( 453 ) 



again point ont that the meaning of the word " binary " in Article 25 is governed 

 by the interpretation of that word in Article 26 ; and the interpretation of the word 

 "binary" in Article 26 is contrary to the meaning given to that word by the 

 International Commission. These are facts, and it has been suggested by sup- 

 porters of the Brissonian genera that, inasmuch as the arguments produced by 

 me were unanswerable, the wording of Article 26 must be altered. Is further 

 discussion necessary ? It would appear that prejudice has not been eliminated in 

 dealing with this question, as the Opinion was written by Allen, who has already 

 contributed Articles in defence of Brisson, and the statement occurs : " His generic 

 names have availability under the Code, and have also had almost universal 

 recognition since they loere proposed." 



Thus enters the "law of general consent" as a valid reason for the trans- 

 gression of the Coded Laws, and once more is the security of our nomenclature 

 threatened. 



It is important that the Commission should render their Opinions in accordance 

 with the strict letter of the Laws and not allow sentiment to enter into their minds. 

 I would recall that every unprejudiced writer who has investigated the Brissonian 

 genera has declared their illegality, and moreover that the majority of the thinkers 

 who have used Brisson have had qualms as to their justification in doing so. How 

 can the following be reconciled? 



Article 26.— "The tenth Edition of Linne's Systema Naturae, 1758, is the 

 work which inaugurated the consistent general application of the binary nomen- 

 clature in zoology. The date 1758, therefore, is accepted as the starting-point of 

 zoological nomenclature and of the Law of Priority." Any other interpretation of 

 binary than binomial is here impossible. 



Why was the Xth Edition of Linne selected ? 



Because that Edition was the first in which Linne consistently used binomials 

 in his nomenclature. 



It might be recorded that the first supporter of the Commission's meaning of 

 binary was a systematist who wrote seventy years ago and who was more logical 

 than the Commission. I refer to George Robert Gray, who accepted Linne's 

 Xllth Edition as regards specific names, but consistently argued that generic names 

 should be accepted from Linne's 1st Edition, wherein Linne adopted a binary nomen- 

 clature. In view of the Commission's reading of binary, should not the date 1735 

 be accepted for the commencing point of zoological nomenclature as regards generic 

 names ? As I have noted, if Article 2 can be construed partim, the above is the 

 logical conclusion. The absurdity of such a proposition is, I hope, evident, but the 

 Commission's Opinion has made it possible for such corollaries to be adduced. 



Now the absolute acceptance of the meaning of the word binary as binomial 

 obviates all such difficulties, and would be in accordance with the Coded Laws and 

 not contrary to them, as the alternative course is. I want this Commission to 

 consider that each Opinion is simply for nse as a precedent, and that it should be 

 so worded that workers can easily follow the arguments there produced to a logical 

 conclusion without further recourse. At the present time each Opinion raises doubt 

 as to ever reaching finality. The Code, as worded, gives very little cause for 

 misinterpretation, but some of the Opinions have given me much consideration, 

 and as I have touched upon the Opinions I would here add some comments I have 

 noted. 



One of the matters that will probably come up for an Opinion is that cou- 



