Generic Names Proposed in Herpetology by E. D. Cope

Abstract

SOME years ago, in order to facilitate our own work on Central America, and in order the better to answer numerous inquiries regarding Cope types supposed to be in the collection of the Philadelphia Academy, we prepared a list of the nine hundred and odd species of living amphibians and reptiles described by Cope, and hope eventually to publish this list together with the present location and condition of the types. We thus became fairly conversant with Cope's herpetological work, as far as it pertained to new species, and having ourselves felt the need for an accurate list of Cope's genera of these groups we have prepared the following for the Cope anniversary number of the journal named in his honor. We have used Osborn's bibliography (1930, Biographical Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci., 13: 172-317) with much profit. It has a few omissions, at least one erroneous inclusion, and a few erroneous datings, but these do not seriously detract from its usefulness. We have checked the names with those in the following lists: A-L. Neave, 1939, Nomenclator Zoologicus, Vol. 1-2. M-Tret. Schulze, Kukenthal, and Heider, 1931-1938, Nomenclator animalium generum et subgenerum. Trid.-end of alphabet. Scudder, 1882, Nomenclator Zoologicus; the Index Zoologicus, 1880-1900; and Zoological Record, 1902. Cope published many new generic names, or emendations of older ones, without any indication that they were new. Some of his new generic names were published in such unlikely places as indices. We feel no real confidence that we have found them all, but a comparison with the A-L volumes of Neave (1939) shows that we have 19 generic names not in Neave, and 26 not correctly cited by that work. Cope cited himself as author of a number of generic names which he was not the first to propose. The author most concerned is Fitzinger, many of whose genera were proposed with type but without diagnosis. The rules in force during most of Cope's working period held such genera invalid, and Cope, who provided the first diagnosis for a number of such names, regarded himself as the legitimate author. Boulenger, and a number of others, regarded these genera as Cope's. The present rules do not require diagnosis of genera; they do require type designation, and under these rules such genera as Fitzinger's are valid. This list of Cope genera does not include any such names.