431 



Commission of five members was appointed to carry out this task. This 

 Commission worked for three years and was prepared to present its report 

 to the Cambridge Congress of 1898, but because of the fact that this report 

 was not unanimous on all points, the Commission was refused a place on 

 the program for the presentation of its conclusions as to the rules. The 

 Commission was, however, increased to 15 members in the hope of reaching 

 more satisfactory results in its vote, and upon motion the general session 

 voted that all propositions that were to be reported upon at any given Con- 

 gress were to be in the hands of the Commission at least one year prior to 

 the meeting of the Congress. 



81 After another period of 3 years work, during which the enlarged 

 commission had to restudy the entii'e rej^rt of the original commission, the 

 former met at Berlin in 1901. Before its report was completed confez'ences 

 were held with quite a number of the more prominent members of the Con- 

 gress. During these conferences the Commission was given very distinctly 

 to understand that the Congress would not receive any report unless it was 

 unanimous. As one prominent German member of the Congress stated i n 

 effect: 'It is the duty of the Commission to become unanimous in its 

 vote; give us a definite set of rules, good, bad, or indifferent, but be un- 

 animous in your report, and after you give us the rules, see that they are 

 carried out.' The words of the prominent German savant were a fair reflec- 

 tion of the feeling we found at the Berlin meeting, so far as the Secretary 

 of the Commission could discover. 



82) Unfortunately the Commission could not agi'ee upon all points, and 

 after many conferences, it finally suggested to the Congress the proposition 

 that those portions of the rules upon which the Commission was unanimous 

 should be accepted, and that all other portions be referred back to the 

 Commission. This motion, suggested in the general session, prevailed. 



83) After its experience at Cambridge and Berlin the Commission was 

 indeed not inclined again to repeat its action of preparing for the Congress 

 fas it did at Cambridge) any proposition unless all of its members j^resent 

 at the Congi'ess were unanimously agreed upon it. In order to make this 

 point certain the Commission adopted at the Berne Congress the principle 

 of reporting recommendations in regard to changes in the rules, only when 

 the vote upon them was unanimously in the affirmative. Since the Berne 

 Congress this plan has, in the interest of conservation, been strictly adhered 

 to. From the Berlin Congress in 1901 until the present Congress, no sec- 

 tion on nomenclature has been provided by the Program Committee and the 

 Commission has endeavored to meet this situation by holding an open meet- 

 ing of the Commission which all persons interested in nomenclature were 

 invited to attend. 



84) The history of the Commission has clearly demonstrated that the 

 Congress has thus far desired not to have its general meetings turned into 

 open discussions on questions of nomenclature , but rather to have nomen- 

 clatorial discussions confined to sections and commissions and nomenclatorial 

 questions decided in committee. 



85) If at present there is a change of desire on the part of the Con- 

 gress and if the Congress wishes these very technical and complex matters 

 discussed in the General Sessions, the Commission would rejoice at the more 

 general interest in nomenclature as evidenced by such a desire, but at the 



