Abstract
NEITHER Dr. Bather nor Dr. Allen (NATURE, June 20, p. 947, July 25, p. 135) directs attention to the fact that the names of all well-regulated families or subfamilies should be based on a generic name, so that the term Homosimiidæ is ill advised. As for the name Australopithecus and any other combinations, it might be said that scientific names are not, strictly speaking, literature, though so regarded by the orthodox. Many years ago Le Conte, to show that a name need not necessarily mean anything, gave the name Guyascutus to a genus of beetle.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
LUCAS, F. The Word “Australopithecus” and Others. Nature 116, 315 (1925). https://doi.org/10.1038/116315c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/116315c0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.