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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
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
