A discussion of certain questions of nomenclature, as applied to parasites. 159 



names in use today, therefore, represent ouly a fraction of those with 

 which the zoologist severul centuries hence will liave to deal. Under 

 these circumstances, it is not too much to State that every zoologist 

 is under a professional Obligation to future generations of scientific 

 workers not to unjustifiably introduce a new name er change an old 

 one, Under what circumstances he may be justified in such action 

 may be judged from rules of nomenclature which experience and logic 

 have shown to be well-founded. 



A Code of nomenclature represents the combined opinion of men 

 who have had practical experience in the questions at issue as to the 

 circumstances under which names may be recognized, retaiaed, rejected, 

 and changed. 



3. The law of priority. 



The law of priority has been described as the "fetich worshiped 

 by nomenclaturalists". Although this was said in ridicule, there ap- 

 pears to be no necessity for disproving the allegation, for it is not 

 entirely without foundation ; and if the comparison will only be carried 

 out further, those who oppose this law will easily understand — even 

 if they do not approve of — the tenacity with which we cling un- 

 compromisingly to that "fetich": it is because of our conviction that 

 no other, Substitute, proposition has ever been submitted which can be 

 consistently carried out or which offers the possibility of a stable and 

 international System of nomenclature. 



Reduced to the last analysis, we have before us a choice of the 

 objective law of priority or of a subjective System of authority. That 

 is to say, we must choose between using the oldest available name, 

 or the name used by some person whora we look upon as an 

 "authority" in the group in question. Those who follow the law of 

 priority are in the right in either case, for the deterraination of "who 

 are the authorities" in any given group depende to no small extent 

 upon the point of view from which the group is studied. It is per- 

 fectly legitimate for a worker to Interpret the proposer of the first 

 available name as an "authority" regarding the particular species or 

 genus in question, and if an author wishes to adopt the first available 

 name "on authority of " its proposer, the principle (?) pleaded for by 

 those who oppose the law of priority is comphed with. Wherein, 

 therefore, does the writer who follows priority offend against the 

 System of authority? 



It will be objected that the first author of a name may not be 



11* 



