326 



Recent Literature. [^ t k 



Society adopted in 1894 a code of rules for zoological nomenclature, 1 

 which, while differing quite radically in several important points from 

 the British Association Code, is fortunately in essential accord with all 

 other recent Codes, the tendency being toward unity on the few leading 

 points in which the British Code differs from the later systems of rules. 

 In respect to the German Code, it may be sufficient to say that in only one 

 particular does it differ from the A. O. U. Code, namely, in permitting 

 "purely orthographical correction when the word is, without doubt, 

 wrongly written or incorrectly transcribed." This is a minor point, in 

 no way seriously affecting names.' 2 As compared with the British Code, 

 it (1) adopts the Xth edition of Linnaeus's ' Systema Naturae' as the 

 starting point for the law of priority; (2) it disclaims any relationship 

 between the nomenclature of zoology and botany; (3) the same term may 

 be used for the generic and specific name of a species when these names 

 have priority. 



As Mr. Sclater points out, these are the three essential points of differ- 

 ence between the German and British Codes, the latter adopting the Xth 

 edition of Linnaeus as its starting point for the law of priority, and hold- 

 ing that the same generic name must never be used in botany and zoology, 

 and that a new specific name must be given to a species when its old 

 name has been adopted for a genus. 



On all these points Mr. Sclater upholds the British system. Respect- 

 ing the first he says: "Strickland, the founder of our modern Codes of 

 Nomenclature, after deliberately considering the point, adopted the latest 

 and most perfect edition of the ' Systema Naturae' as his starting point. 

 I think we should do unwisely to deviate from Strickland's views on 

 this subject. . . . On the ground of priority, therefore, I claim that, 

 as first decided by Strickland, we ought to adopt the twelfth and most 

 pei feet edition of the 'Systema Naturae' as the basis of modern Nomen- 

 clature." This, as has been repeatedly shown, is a lame defense, hardly 

 worthy of serious consideration. But are the statements regarding Strick- 

 land quite correct? According to the 'Revised Rules ' of the British 

 Association : " In Mr. II. E. Strickland's original draft of these Rules 

 and Recommendations the edition of Linnaeus was left blank, and the 

 Xllth was inserted by the Manchester Committee." There is, besides, 

 evidence to show that Mr. Strickland considered the Xth edition as the 

 starting point for binomial nomenclature.' 5 



1 Regeln fur die wissenschaftliche Benennung der Thiere zusammengestellt 

 von der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig, 1894. 



2 The A. O. U. Code (Canon XL) provides that "The original orthography 

 of a name is to be rigidly preserved, unless a typographical error is evident." 

 This, it must be admitted, has met with wide-spread disapproval, though 

 advocated by De Candolle in 1S83, and in favor of which, in the interest of 

 absolute fixity of names, there is still much to be said. 



3 Cf. Auk, I, 1SS4, p. 400. 



