Vol xnr 



Correspondence. I 8 3 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



Some Questions of Nomenclature. 



Editors of ' The Auk ' : — 



Dear Sirs, — Those of us who have to deal with fine points of scientific 

 nomenclature will always be duly thankful to the A. O. U. Committee on 

 Nomenclature for the ' Code ' which was the result of their first labors, 

 and which has now become the standard not only of our ornithologists 

 and mammalogists but of most other American zoologists and botanists 

 as well. 



Occasionally, however, knotty questions present themselves for which 

 we find no ruling in the Code, and each author is compelled to decide 

 for himself, which results in great diversity of opinion. On some of 

 these questions a careful study of the ' Check-List ' shows that the A. O. U. 

 Committee did form their decision, but unfortunately did not include the 

 reasons therefor in the Code, nor give us any of the arguments in the case. 



I therefore wish to call especial attention to one or two points in the 

 hope that we may come to a little more definite understanding of them 

 and perhaps elicit an explanation from the A. O. U. Committee giving the 

 reasons for their rulings. 



The first question is in regard to the quotation of authorities for 

 manuscript names. 



For instance, an author, Smith, discovers a new^ bird for which he 

 proposes a name and prepares a description, then finding that another 

 author, Jones, is about to publish a paper on allied birds, he sends his 

 manuscript for Jones to incorporate in his paper. Or perhaps Smith 

 merely sends a specimen bearing the new name which he would propose 

 and calls attention to its most distinctive characters, leaving Jones to 

 prepare the description in his own words. In either case Jones gives 

 Smith credit for the new species by placing his name after the scientific 

 name as authority for it. Now the question is, are we in quoting the 

 name to cite Smith, the author of the species, or Jones the publisher of it, 

 as our authority. 



Those who would quote Jones claim that the first one to publish a 

 diagnosis of the species is the author to be quoted, because until the 

 description is published the name is a nomen nudum, and that the author 

 of the manuscript name is not authority for the description published by 

 the other. Furthermore, by quoting the author of the MS. name we give 

 no clue to the place of publication, which is one of the principal reasons 

 for quoting an authority. 



On the other hand, it is claimed that we have no right to ignore the 

 author of the MS. name, as he really recognized the species as new and 

 deserves the ' credit ' ; moreover, the author who published the description 



