46 CODE OF NOMENCLATURE. 



nomenclature is not classification, and since our knowledge of genetic rela- 

 tionships even within specific groups is egregiously imperfect, only change 

 and confusion can result from any attempt to express genetic relationship in 

 the collocation of subspecific designations. 



In cases where obscurity might arise from designating the earliest-named 

 form of a group of subspecies by simply a binomial name, the specific term 

 may be repeated (e. g., Melospiza fasciata fasciata), or it may be followed 

 by the word typica (e. g., Melospiza fasciata typica). 



For the sake of brevity it may be even desirable, where the context makes 

 the reference unequivocal, to abbreviate the second term of the trinomial, as 

 is done with the generic part of binomial names (e. g., M.f. rufina = Me- 

 lospiza fasciata rnfind). 



CANON XXX. Specific names when adopted as generic are 

 not to be changed. 



REMARKS. This Canon is diametrically opposed to 13 of the origi- 

 nal B. A. Code, which declares that " specific names, when adopted as 

 generic, must be changed." The Bath Committee, however, recommended 

 that, when a specific name had been raised to a generic, "it is the generic 

 name which must be thrown aside, not the old specific name." Both rulings 

 were to the effect that the specific and generic names of a species should 

 not be identical ; the only objection thereto urged by the B. A. Committee 

 being the " inelegance <& this method." Many of these 'inelegances' had 

 already crept into zoological nomenclature, and they have since greatly in- 

 creased, although the majority of authors have avoided them. Yet all the 

 later codes are at least constructively in favor of their admission, and they 

 have recently received sanction in other high quarters. (Cf. DALL, Report, 

 pp. 50, 51.) To rule against them would be clearly contrary to the principle 

 of stability in names and the spirit of the present Code. While your Com- 

 mittee would strongly discourage the practice of elevating specific names 

 to generic rank, those already thus instituted should be accepted. 



" The practice," says Dall, " is objectionable on account of its producing 

 tautological inelegance, and because it has resulted in the formation of a 

 number of generic names of adjective form. On the other hand, in connec- 

 tion with certain of the Linnaean and other ancient and universally known 

 species, it had several beneficial effects. It recalled the typical form for 

 which the genus was constituted, and in many cases it might rightly be 

 regarded rather as a change of rank than the creation of a new name. The 

 ancient species .... often covered an assemblage of forms equivalent to 

 a modern genus." Respecting the ruling of the Bath Committee, Mr. Dall 

 continues : "This innovation, the sweeping character of which the Commit- 

 tee cannot have realized, if carried into effect would uproot hundreds of the 

 generic names best known to science, and so familiar that the fact that they 



