95 



latter, and to make some new rules, but above my own desires 

 it is really necessary for the Commission to adhere to their own 

 rules, if the scientific world is to follow their lead. This, unfortu- 

 nately, they do not do. For instance. Art. 25, The Law of Priority, 

 runs as follows : " The valid name of a genus or species can be 

 only that name under which it was first designated, on the condi- 

 tion : (a) That this name was published and accompanied by an 

 indication, or a definition, or a description ; and {b) that the 

 author has appHed the principles of binary nomenclature." I 

 would ask the members of the Congress to remember b. With 

 this law before them the question of Meigen's genera of 1800 

 came under their view, when instead of settling the question 

 absolutely, as it is really settled by Art. 256, the Secretary of the 

 Commission sent a letter to the members of the Commission, asking 

 whether the Nouvelle Classification of Meigex of 1800 should be 

 given precedence over his Versuch of 1803, and the decision was 

 that precedence should be given where valid. I submit, sir, that 

 that decision is contrar\ to Art. 25. Meigen's 1800 classification 

 is absolutely uninominal, and is, therefore, entirely contrar\- to 

 section b, and consequently cannot be accepted. According to 

 the Code Meigen's names can onl}- be accepted from the date 

 when the author applied the principles of binar\' nomenclature, 

 i.e. 1803. This decision of the Couimission is therefore entireh' 

 contrar}' to the Code and cannot be accepted until Art. 25 is 

 altered. At the present time there is a somewhat widespread 

 movement to restrict the Law of Prioritx'. This is not altogether 

 unnatural from one point of view, but from the ]X)int of view 

 of the systematist I sincerely hope it will not be done. It is 

 not unnatural for the pure biologist and general zoologist to 

 desire to retain names that he remembers from his student da3's ; 

 the question, however, that I would ask is, Is it scientific ? I am 

 not unmindful of the fact that there are many Professors, especi- 

 ally in America and Germany, who object to the Law of Priority 

 partly, no doubt, on the groimd that their text-books have adopted 

 certain more or less well-known names, but this difficulty is 

 really small, when it is remembered that reprints of all important 

 text-books are being constantl}' put through the jiress, and it 

 would be a ver\^ simple matter to insert the correct names accord- 

 ing to the Law of Priority, when they are brought to light, and 



