Holland
:
Types.
691
solution
has
been
reached
by
our
beloved
colleague,
Dr.
A
u
r
i
villius,
of
Stockholm,
who
unfortunately
has
just
passed
away,
loaded
with
years
and
with
honors.
A
u
r
i
v
ill
i
u
s
has
declared
that
we
must
accept
as
the
type
of
P.
plexippus
none
of
the
insects
referred
to
by
Linnaeus
himself
in
the
Systema
Naturae,
but
the
Chinese
butterfly,
to
which
he
at
a
later
date
applied
the
specific
name
plexippus,
and
which
was
figured
under
that
name
by
C
1
e
r
c
k.*)
But,
to
come
back
to
the
question
"W
hat
is
a
t
y
p
e?"
The
species
cited
by
L
inn
a
e
u
s
in
his
"Systema
Naturae"
in
many
cases
apparently
were
not
actually
before
him.
He
only
possessed
verbal
descriptions,
or
illustrations
in
books.,
or
notes
of
what
he
had
seen.
The
definition
of
the
word
type
must
therefore
be
made
broad
enough,
at
least
so
far
as
it
applies
to
the
writings
of
the
older
authors,
to
include
verbal
descriptions
and
illustrations.
Take
the
writings
of
H
u
b
n
e
r
for
instance.
The
old
calico-printer
of
Augsburg
was
a
maker
of
picture-books.
The
actual
speci-
mens
which
he
delineated
in
these
books
and
to
which
he
applied
specific
names
are
not
to
be
found
for
the
most
part
in
collections
which
have
survived
his
day.
We
are
dependent
for
our
knowledge
of
what
Hubner
intended
to
designate
by
specific
names
almost
wholly
upon
the
figures
which
he
gives.
These
figures
fortunately
are
generally
quite
re-
cognizable.
The
great
work
of
Cramer
is
analogous.
The
figures
in
his
"Papillons
Exotiques"
are
indeed
accompanied
by
descriptive
matter,
but
the
original
specimens
from
which
his
drawings
were
made
in
multi-
tudes
of
cases
cannot
now
be
found
in
European
collections.
In
these
and
similar
cases
we
are
compelled
to
accept
the
figure,
which
is
extant,
as
representing
the
object
in
nature
which
the
author
wished
to
name
and
did
name.
It
follows,
therefore,
that
definitions
of
the
word
type
should
be
made
broad
enough
to
include
illustrations
and
verbal
descrip-
tions.
When,
therefore,
I
am
asked
to
define
what
a
type
is,
I
should
say:
"It
is
the
material
actually
before
the
author
when
it
can
be
found,
or
the
illustration
given
by
him,
or
the
verbal
description,
which
he
wrote,
when
he
first
gave
a
name
to
the
species."
Let
me
say
in
passing
that
in
a
vast
percentage
of
cases
the
poorest
clue
to
the
identity
of
a
species
is
a
verbal
description,
and
I,
therefore,
place
verbal
descriptions
last
in
the,
order
of
preference.
I
am
the
more
inclined
to
this
broader
definition
because
working
in
other
fields
than
that
of
entomology
I
know
by
experience,
especially
as
a
paleontologist,
that
the
author
of
specific
and
generic
terms
very
often
has
nothing
before
him
except
fragments.
Among
paleontologists
type
s"
often
consist
of
nothing
except
a
broken
jaw,
a
crushed
head,
a
few
vertebrae,
or
fragments
of
limb-bones,
some-
')
Since
the
foregoing
opinion
was
expressed,
N.
D.
Riley
(Trans.
Ent.
Soc.
London,
LXXVI,
Jan.
1929,
p.
454)
has
demonstrated
that
Linnaeus
had
a
specimen
of
The
Monarch
in
his
collection,
which
was
so
labeled
in
his
own
handwriting;
that
at
the
time
he
wrote
the
Systema
he
did
not
have
a
specimen
of
the
Chinese
insect
(D.
genutia);
and
that
in
Linnaeus's
own
annotated
copy
of
the
Tenth
Edition
plexippus
is
underscored
by
L
i
n n
a
eus,
indicating
that
he
had
the
species
in
his
own
collection.
Further,
the
reference
to
P.
chrysippus
does
not
occur
in
the
original
manucript
of
Linnaeus,
till
extant.
The
discovery
by
Capt.
Riley
of
the
now
misplaced
label
seems
to
settle
the
question
that
the
specific
name
plexippus
belongs
to
The
Monarch.
W.
J.
Holl
an
d.
44
692
Transactions
of
IV.
Intern.
Congress
of
Entomology,.
times
merely
a
track,
the
impression
of
which
has
been
preserved
in
the
mud
of
bygone
ages.
Types
sometimes
are
very
queer
things.
I
might
amuse
you
by
telling
you
some
things
which
I
know,
especially
about
types
in
the
field
of
paleontological
research,
but
I
refrain.
