188 CAMPBELL and SOX. Type Descriptions [\^st hT 



to rescue science from becoming a mere chaos of words." Un- 

 doubtedly the Code is intended to be : — 



(a) A consolidation of the various methods of nomenclature 

 hitherto in use. 



(b) The "rule of conduct" ffjr the future. 



In connection with the former the Code is credited with many 

 decisions which are neither logical nor justifiable. Several of 

 the articles (21-25-26-27) pointedly refer to the past, at the 

 same time presume to offer a rule for judgment of the work of 

 earlier authors. 



This is a weak point, since ;.'() ciiactinciit of any body should 

 be made retrospective. The committee had, oi cour.se, no legi.s- 

 lative powers, but assuming that it fully represented the scientific 

 world at the time, then its deliberations in regard to past work 

 can be taken only as strong recommendations to future workers. 

 As such the Code can be accepted with confidence, for it sets 

 a very high standard, which, if followed, will lead to stability 

 in the much \exed (|uestion of nomenclature. 



As a "rule of conduct" from that date onward the Code exer- 

 cises an important influence. It may or may not be possible 

 to rescue nomenclature from chaos, but it certainly is possible 

 to prevent subsec|uent additions to that chaos. The chaos which 

 sometimes exists in the work of early authors, due no doubt, 

 largely to the inefficiencies of the times, might conceivably be 

 straightened out by applying different methods from those .set 

 forth in the Code. It might be necessary to judge each case on 

 its merits only. 



The faults of the Code, if faults they can i)r()perly be called, 

 are errors of omission largely. No arrangement now exists to 

 carry on the work of the committee in conformity with its own 

 appointed plan. The need is for adju.stment and provision of 

 interpretation clauses to keep pace with the general advance- 

 ment of science, besides the all-im})ortant comment and recom- 

 mendation upon the validity of earlier names. 



One of the oversights is tlic all-important cpiestion of TyP^- 

 If the Law of I'riority (art. 25) is the "keystone of nomencla- 

 ture," surely the type on which the name itself rests has an im- 

 portant place in the arch and pillar of the structure. What is 

 type? .\rticle 4 states: "The name of a family is formed by 

 adding an affix to the name of its type genus." 



Article .^0 ojjcns with the words: "If the original type of a 

 genus." 



Article 2'>, second ])aragraph : "if a type were originally estab- 

 lished for the said genus." These certainly infer, if they do not 

 affirm, .something definite. Rut the Code docs not define What 

 is type genus!' or. What is original type? 



