HARMFULNESS OF GENERIC CHANGES 



We are all painfully familiar with the changes that are 

 continually taking place in generic names, both of animals and 

 plants. Such changes fall, roughly speaking, into two cate- 

 gories : ( 1 ) Cases where an older name for the same group 

 is discovered in some overlooked work and is substituted for 

 the one in general use. (2) Cases where a generic group is 

 subdivided, the old name being restricted to one of the sub- 

 divisions and new names given to all others. 



The first sort of change is necessary and is governed by a 

 definite code of rules which is rapidly affecting international 

 uniformity so far as such cases are concerned. The second set 

 of changes, however, is entirely dependent upon personal 

 opinion with no hope of uniformity or finality. Generic 

 groups are separated from one another by all degrees of dif- 

 ference and there is no standard by which the amount of dif- 

 ference may be consistently measured. Consec[uently no two 

 systematists will be in agreement as to how many groups may 

 be recognized in any given family. 



Ever since the time of Linnaeus, generic groups have been 

 undergoing disintegration until in some families the ultimate 

 condition has been reached of a generic group for each species. 

 When this stage has been attained, we have lost all trace, in 

 the scientific names, of any relationship whatever between 

 species. The binomial name, in other words, has become use- 

 less and we might just as well have a mononomial. The very 

 object for which the generic name was proposed has been lost. 

 Why should we insist upon impairing our system of nomen- 

 clature by constantly changing the generic names every time 

 we change our minds as to how many minutely different sub- 

 divisions we are going to recognize in the group? 



