136 Dr. E. Lbnuberg on Binary Nomenclature. 



tinues on the next page, " It is clear that Gronoiv's nomen- 

 clature is binary * — tliat is, he names two units or things, 

 genera and species. His generic names, therefore, correspond 

 to the provisions of the Code, and fl?-e to be accepted "^ as 

 available under the Code." In this remarkable conclusion 

 11 members of the Commission joined with the Secretary, 

 and thus the " Opiuion " was passed. Only oue of the 

 members voting dissented, distinctly saying that Gronow 

 has not applied tlie principles of binary nomenclature. 



By this "Opinion/^ however, the Commission has decided 

 that a specific designation which is polynominai at the same 

 time can be binary ! This ai)pears to be a cuntradictio in 

 adjecto, unless to the word " binary " is given a meaning con- 

 trary to what is generally understood by this word in Natural 

 History. Strange to say, the Commission appears to have 

 done that. Another of the " Opinions" (no. 35 f) is said to 

 consider " types of genera of binary but not binominal 

 authors" ! This Opinion is also written by Dr. Stiles, and 

 none of the Commissioners voting has had anything to 

 remark with regard to whether such an interrogation as this 

 is entitled to be discussed by the Commission. '* Opiuion 

 20 " appears thus in the mind of the Commission to have 

 already settled the question concerning the interpretation of 

 " binary " as having in zoological nomenclature a meaning 

 different from, and nearly opposite to, that of binominal. 



Let us then return to ''Opinion 20" and see how it 

 corresponds with the '' International Hules of Zoological 

 Nomenclature." Article 2 of tliese reads as follows : " The 

 scientific designation of animals is uninominal for sub- 

 genera and all higher groups, binominal for species, and 

 trinominal for subspecies." It is evident euough that this 

 Article does not leave room for any polynominai names — 

 on the contrary, it states explicitly that the specific names 

 shall be binominal. Gronovius' nomenclature is thus not 

 in accordance with these Hules. 



Article 25, b, of the latter states that the law of priority 

 can be carried out only on the condition " that the author 

 has applied the principles of binary nomenclature." The 

 validity of this is admitted by the writer of " Opinion 20," 

 "who even quoted this passage. Nevertheless, he says that 

 Gronovius' nomenclature is polynominai and ^' binary " 

 without detecting any oj)position between these two words. 

 On the contrary, he gives the explanation quoted above, 



* ItaJkshj the present writer. 



t Smithsonian I'ublication 2031, pp. 82-83. 



