( cxlix ) 



any way conflict with those already passed at the first Con- 

 gress. It will be seen that there is no desire to oppose the 

 International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature, but 

 rather a desire to strengthen their hands and to prevent, if 

 possible, that Commission from departing from their own 

 Code. I speak as an upholder of the Code, but I want it 

 improved. It consists of rules and recommendations ; the 

 former are binding, the latter are not. I would like to 

 eliminate many of the latter, and to make some new rules, 

 but I do desire the Commission to adhere to their rules. 

 This 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 condition : (a) That this name was pub- 

 lished and accompanied by an indication, or a definition, or 

 a description ; and (b) That the author has applied the 

 principles of binary nomenclature." I would ask the members 

 of the Congress to remember (6). 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 Meigen 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 contrary to Art. 25. Meigen's 1800 classifica- 

 tion is absolutely uninominal, and is, therefore, entirely 

 contrai-y to section b, and consequently cannot be accepted. 

 According to the Code Meigen's names can only be accepted 

 from the date when the author applied the principles of binary 

 nomenclature, i.e. 1803. This decision is therefore entirely 

 contrary 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 Priority. This is not alto- 

 gether unnatural from one point of view, but from the point 

 (f 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 

 days ; the question, however, that I would ask is, Is it 



