8 THE GENERA OF FISHES 



alternative, Systematic Zoology and Botany would come to a condition 

 of hopeless despair. There can be no finality when the question of ac- 

 ceptance or rejection of names is left as a matter of personal preference. 



Binomial nomenclature has its recognized beginning with the Tenth 

 Edition of the Systema Naturcc of Linnjeus, published in 1758 with the 

 assumed date of January i. These names of Linn^us constitute the orig- 

 inal framework of Zoological Taxonomy. In the nomenclature of this 

 early period, there are two main elements of doubt : the first relates to 

 the eligibility of authors who have for one reason or another not accepted 

 the Linneean Code ; next of authors whose works, published before the 

 Linnsean Code, have been revised more or less and reprinted after the 

 date of the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturcu. In all of these the 

 species are designated by a descriptive phrase, as was the custom before 

 Linnaeus began the practice of "scientific bookkeeping" in Systematic 

 Zoology. The writings of Gronow, Schaefer, and Valmont de Bomare 

 come under the first of these heads; those of Klein (Gesellschaft 

 Schaiiplatz), Browne, Catesby, and Osbeck, under the other. Commer- 

 son and Plumier, whose manuscript names were published by an author 

 who did not accept them, come under a third head. It is the judgment 

 of the present writer, that the best interests of Ichthyology w^ould have 

 been served by adopting the rule followed by Jordan & Evermann 

 (Fishes of North and Middle America, 1898). In this work all writers 

 who use polynomial phrases for the designation of species are disregarded 

 as factors in nomenclature, however regular their practice may be as to 

 genera. It is not a question of justice to able naturalists who, like 

 Gronow and Browne, failed to adopt the Linnaean Code, solely because 

 they had never heard of it. It is the convenience of future naturalists 

 which is now concerned. This would apparently be best served by the 

 exclusion of all these. 



The arguments against such exclusion are mainly two : Brisson in 

 1760, polynomial as to species, had a stronger grasp on the significance 

 of genera than any other ornithologist of his time. He has been called 

 "the Father of Ornithology." Most students of birds wish to retain 

 Brisson's genera as foundation-stones in nomenclature. There are good 

 reasons for accepting Brisson as an exception. Similar exceptions may 

 be demanded in other groups. It is desirable, but not vitally necessary, 

 that all accepted rules be general, without exception ; but as a member 

 of the International Commission of Nomenclature, the present senior 

 author has made no objection to the recognition of Brisson. The other 

 argument is this: these writers have pubhshed generic names which 



