lis GE.Ni:iv.\L SYSTEMATIC BACTEKIOLOGY 



Comment, lliis is tho essence of the whole matter. Xo matter what 

 our individual preferences may lx\ or how umch better aiiotiier moiv 

 familiar name may soimd, we sliould choose the oldest name if it is 

 valid. In no other way can nomenclature be stabilized. Many cases 

 in bacteriological literatui-e may be cited in Mliich author have 

 created new names needlessly, in some cases because the names seemed 

 inappropriate for some ivason. 



Article 16. The designation of a group by one or several names is not for the 

 purpose of describing the characters or the history of the group, but that we may 

 be understood when we wish to speak of it. 



ComnietU. ^Misunderstanding of this principle has led to uuuiy mis- 

 takes in literature. Thei-e is no good reason why the specific name of 

 an organism must Iv descriptive of the organism in any way. Some 

 authors have contended that the naming of X)rganisms sliould in some 

 manner confonn to the principles which have been followed in the 

 naming of compounds in the science of chemistry. Othei-s have insisted 

 upon the use of descriptive Latin phrases, such as those which have 

 been approved in anatomy and pathology-. As has often been pointed 

 out in taxonomic discussioi^s.thei*e is no more reason why a specific name 

 should be descriptive of the organisms than that the given or Christian 

 name of an individual should indicate his characteristics. 



Article 17. Xo one should change a name or a combination of names without 

 serious motives, based on a more profound knowledge of facts, or on the necessity 

 of giving up a nomenclature that is contrary to rules. 



Comment. Unfortunately there have been a few botanists, perhaps 

 even some bacteriologists who have coined new names needlessly, 

 evidently with the thought that such could in some way be of pei-sonal 

 advantage. It is evident from the statement of this rule that when new 

 names are coined or old names changed, an adequate reason for such 

 new names or such new t.enns should Ix' given. 



Article 18. The form, number and arrangement of names depend on the 

 nature of each group, according to the following rules. 



Section .:?. Point of departure for nomenclature; litnitaiion of principle of 



priority 



Article 19. Botanical nomenclature begins for the various groups of plants 

 (both living and fossil) with the following dates: 



a. Phanerogamae and Pteridophyta, 1753 (Linn^., Species plantarum, ed. 1) 



b. Muscineae, ISOl (Hedwig, Species Muscorum) 



