3 o2 NATURAL SCIENCE. May, 



Priority in Nomenclature, and our Proposal. 



The remarks on Zoological Nomenclature kindly sent to us by 

 Mr. Cunningham present the views of the morphologist and practical 

 naturalist, to whom changes in nomenclature are a needless nuisance, 

 rather than of the systematist, to whom they are an unwelcome 

 necessity. We admit that the Law of Priority can never, of itself, 

 lead to finality, owing to the existence of a number of doubtful cases 

 like those quoted by Mr. Cunningham. But his proposed substitute 

 for the law, viz., " Choose what you consider the most correct 

 description and classification," would lead to mere anarchy and chaos, 

 for "tot homines, quot sententia? " is still true in zoology. On the 

 other hand, Mr. Cunningham's rule for the giving of new names — 

 " no one should give a new name to a conception already named " — is 

 merely the Law of Priority in other words. Obviously, some such 

 law is a necessity, if we are to avoid the multiplication of synonyms 

 or to have any attempt at a world-wide set of names. The difficulties 

 in the application of the law are of two kinds. First, is it to be 

 retrospective ? and, if not, where is the line to be drawn, and who is 

 to draw it ? Secondly, when authors have published unintelligible or 

 doubtful descriptions, who is to be the judge ? These matters cannot 

 be left to the individual caprice of naturalists, even so distinguished 

 as Mr. Cunningham. It is for this reason that we made the proposal 

 published in our last number. .We say, — let the Law of Priority 

 work ! in most cases it will answer. Then let the doubtful cases be 

 adjudicated on by specialists appointed ad hoc, and let their decision 

 be accepted. Fixity of nomenclature of course is not anticipated, for 

 that could be the result only of the stagnation of systematic zoology. 

 Nevertheless, the acceptance of our proposal would do away with the 

 changeableness that depends on mere whim, or on literature rather 

 than on fact. We realise, indeed we have insisted, that the full 

 carrying out of our ideas cannot be yet ; the index to all published 

 names must first be completed. But we are glad to learn, through 

 •communications with many zoologists, that our proposal is regarded 

 with favour in various influential quarters. We shall be pleased to 

 receive suggestions as to the best mode of carrying it out. 



Cape Colony Geological Commission. 



In our last November number (vol. vii., p. 366) we announced 

 the appointment by the Government of Cape Colony of a Geological 

 Commission, which is to report to the Secretary for Agriculture. The 

 Commission has now appointed the following gentlemen to begin the 

 work of surveying and mapping the country: geologist, G. S. Corstor- 

 phine, B.Sc. (Edin.), Ph.D. (Munich) ; assistant geologists, A. W. 

 Rogers, B. A. (Cantab.), and E. H. L. Schwarz, A.R.C.S. The Com- 

 mission also intends to publish in June a bibliography of South African 

 geology, which has been compiled by Mr. Harry Saunders, the secretary 



