228 CAMPBELL, Zoological Nomenclature. 



1st Jan. 



I have previously mentioned that bed-rock priority in nomen- 

 clature was the key-stone of the International Code. Take away 

 the keystone and the code collapses. Moreover, nomenclature is 

 not a science, or even a quasi-science; therefore the keystone 

 is already insecure. And because you are up against an eternal 

 truism. The Lord made no cast iron law (jf priority when He 

 said, "Many that are first shall be last and the last first." "And 

 the scripture cannot be broken." What is right in a psycho- 

 logical sense is also correct in temporal affairs. 



In the great war that has just been won by the Allies, were 

 appointments to the higher army commands made by selection 

 or by seniority — absolute seniority.^ You may answer that ques- 

 tion to yourselves. Similarly in every walk of life. In a great 

 commercial concern it is not always the senior employee who 

 sits in the manager's chair. 



Then, regarding the authority of the International Commis- 

 sion or its rules, are they not strictly ultra vires, as the legal 

 phrase goes? Can rules, or regulations made so recently as 

 1904 — only 17 years ago — act retrospectively for over 100 years, 

 as in some of the cases I have cited? (I venture to suppose that 

 the thing is unheard of in any legislative measure ) Or yet, 

 take another example — Gould in his early enthusiasm named 

 the beautiful and songful little yellow Gerygone, oln-acea, from 

 an immature skin he received in England. When he came to 

 Australia, a huge undertaking in those days, he found that the 

 mature bird was the one which he had well named albogularis 

 on account of its white throat, and sunk his other name 

 olivacea as a synomyn. Can any person or body of persons 

 legislate 66 years subsequently and say that Gould committed 

 an error; that he should have used his first name? Nonsense, 

 and so much the worse for the International rules if they act 

 so illogically. Moreover, it is contrary to common-sense to take, 

 as the basis of nomenclature, a description, or name which the 

 author himself had openly condemned and had corrected, and 

 one frhich had no priority of ])ublication. 



When Professor Blanchard first drew up his celebrated Code, 

 probably he had not the slightest idea how far-reaching and 

 upsetting would be some of its effects, especially with regard to 

 the priority business. He had no doubt in his mind that in many 

 countries of E,urope each had a different name for the same 

 species, and it was wise to suggest that the first, or oldest name, 

 if correct, should prevail. But here, in the island Continent of 

 Australia we have had in common use for many species, one 

 out-standing or only name, to alter which, except for ornitho- 

 logical error, tends to confusion and to defame standard works 

 of reference. Because the insect-world alone has had four 

 millions species (almost equal to one for every soul in the Com- 

 monwealth), or because in Medical Zoology (often a matter of 

 life or death) a certain species has forty or more synonymous 

 names in use, some exacting rule, such as bed-rock names is 



