OCR Text |
Show 1893.] MR. O. THOMAS ON THE WORD " TYPE." 241 1. Suggestions for the more definite use of the word " Type " and its compounds, as denoting Specimens of a greater or less degree of Authenticity. By OLDFIELD T H O M A S , F.Z.S. [Received February 14, 1893.] As systematic zoology becomes more and more exact and detailed, the great value of the actual specimens to which specific names have been applied, i. e. the " types," has been more and more appreciated, but at the same time the word itself has been applied by different authors so loosely and to specimens of such very varied degrees of authenticity, that it seems as though an exact definition of the term were somewhat of a desideratum, and that at the same time it would be of great convenience to have by means of compounds of the word "type "a set of names each applying definitely to some particular class of specimens. The word " type " itself when first introduced was meant to refer to the particular specimen (in the singular) originally described, but it soon was naturally applied to any individual of the original series, if more than one specimen was examined by the describer. In this there was little cause for confusion, but more recently it has been applied to any individual from the collection of the original author, obtained no matter how much later, and often not even determined by him as belonging to his species. Of late a still further cause of confusion has been introduced by certain authors who, obtaining specimens from the typical locality, have spoken of them as " typical specimens," a method of reference which, although due to a praiseworthy regard for geographical exactness, is yet certainly liable to give rise to inconvenience and confusion. But it will be readily admitted that these various classes of specimens have each a certain value in relation to their respective species, and, as the best means of obviating the confusion above referred to, it appears advisable that they should have definite names showing their greater or less degree of closeness to the true original type. Already, as a step towards this end, the word " co-type" has been introduced1 for any specimen which was one of several forming the basis of the original description ; but, like " type," it has become loosely and vaguely used for different sorts and classes of specimens, and equally needs definition and pinning down to one particular class, for which alone it should be used. So far as regards their original material, species may be described in one or other of the three following ways :- I. On a single specimen, no others being seen. II. On two or more specimens, no one of them being selected as the " type." HI. On a specimen selected out of a series of two or more, and specially mentioned at the time as the " type." 1 I believe in the first case by m y colleague Mr. C. O. Waterhouse. |