Types
are
to
a
high
degree
useful
in
determining
what
a
writer
and
first
describer
of
a
species
was
naming.
They
should
be
religiously
preserved.
No
one
should
be
allowed
to
tamper
with
them.
But
they
are
singularly
liable
to
loss
and
destruction.
The
unhappy
fall
of
a
tray
containing
types
may
wreck
them;
an
insidious
attack
of
mildew,
mites,
or
Anthrenus
may
make
havoc
with
them;
a
fire
may
destroy
the
building
where
they
are
housed;
some
predatory
collector
on
the
sly
may
make
away
with
them;
a
new
curator,
thinking
to
improve
the
appearance
of
the
trays
under
his
care,
relegates
the
worn
and
faded
things
to
the
"duplicate
file",
and
they
are
given
away
to
school-children
for
their
amateur
collections
and
the
world
knows
them
no
more.
In
an
address
which
I
made
at
the
First
Entomological
Congress
in
Brussels
I
related
the
tragic
fate
of
the
types
of
F
a
1
c
one
r's
fossil
mammals
of
the Siwalik
Hills.
They
were
thrown
out
by
a
college
janitor,
because
they
were
"only
a
lot
of
worthless
old
bones".
In
quite
recent
years
a
movement
has
begun
to
"fix
the
types
especially
of
the
elder
authors.
The
desire
actuating
the
movement
is
most
natural
and
it
is
desirable,
if
possible,
to
ascertain
and
firmly
establish
the
exact
correlation
which
exists
between
names
applied
by
authors
and
the
things
which
they
intended
to
designate
by
these
names.
But
let
me
utter
a
word
of
warning
at
this
point.
The
task
which
is
involved
in
the
"fixation
of
types'',
is
one
which
calls
in
most
cases
for
great
erudition,
access
to
the
entire
literature
of
the
subject,
knowledge
of
circumstances,
and
the
history
of
collections,
and
a
most
judicial
and
logical
mind.
I
fear
in
some
cases
that
the
efforts
that
have
been
made
to
"fix
types"
are
not
to
be
accepted
as
final
judgments,
but
merely
as
the
expression
of
an
individual
opinion
made
by
one
who,
actuated
by
a
high
motive,
nevertheless
had
not
the
requisite
information
at
his
command.
Some
of
the
fixation
of
types,
which
has
been
done
in
recent
years,
leaves
things
"in
a
fix",
and
"confusion
has
been
made
,worse
con-
founded".
By
all
means
conserve
the
types
in
the
great
historical
collections.
Segregate
them,
if
you
please,
placing
them
in
fire-proof
and
pest-proof
cases.
But
do
not
become
Ty
p
o
1
at
e
r
s.
The
latest
infectious
disease,
to
which
entomologists
are
especially
susceptible,
is
typolatry.
The
records
of
science
should
not
be
exclusively,
or
for
the
main
part,
those
which
are
preserved
in
the
cabinets
of
museums
and
private
collectors.
Important
as
these
records
are,
they
should
not
hold
precedence
over
the
printed
page
and
carefully
executed
and
faithful
pictorial
representations
of
species.
Finally
let
me
urge
upon
the
brotherhood
here
represented
the
most
extreme
care
in
the
preparation
of
verbal
descriptions
and
in
the
preparation
and
publication
of
correct
illustrations,
among
which
photo-
graphic
representations
are
to
be
preferred.
It
is
said
that
"sunlight
will
not
lie",
but
even
sunlight
can
be
made
to
lie,
as
those
of
us
who
occasionally
go
to
the
-
movies"
can
testify.
The
best
way
of
preserving
Holland:
Types.
693
a
record
of
types
is
to
have
them
accurately
figured,
put
upon
the
printed
-page,
sent
forth
in
editions
so
large
that
in
future
ages
the
record
will
be
preserved,
somewhere
at
'least,
in
the
libraries
of
the
world.
Thus
there
will
be
found
in
later
years
the
means
of
determining
what
an
author
meant
when
he
described
a
species.
I
am
coming
more
and
more,
as
the
years
pass
over
me,
to
coincide
with
the
thought
of
my
old
friend,
Charles
Ober
t
h
u
r
,
who
said:
"Pas
de
bonne
figure,
pas
de
nom
valable."
DISCUSSION.
F.
S
i
1
v
es
t
r
i
:
We
all
must
appreciate
in
the
highest
degree
the
value
of
the
type
specimens
which
have
served
for
the
description
of
a
new
species,
and
we
all,
I
think,
agree
also
in
desiring
that
types
be
preserved
in
the
best
manner
possible.
But
we
are
sure
that
notwith-
standing
a
strict
policy
in
respect
to
the
principle
of
absolutely
good
preservation,
it,
will
happen
that
specimens
are
lost
for
some
reason
or
other,
not
excluding
time.
