234 JOURNAL OF THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES VOL. 11, NO. 10 



name since 1758^^ must be taken into consideration in the selection 

 of family and subfamily names on the basis of intrinsic priority. A 

 great part of these have never been catalogued; who is to do it.^ and 

 how long will it be until we shall be reasonably secure against the 

 resurrection of names which may supersede a family name anywhere 

 in the system? Under this plan would not the way be opened up for 

 an indefinite number of changes in family and subfamily names? 



Will we not be much better off if we base our family and subfamily 

 nomenclature upon a set of names, the priority in which is already 

 almost completely worked out, than to adopt a rule compelling us to 

 search out priority in another set of names hitherto largely neglected 

 by bibliographers, and in which the problems to be met are more 

 complex and confusing even than they are among genera? 



In other words, the present view is that due to inevitable difference 

 of opinion as to whether only latinized names of subfamily and higher 

 groups shall be considered, or whether vernaculars shall be included; 

 as to what are classical forms and what vernacular; as to whether all 

 supergeneric names, regardless of the rank given by their proposers, 

 shall be considered; and as to whether the groups defined agree well 

 enough in scope with modern concepts — differences of opinion, we 

 would repeat, as to all these controversial points, would seem to block 

 attainment of real priority in subfamily and family names. If sub- 

 stantial justice cannot be done, and this would further appear certain 

 because of the necessity of ignoring numerical systems and the 

 probability that vernacular-named subfamily and family groups even 

 if considered would not receive consistent treatment, why would it 

 not be better to record attempts at higher classification, formal and 

 informal, only in technical taxonomic discussions and not try to 

 convey this history in connection with the names themselves? 



We can fix family names by an automatic process, that of basing 

 them on the oldest included genera. Authorities for the names (sel- 

 dom cited under present practice) would of course be unnecessary, 

 but credit or responsibility for family and subfamily groupings could 

 be separately recorded and include not only the more modern pro 

 forma efforts, but also the earlier ones, however crude. 



With choice between an automatic method having nearly clear sail- 

 ing ahead, and another beset by the complications as to priority here 



" Unless indeed some other date be selected for the beginning of family nomenclature; 

 substantial agreement upon which probably could not be obtained. 



