1 24 Correspondence . |_ Jan . 



of mutual agreement in respect to nomendatorial rules, and repeated efforts 

 have been made to prepare codes that should be so reasonable in their pro- 

 visions as to meet the approval of at least the majority of zoologists. The 

 most important move in this direction was the appointment, some years 

 since, by the International Zoological Congress of a representative com- 

 mittee to study the already existing codes and, on the basis of this exami- 

 nation, to formulate a code of rules that should meet as nearly as possible, 

 in the estimation of the committee, the requirements of modern zoological 

 nomenclature, this code to receive the endorsement of the International 

 Zoological Congress, and thus carry with it the influence and approval of 

 a representative international body of zoologists. While such a code, of 

 course, would not be mandatory, the solicitude of all working zoologists 

 to secure uniformity of usage in matters of nomenclature would naturally 

 tend to the waiving of personal preferences and prejudices for the sake of 

 stability and uniformity in nomenclature. 



A code of nomendatorial rules must necessarily be to some degree arbi- 

 trary in its fundamental principles, and a compromise in respect to many 

 important details. Most of us have strong opinions and preferences on 

 many points, but in case they should run counter to the rulings of a repre- 

 sentative international committee one should consider that loyalty to the 

 best interest of science in so important a matter as uniformity and stability 

 in nomenclature would render it laudable for one to contribute his mite in 

 securing such desirable ends by waiving his preferences and accepting 

 what such a body of naturalists had decided was for the general good. To 

 do otherwise would be to assume the role of an obstructionist, whose ' eccen- 

 tricities ' in nomendatorial matters it would be proper for other zoologists 

 to ignore. 



Thus it is a matter of serious regret that Dr. Sharpe, in his ' Hand-List 

 of the Genera and Species of Birds,' should have persisted in taking Linn- 

 aeus at 1766 instead of 1758 as the starting point of binomial nomenclature, 

 thus putting the work seriously out of touch with present tendencies and 

 usage, to the inconvenience of the great majority of workers in the same 

 field. The placing, in the same work, of species and subspecies, on the 

 same basis as regards nomenclature is also a most inconvenient and unsci- 

 entific archaism, not to say 'eccentricity,' greatly to be regretted. It is 

 individualism of this sort that is retarding uniformity and stability in 

 nomenclature. 



For many years we have been an admirer of Dr. Hartert's careful work 

 and advanced methods, and have often had the pleasure, as a reviewer, of 

 commending his works and papers. Some twenty years ago the A. O. U. 

 published a 'Code of Nomenclature,' which introduced a number of innova- 

 tion-;, among them the adoption of the 10th edition of the 'Systema Na- 

 tursB Linnei' as the starting point of binomial nomenclature, the adoption 

 of trinomials for subspecies, and the non-e.nendation of names. They 

 each encountered for a time much opposition, but in recent years all have 

 found their way into nearly all of the modsrn codes of nomenclature, in- 



