30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



Dautzenberg : Je ne puis approuver des listes des nomina conser- 

 vanda, si les noms qu'elles enferment sent consideres comme devant 

 subsister et continuer a etre employes alors meme qu'on s'apercevrait 

 un jour que I'un ou I'autre est en contradiction avec la loi de priorite. 

 Mais s'il est entendu que les listes dressees par des specialistes com- 

 petents ne pourront etre modifiees que s'il est clairement demontre 

 que tel ou tel nom est en contradiction evidente avec la loi de priorite, 

 je suis pret a apposer ma signature au bas de ces listes. 



Jordan (D. S.) : I have no objection, but I think that a study- 

 beginning from Linnaeus and proceeding upward will save time. 



Stiles : The problem is not a theoretical one as to what is the best 

 way to establish an Official List, or what kind of a list to establish, 

 but rather what is any way to meet the divergent views of scores 

 of independent workers and make progress by voluntary (namely 

 unpaid) cooperation. A long list of Nomina Conservanda has been 

 proposed by one Commissioner (Apstein) and this has brought to 

 the Secretary a storm of protests together with urgent appeals from 

 general zoologists to establish some sort of list so that nomenclature 

 will be more stable. Careful studies of various groups have been 

 made by various Commissioners and other zoologists, but numerous 

 cases and questions have been left open and undecided. A Code 

 has been adopted which covers the vast majority of cases and persons 

 who understand nomenclature can apply these rules to most of the 

 names with which they have to deal. Still, up to recent years the 

 striking trend of nomenclature has been to emphasize differences 

 rather than agreements of views as respects names. The Official 

 List is an attempt to allow the troubled waters to settle awhile and 

 to see in hozu far zve all agree; thus it is trying out a new technique 

 in the hope of obtaining results, and the more names that can be 

 shown to be acceptable to all workers, despite divergent views as 

 to wJiy they are acceptable, the more settled will be the subject of 

 nomenclature, even if many disputed points must be left to future 

 generations. 



To insist at present upon an immediate application of the Code 

 to all disputed cases or to an adoption of Nomina Conservanda to 

 cover all disputed cases would inevitably result in two independent 

 nomenclatures and this is not practical until we find out which are 

 the disputed names, into what categories these can be classified, 

 and why they are in dispute. Herein lies the value in comparing the 

 Apstein (Nomina Conservanda) and the Jordan (Priority) lists. 

 When certain generic names of fishes appear in both lists, and are 



