428 



recently probably been the greatest factor in pressing to the fore the Law 

 of Priority and in producing discontent. Formerly, so long as two authors 

 could not agree upon a given point of nomenclature, each followed his own 

 interpretation. If one of these authors now submits the case to the Com- 

 mission, an Opinion is rendered which, of course, has not the force of law, 

 but which nevertheless is a strong moral support to one side of the contro- 

 versy in (question. Experience has however shown that instances are not 

 lacking when the Commission by giving its opinion has drawn upon itself 

 the fire which in earlier days would have been directed to the individual 

 worker in whose favor the opinion happens to be given. And it has come 

 about that the Commission has not been permitted to remain ignorant of the 

 fact that it has perhaps made fewer friends than enemies in its endeavor to 

 conform to the wishes of our colleagues to settle cases for them. 



62) The Commission does not consider that in rendering these Opinions 

 it is placing itself under any obligations whatever to zoologists for the pri- 

 vilege of doing so much work for other people, and is perfectly willing to 

 discontinue the series. In continuing to give Opinions, however, the Com- 

 mission can not be expected to depart from the Code and to make excep- 

 tions in order to please individual workers. If the Congress is not satisfied 

 with the results, it will be an easy matter for the Congress to say so. 



63) The Commission as at present constituted feels it proper, however, 

 to remind zoologists that in the performance of our duties we are not sup- 

 posed to take into consideration any personal preferences or any local, fac- 

 tional, or personal quarrels — such as have actually been presented to us 

 as if they were valid nomenclatorial argument. 



64) Increasing Interest in Nomenclature. — Probably at no 

 time in the history of Zoology has there been a more wide-spread interest in 

 the subject of nomenclature than exists at present. This interest is probably 

 due to several factors, one of which is the increased sense of necessity or at 

 least desirability for intei'national uniformity in use of technical names. As 

 authors increase in number and attempt to monograph various groups the lack 

 of uniformity in the use of names is brought home to them, and no matter 

 what policy they may try to follow they usually find it necessary to change 

 some of the names more or less current in their group. Under existing rules 

 and under all standard codes since 1845, and in spirit at least since the 

 Linnaean Code of 1751, the Law of Priority has in general been taken as 

 fundamental criterion in deciding certain classes of the changes, and in fact 

 so many points have been made upon basis of this Law that it has aroused 

 opposition from certain quarters. 



65) In this connection it is interesting to note that if an author changes 

 from Amoeba to Ameba, or îvova Amoeba vuhjaris to A. princeps, or if he 

 makes a change of name and gives as his reason the fact that the rejected name 

 does not please him, or even if he divides an old collective genus into 40 or 

 50 new genera, introducing 39 or 49 new names and retains the old collective 

 generic name for the indefinite residuum, his action is not very likely to 

 produce any particular indignation, but if any author consistently applies 

 the Law of Priority, thus attempting to settle all cases objectively, he be- 

 comes what one author is pleased to call a »fanatic priority ruler«. 



66) As authors are increasing in number and as publications become 



