2l8 NATURAL SCIENCE. April. 



Zoological Nomenclature — A Proposal. 



The discussion on zoological nomenclature, which was held, 

 as announced in our last number, by the Zoological Society of 

 London on March 3, was introduced to a crowded meeting by 

 Mr. P. L. Sclater, F.R.S., in a concise and careful paper, and the 

 points to which he drew attention were warmly debated beyond the 

 usual hour. The discussion dealt with certain differences between 

 the rules drawn up by the German Zoological Society for the guidance 

 of the compilers of the Synopsis of the Animal Kingdom (" Das Tier- 

 reich ") which that Society is preparing, and the rules known as the 

 Stricklandian Code, which for many years governed, or were supposed 

 to govern, the usage of British naturalists. The discussion turned 

 chiefly upon the following questions : — First, may the same generic 

 names ever be used for both animals and plants ? Secondly, may the 

 same term be used for the generic and trivial name of a species, as in 

 the well-known instance of Scomhev scombev ? Thirdly, are we to adopt 

 as our starting-point the tenth edition of Linne's Systema Natures in pre- 

 ference to the twelfth edition ? These questions are answered in the 

 affirmative by the German code, and in the negative by the original 

 Stricklandian. We do not propose to discuss them here : it is natural 

 that there should still be found, especially among the older zoologists of 

 this country, many to support the old-established British practices ; 

 in this, as in all other matters of nomenclature, convenience, not 

 principle, is concerned, and it cannot be gainsaid that the general usage 

 of zoologists, at all events in other parts of the world, becomes daily 

 more and more in harmony with the rules adopted by the German 

 Society. 



Were we again to open our pages to the discussion of this thorny 

 subject, we should probably prefer, as did many of those who spoke 

 at the Zoological Society's meeting, to discuss points that appear of 

 more vital importance ; but after listening to the various ingenious 

 arguments, and to the animated rhetoric, punctuated by shouts of 

 applause, that were poured forth the other evening, we felt more 

 inclined than ever to doubt the value of these discussions. There are, 

 it appears to us, fundamental defects that so far have pervaded all of 

 them. A casual glance at the list of modern codes of nomenclature 

 exhibited by Mr. Sclater was enough to show how very limited has 

 been the authority of those bodies that have, from time to time, 

 ventured to suggest laws for the zoological world. Either it is a com- 

 mittee of a section of the British Association, or it is the Zoological 

 Society of France, or of Germany ; or, again, at one moment we find 

 the ornithologists meeting in conclave, at another, the palaeontologists, 

 at yet another, the neontologists ; even when we see a code drawn up 

 and passed by two International Congresses of zoology, we must not, 

 as the President pointed out, flatter ourselves that more than a very 

 few of the actual workers have assented, or have even been consulted. 

 Consequently, the best of the codes that has yet been proposed (and 



