39^ 



Recent Literature. [July 



"3. Of names of undoubtedly equal pertinency, and founded upon the 

 same condition of sex, age, or season, that is to be preferred which stands 

 first in the book." 



It is certain that clauses i and 2 are based on special peculiarities of 

 ornithology rather than on the general needs of zoology. 



The question of equal pertinency of descriptions is very often a subjec- 

 tive one, and this rule gives room to individual judgment or caprice, 

 which it is the business of the 'Code' to eliminate. As to clause 2, we 

 may notice that in most groups of animals, as in the fishes for example, 

 we cannot discriminate in any such way between males, females, and 

 young, and between the various nuptial and non-nuptial conditions. The 

 clause is evidently for ornithologists alone, and by other naturalists it 

 must be disregarded. Of synonymous names which admit of positive 

 identification, and which are printed in the same book, we shall doubtless 

 continue to use the name which stands first upon the page, without regard 

 to other considerations. I believe that the law of primogeniture is made 

 to apply in the case of twins. The chief aim of the law of priority, like 

 that of the law of primogeniture, is not justice but fixity. The present 

 Canon XVII certainly will not secure fixity. The same remarks apply 

 also to Canon XVIII, in regard to synchronous generic names. 



In the cases of Canons XXI and XXIII, some important matters are 

 left a little obscure. It is not stated to what degree, if any, we may be al- 

 lowed to select the type of a comprehensive genus by (metaphorically) 

 questioning its author as to which species he would have regarded as 

 typical. Nor is it clear whether the results of the application of Canon 

 XXI (the earliest restriction of a genus held to be valid) could be set 

 aside either by the application of the process of elimination (Canon 

 XXIII), or on account of the supposed views of the author of the genus. 

 My own idea is that Canon XXI should be regarded as of superior valid- 

 ity, in case of difference of result being reached by these three processes. 



The 'Code' agrees with all others in the rejection oi tioiniua ntida, but 

 it differs from some others in regarding a 'typonym' as something more 

 than a bare name, and as therefore worthy of recognition. 



In this regard the 'Code' is, justly or not, most likely to receive criticism 

 from workers in other fields. Most other departments of zoology have 

 but little to do with 'new genera' defined solely by the specification of a 

 typical species. 



These 'typonyms' have been generally discarded as the useless product 

 of lazy or 'literary' naturalists, on the general ground formulated by Pro- 

 fessor Cope, that "science is science and not literature," and that its 

 names are meaningless, except as "handles to facts." It is. however, ap- 

 parently the general feeling of ornithologists that names of this sort are 

 too firmly fixed in their science to be now set aside. The Committee on 

 the 'Code' goes so far as to say (p. 52) that "the mere mention of a type 

 has been found to be often a better index to an author's meaning than is 

 frequently a diagnosis or even a long description." 



This may be true ; but it is equivalent to saying that if a certain author 



