February 7, 1901] 



NA TURE 



349 



" Systema Naturae," considered hi mself justified in " pro- 

 moting " the speci fie title camelopardalis to generic rank, 

 and proposing a new specific name for the animal thus 

 designated. Cervus camelopardalis, Linn., thus became 

 Camelopardalis giraffa, Gmelin. Similarly, in much later 

 years. Gray changed the Antilope strepsiceros of Pallas 

 into Strepsiceros kudu. According, however, to the 

 modern school of zoologists, such changes were totally 

 unjustifiable ; and they hence advocate what is known 

 as the ''''Scomber scomber" principle, on which the title 

 of the kudu becomes Strepsiceros strepsiceros. To many 

 (among them the secretary of the Zoological Society) 

 such tautological titles are most repugnant ; and in 

 the case of the animal last mentioned they accordingly 

 prefer to retain the title proposed by Gray. In the case 

 of the giraffe, by a fortunate circumstance, the difficulty 

 does not arise, for the generic title Giraffa had been 

 proposed at an earlier date than the " promotion " of 

 Camelopardalis, and the name of the animal conse- 

 quently became automatically Giraffa camelopardalis. 

 If the "sacredness" of the species name be insisted 

 upon, and the tautology objected to, a way out of the 

 difficulty in the case of the kudu and many other 

 analogous instances might be found by making a new 

 generic title, when the animal might be called Kudua 

 strepsiceros. But the case of the striped hyaena, the 

 Canis hyaena of Linnaeus, then arises as an example of 

 another difficulty. For this animal was subsequently 

 named Hyaena striata, altered by the modern school to 

 Hyaena hyaena ; and if we refuse to accept the latter 

 and yet desire to retain the original species name, we 

 have to abrogate such a familiar generic title as Hyaena, 

 and likewise the family name Hyaetiidae (for there are 

 but few who would advocate the retention of a family 

 name when the generic title from which it is derived is 

 abolished). The older naturalists, in the absence of any 

 law to the contrary, considered themselves perfectly 

 justified in promoting the specific title to generic rank, 

 and personally we fail to see on what grounds the present 

 generation think themselves entitled to override this de- 

 cision, as, in our own opinion, there is no right or wrong 

 in the matter. That similar changes are now forbidden 

 is, of course, fully understood. 



But bad, in the opinion of many, as is the tautology 

 of Strepsiceros strepsiceros, worse is to follow. By those 

 who admit the principle of " trinomialism" to designate 

 local races of animals, if the kudu were divisible into 

 two or more such races the typical form would, accord- 

 ing to American writers, become Strepsiceros strepsiceros 

 strepsiceros. And, again, if the lesser kudu were sub- 

 generically separated from the larger species, the title 

 of the typical race of the latter would become Strepsiceros 

 {Strepsiceros) strepsiceros strepsiceros ! We do not like 

 to use the term absurdity in connection with the views 

 of others, but it becomes almost difficult to refrain. 



That some designation is advisable for local races of 

 species is admitted by nearly all, but there is still a re- 

 luctance among many to accept the aforesaid trinomialism. 

 To many such the interpolation of the word " var." be- 

 tween the specific and the racial title appears prefer- 

 able ; and to this plan there can be no objection, 

 albeit it is somewhat more cumbersome. It must, how- 

 ever, be borne in mind that when the word " var." is 

 inserted the third title must agree in gender with the 

 species name, whereas in trinomialism proper it agrees 

 with the genus name. To avoid tautology, many zoo- 

 logists use the designation "typicus" for the type race 

 of a species, but this usage is objected to by others in 

 that it is practically a new subspecific title. 



This, again, leads us to notice a modern change in 

 regard to subgeneric titles. Formerly, when a genus 

 was divided into subgenera, a new subgeneric name was 

 proposed for the typical group, e.g. Cervus {Euceruus) 

 elaphus for the red deer. Now, however, the practice is 



NO. 1632, VOL. 63] 



to repeat the generic name, as mstanced above m the 

 case of the kudu. In this connection it may be noticed 

 that even those who object to the '''•Scomber scomber''^ 

 principle come perilously near to it when subgeneric terms 

 are employed, as in Cervus {Dama) dama for the fallow- 

 deer, which they would call Dama vulgaris if regarded 

 as a separate genus. It should likewise be mentioned 

 that the bracketing of a name is only admissible when it 

 is used in a subgeneric sense, as above. Consequently 

 the practice of indicating a synonym in this manner, e.^. 

 Microtus {Arvicola), is totally unjustifiable, although it 

 is frequently practised by biologists other than system- 

 atists. 



The mention of Microtus, the title now employed by 

 the modern school to designate the voles in place of 

 Arvicola, which was in almost universal use a few years 

 ago, brings us to the vexed question of priority. Although 

 there are still many zoologists who adhere to the practice 

 of using names(both generic and specific) which, in spite of 

 not being the earliest, have been current in literature for a 

 long period, the general trend of opinion is all in favour 

 of the enforcement of the rule of priority (even to the 

 bitter end) among systematists. In the main, it must be 

 confessed that the advocates of this have reason on their 

 side, as otherwise we are landed in almost hopeless diffi- 

 culties. But admitting the general principle to be the most 

 logical, may there not be room for the exercise of some 

 discretion and common sense ? A naturalist, for instance, 

 years ago described, from a cave in America, what appears 

 to be an upper premolar tooth of the white-tailed deer, to 

 which he gave the name Odocoileus, on the supposition 

 that it represented an unknown type of animal. As a 

 matter of fact, he ought to have referred it to the genus 

 Cervus, as that genus was then understood. Yet 

 American naturalists propose to adopt this name for the 

 white-tailed deer and its allies. Such usage is a premium 

 on incompetence and ignorance ; and it does not seem 

 fair that names so given should supersede those proposed 

 by workers who know their business. Of course there 

 are many difficulties when the discretionary element is 

 once introduced, but, like all others, they are not insuper- 

 able when propel ly handled. 



One of the greatest evils arising from the wholesale 

 change of names that has been introduced of late years 

 through this revival of the right of priority is that it 

 renders obsolete to a great extent works such as Dr. 

 Wallace's "Geographical Distribution of Animals" — 

 works that ought to stand for all time. It further in- 

 volves the task of recollecting a double series of names 

 if such works are not to be cast aside in toto. It is 

 largely on this ground that so many biologists other than 

 systematists refuse to conform to the new view. The 

 evil induced by the change is undoubtedly great and 

 much to be deplored ; but it will certainly not be remedied 

 by the refusal of one section of workers to follow in the 

 footsteps of those of their brethren who alone have full 

 opportunities of arriving at the best decision with regard 

 to a matter bristling with difficulties. 



From priority in nomenclature the transition to the 

 question of preoccupation is an easy one. That the use 

 of a generic name in botany is no bar to its employment 

 is now generally conceded ; but it is considered advisable 

 that such names should be given as seldom as possible. 

 Most zoologists are likewise agreed that when absolutely 

 the same name has been once employed as the generic 

 designation of any group of animals (whether it be in use 

 or not), it cannot be employed for another. There is, 

 however, a want of unanimity as to whether the same 

 name with a different termination — e.g. Hydropotes and 

 Hydropota, or Mastodon and Mastodus — may be used 

 for two groups. Closely connected with this is the ques- 

 tion whether the transliteration or grammatical formation 

 of names should be amended — e.g. Machairodus to 

 Machaerodus, or Megatherium to Megalotherium j and 



