PLi.NT NOMENOL^VTURE 317 



established generic names in their current usage, arbitr.irily conserve 

 certain of these, even though tliey would be rejected under the 

 priority rule. These conserved names are brought together in a list 

 appended to the llules — the list of Nomina Conservanda, The Tjpe- 

 basis Code includes no such list, but, recognizing that the strict 

 application of the law of priority may in a few cases cause incon- 

 venience by displacing well-known names, provides for exceptions 

 through Article G. 



4, Fuhlication of genera, (a) The Type-basis Code provides 

 that a generic name is effectively published when there is a specitic 

 description and a binomial specific name, because the type species of 

 the proposed genus can be determined, (h) The International Kules 

 provide that a genus is effectively published when there is a generic 

 description without the mention of included species. The Type-basis 

 Code considers such publication to be ineffective because the type 

 species of the proposed genus cannot he determined, 



5, Priority of lyosition. The Type-basis Code provides that 

 ** Of names published in the same work and at the same time, those 

 having precedence of position are to be regarded as having priority." 

 The International Eules provide that such names shall have equal 

 standing. Personally I look upon this difference as a minor matter 

 in whicii the Type-basis Code might readily forgo its present i)ro- 

 vision. It seems unreasonable to displace a well-established name 

 solely through this provision. 



6, Validity of homonyms. The Type-basis Code provides that 

 both generic and specific names are to be rejected if there are earlier 

 homonyms. The International Rules provide tluit a name shall not 

 be rejected " because of the existence of an earlier homonym which is 

 universally regarded as non-valid." In practice this requires the 

 investigation of the standing of the earlier homonym, often in groups 

 with which the investigator is unfamiliar, and is obviously unsatis- 

 factory. Few will take the time for a real investigation ; they are 

 more likely to accept the statements of others. The Rules also 

 provide that ''When a species is moved from one genus to another, 

 its specific epithet must be changed, if it is already borne by a valid 

 species of that genus " — that is, if the earlier homonym is a synonym 

 (non- valid) the transferred name can stand. The Type-basis Code, 

 on the contrary, holds that the earlier homonym invalidates the later 

 under all circumstances. 



7, Duplicate binomials. The International Rules reject a specific 

 name when it repeats the generic name, while the Type-basis Code 

 makes no such exception to the prineiide of priority. This is a nunor 

 difference which need not concein us greatly. 



8, Latin diagnoses. The International Rules provide that, after 

 January 1, 1908, effective publication shall recjuire the diagnosis to 

 be in Latin. In the Type-basis Code there is no reference to the 

 language of publication. 



The chief objection to the American Code, especially from those 

 not experts in nomenclature, centred around Nomina Conservanda, 

 Prioritv of Position, and Duplicate Binomials. Many of us who 



