1911] Composition of Taxonomic Papers 203 



their value. At that, why a composite terminology? Why not. 

 a restricted nomenclature based on a few names with divisions 

 indicated by subnumerals, as red 1, red 2, red 3, etc.. blue 1, 

 blue 2, etc., etc.? 



Good works on colors exist, notably Ridgeway's Nomencla- 

 ture of Colors, as adopted by Ornithologists. (Unfortunately 

 this excellent work is long, out of print, and because of its lim- 

 ited edition it is now practically impossible to purchase a copy 

 in the book-market). But for practical purposes a simple chart, 

 as that hand-painted by Frederick Oughton (London), if se- 

 lected by a representative commission of entomologists, could 

 be manufactured at low expense, which would be easily justified 

 by the demand. This would offer a standard for all times, not 

 to mention the other obvious advantages resulting thereby. 



III. Standards of Nomenclature. 



A. Generic and Specific Nomenclature. — This is the only 

 sphere where standards already exist. These standards are the 

 codes of zoological nomenclature, such as the International 

 Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the A. O. U. Code of Nomen- 

 clature, etc., which are commonly followed by zoologists. If 

 I say "followed by zoologists," the phrase must be given the 

 most general and generous interpretation. Speaking of a class 

 I can say "commonly"; but when speaking of groups of special- 

 ists — to say it mildly, many groups use the nomenclature of 

 1810 instead of 1010. This sounds anomalous, but it is not. 

 For the regulation of nomenclature by codes of universal 

 sanction is comparatively recent, and the commissions are only 

 gradually bringing order into the nomenclatural chaos that 

 existed before their day. 



One cannot expect, I suppose, that a specialist on the bio- 

 logical phase of insects should be interested in the "arbitrary, 

 dry" codes of nomenclature. Yet it must be remembered, that 

 taxonomists alone have caused the chaos. Taxonomy is ' 

 "arbitrary" also. What one man considers a variety, another 

 calls a distinct species; and still another refuses to recognize 

 either opinion. Or are "splitters" and "lumpers" only births 

 of fancy, or memories of the distant past? 



The aims of the codes of nomenclature are to make the 

 nomenclature as free and unencumbered as possible. Hence the 

 rules set down for guidance. If taxonomists disdain, or even 

 refuse, to follow these rules, who else should follow them? 



