BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF WOODS HOLE AND VICINITY. 83 
zoological nomenclature. Indeed, it is upon the authors of works like this, who make 
extensive use of taxonomic names, while having very little share in their creation or 
transmutation, that these evils perhaps fall most heavily. 
On the other hand, we realize that there are many sides to this perplexing question, 
and that many of the generic and specific names in current use among Woods Hole 
biologists are entirely unjustified, as judged by any standard except local usage. Those 
who revolt because the long-cherished name of a favorite species has been replaced by a 
totally unfamiliar one, must be reminded that this is not always due to the caprice of 
some perverse “‘species monger.’’ Nor are these changes in all cases due to the dis- 
covery that some long-forgotten name has “priority.” There are several other (legiti- 
mate) reasons for changing the name of a species, of which mention may be made of 
two. (1) Careful comparison may reveal the fact that two supposedly distinct species 
dwelling in different parts of the world are, in reality, identical. One or the other name 
must be given up. Thus, we have over and over again been obliged to abandon names 
given by earlier American zoologists to species found upon the shores of the New World. 
We need only mention the “Spongia sulphurea”’ of Desor (=Cliona celata Grant), the 
“Hydractinia polyclina’’ of Agassiz (now believed to be identical with H. echinata 
Fleming), or the ‘‘Ascidia tenella”’ of Stimpson (=Ciona intestinalis (Linneus)). In 
such cases, the changes may at first jar upon our nerves, but they must be accepted. 
(2) More complete knowledge of a species may show that its systematic position has 
at first been misunderstood. Here, as in the first case, we are not dealing with rules of 
nomenclature, but with facts. If the facts demand it, the species must be assigned to 
another genus. The most severe critics of our systematic brethren would hardly doubt 
the wisdom of removing the toadfish from the genus Gadus, to which it had been assigned 
by Linnzeus; nor the expediency of so restricting the genus Nautilus as to exclude the 
spiral Foraminifera! 
Many cases are sure to arise, however, when the mere user of zoological names—and 
to this class belong the great majority of present day zoologists—may well query whether 
the more refined grouping of species could not better be carried out within the limits 
of the genus itself. The latter procedure has the advantage of leaving the generic 
name (and therefore the full name of the species) unaltered. It is not so much for the 
changing of their conceptions of relationship that systematic zoologists are criticised so 
sharply as for their persistent changing of the names which we are all obliged to use 
and which we must learn anew as often as substitutes are offered by accredited 
authorities. This criticism derives particular force from the fact that there is no general 
agreement as to how inclusive a division the genus shall be. It is safe to say that at the 
present time the “genera”’ of some groups of the animal kingdom are as inclusive as the 
“families” of certain others, while the “genera” of these latter may correspond more 
nearly to the ‘‘subgenera’’ of the first. 
It will be understood without further explanation why we have not adopted the 
practice, current among certain systematists, of including the subgeneric name, in 
parenthesis, as an integral part of the name of a species. The subgenus is of interest 
only to the systematist, who may readily find it by reference to the appropriate sys- 
tematic treatise. The name of the species is complete without it, and the biologist at 
large should not be burdened by having to learn trinomials of this sort. 
