Di'. E. Loniiberg on Dinar)/ Xomendature. 137 



viz., tliat "Gronow's nomenclature is binary" l)ccause "lie 

 names two units or tliin;;s, genera and sj)ecies/' 



This (leHnition of binary in combination with nomenclature 

 is, however, entirely wrong and illogical^ because it is in 

 opposition to the original meaning of the word as well as to 

 the import it luis received in Natural History. 



Binary (binarius) is derived from bis = twice, bini = two 

 each time, twins. " Binary '^ means thus, consisting of two 

 things, twofold, double. Consequently a binary name is a 

 name consisting of two units, /. e. of two words (X.B., not a 

 designation of two things), and it is identical with binominal 

 {resj}., binomial). Binary nomenclature cannot be anything 

 else than a nomenclature in which binary ( = binominal) 

 names are used, or identical with binomcnclature. It has 

 been generally applied in such a sense hitherto and must 

 still be used in that way. It is thus impossible for me to 

 give any other interpretation to the words (iu Article 25, b, of 

 the Internationa] Rules) " principles of binary nomenclature^' 

 than that they are efjual to "principles of binomcnclature." 



Fortuuately, Article 26 of the repeatedly quoted Rules 

 proves with absolute certainty that 1 am quite right in this. 

 Article 26 reads as follows : — " The tenth edition of Linne's 

 ' Systema Natures' 1758, is the work which inaugurated the 

 consistent general application of the binary nomenclature 

 in Zoology. The date 1758, therefore, is accepted as the 

 starting-point of zoological nomenclature and of the Law of 

 Priority .'' Now, it is well known to every zoologist that it 

 really is the binominal names, or the binominal nomencla- 

 ture (binomenclature), which received " consistent general 

 application " in ' Systema Naturte,' cditio x. (1758). The 

 word " binary '^ in Article 26 of the International Rules 

 of Nomenclature must, therefore, stand for binominal, and 

 it appears absolutely^ inconsistent to give the same word 

 " binary '^ quite another purport in Article 25, b, to suit the 

 interpretations of Dr. Stiles. 



It must also be remembered that if the word " binary " 

 were not to have the same meaning as binominal, but would 

 admit such a misinterpretation as Dr. Stiles has tried to 

 give it in " Opinion 20," it would be incorrect to determine 

 1758 as the ''starting-point" of zoological nomenclature. 

 "Binary" nomenclature in the Stilesian sense is much 

 older. Linne and Artedi had consistently applied the same 

 (that is, used an uuinominal constant generic name and a 

 " polynominal" specific designation at least twenty years 

 before), and a similar proceeding can be traced to still earlier 



