MARCH 4, 1921 rohwer: nomenclature of supergeneric names 109 



of choosing supergeneric names which is definite and easily applied 

 I fail to see the advantage of complicating matters by formulating 

 numerous rules which will have to be interpreted or emended. 



There has been such a lack of uniformity in forming supergeneric 

 names that the application of any one method throughout Zoology 

 would undoubtedly lead to many changes, and yet for the stability of 

 such names we should make an earnest effort to reach a satisfactory 

 "official" agreement as to methods of procedure. Because of the 

 lack of a policy in the past I think we must digress from our usual 

 method of procedure and adopt definite, although not necessarily the 

 same, methods for all major groups. I believe that the International 

 Commission would do well in appointing committees for all the major 

 groups and that these committees should carefully review the literature 

 of their groups and then recommend to the Commission a policy 

 which would necessitate the fewest changes. After the Commission 

 reviewed their report they should submit it, with recommendations, 

 to all contemporary workers in the group. This would permit dis- 

 cussion. In the absence of objections an "official" opinion should 

 be rendered. Cases where there was objection should be referred 

 back to the committee for consideration and a revised report sub- 

 mitted which would follow the same procedure. After all the groups 

 had been covered by opinions these should be formulated into rules 

 and made a part of the Code. 