Therefore
it
is
necessary
to
ask
for
good
rede-
scriptions
of
existing
types
by
the
best
specialists,
particularly
is
it
neces-
sary
to
urge
the
authorities
to
give
permission
for
making
microscopical
preparations
of
old
types,
which,
in
their
present
state,
have
no
longer
any
scientific
value,
and
for
making
drawings
and
taking
photos
of
others.
Thus
the
types
would
become
more
useful
to
all
entomologists.
We
know
that
sometimes
figures,
photos,
specimens
in
certain
groups
of
insects
are
not
sufficient,
and
that
the
examination
of
the
type
is
in-
dispensable.
In
this
case
it
is
recommendable
that
the
possessor
of
the
type
be
so
kind
as
to
compare
with
the
type
material
received
for
such
purpose
or
that
the
type
be
lent
to
Museums
or
very
reliable
persons.
As
regard
the
categories
of
"types"
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
we
have
enough
if
we
accept,
"t
y
p
e",
"c
ot
yp
e",
"p
a
r
a
type
om
o-
type",
"paratype allotype".
I
insist
on
the
categories
"o
m
o
t
y
p
e"
and
"a
11
o
t
y
p
e",
the
one
'
meaning
specimens
from
the
same
and
the
other
from
a
different
locality,
because
we
all
know
that
specimens
from
different
localities
can
have,
and
most
times
have,
some
different
character.
When
no
type
specimen
any
longer
exists
in
collections,
I
think
it
should
be
made
compulsory
to
refer
to
this
particular
species
specimens
agreeing
with
the
original
description
and
collected
in
the
ame
locality
from
which
the
author
first
described
that
species.
F.
Muir:
Where
original
type
material
exists
and
no
definite
fixation
of
the
type
specimen
has
been
made,
either
at
the
time
of
de-
scription
or
subsequently,
a
specialist
working
on
the
group
should
have
the
power
to
select
from
that
material
a
specimen
which
agrees
with
the
original
description
and
mark
it
"type"
and
redescribe
and
define
it
in
an
adequate
manner.
If
no
such
material
exists,
then
it
is
not
possible
to
select
a
type,
and
the
commonly
accepted
determination
of
the
species
must
prevail,
having
regard
to
locality,
etc.
Where
the
above
conditions
are
fulfilled,
no
subsequent
alteration
should
be
allowed,
as
it
can
only
be
a
matter
of
speculation
and
not
of
exact
knowledge.
694
Transactions
of
IV.
Intern.
Congress
of
Entomology.
There
is
a
fairly
generally
accepted
category
of
types,
which
should
be
kept
down
to
the
smallest
number
possible.'
If
they
could
be
accepted
internationally,
it
would
be
an
advantage.
The
use
of
the
term
"Typus",
so
often
employed
by
European
entomologists
for
material
which
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
original
type
material,
and
sometimes
not
even
representing
the
original
species,
should
be
discouraged.
Types
should
be
kept
with
the
general
collections.
If
conditions
are
such
that
the
types
are
not
safe
in
such
a
collection,
then
they
should
be
sent
to
a
central
Museum
where
they
will
be
safe.
Placing
them
in
safes
out
of
"circulation"
is
not
advisable,
as
they
should
be
ready
for
com-
parison
when
working.
In
large
Museums
having
many
types
(e.
g.
the
British
Museum)
it
would
not
be
possible
to
segregate
them
and
place
them
in
safes,
and
even
if
,
it
were
possible,
it
would
be
exceedingly
in-
convenient
for
entomologists.
In
Catalogues
and
Monographs
it
would
be
very
valuable
infor-
mation,
if
the
location
of
types
were
given.
To
make
a
complete
com-
pilation
of
the
location
would
be
a
great
undertaking,
and
the
list
would
have
to
be
amended
as
often
as
types
in
private
collections
changed
hands.
G.
T
a
1
b
o
t.
A
complete
Catalogue
of
existing
type
specimens
is
of
great
utility.
All
museums
should
publish
a
list
of
their
own
types,
and
these
lists
should
be
available
at
the
Institute
controlling
the
publication
of
the
name
Catalogue.
The
names
of
all
private
collections,
where
the
type
material
is
too
small
for
separate
publication,
should
send
in
a
list
to
be
embodied
in
a
General
Catalogue
of
Types.
Before
such
Catalogues
are
published,
general
agreement
must
be
reached
on
the
method
of
designating
type
specimens.
We
propose
that
the
list
should
included
at
least
Holotype,
Allotype,
Neallotype,
and
Para-
type
specimens.
A
further
desideratum
is
a
pictorial
record
of
all
types
maintained
at
a
central
institute.
Anyone
then,
cm
payment
of
a
small
fee,
could
obtain
a
photograph
of
any
desired
type.
Possibly
it
may
be
found
more
practical
to
arrange
that
every
museum
should
keep
its
own
record,
and
that
private
or
small
collectors
should
furnish
a
central
institute
with
a
photographic
plate
made
from
the
type
specimens.
Agreement
would
have
to
be
reached
as
to
the
proper
method
of
depicting
the
specimen..