1904 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



233 



imals and plants, and the retention of such 

 names. These rules relating to the names 

 of animals (including, of course, insects) 

 are known as the "Canons of Zoological 

 Nomenclature;" and all recognized author- 

 ities in zoology conform in the main to these 

 rules, although in some of the minor points 

 there are diflftrences of interpretation of the 

 rules themselves or of their application. 

 Those of the rules which pertain especially 

 to the case in hand read as follows: 



XII. The law of priority begins to be operative at the 

 beginning of zoological nomenclature. 



XIII. Zoological nomenclature begins at 1758, the 

 date of the tenth edition of Systema Natures ot L,in- 

 nzEus. 



XIV. The adoption of a "statute of limitation" in 

 modification of the lex prioritatis is impracticable and 

 inadmi.ssible. 



XV. The law of priority is to be rigidly enforced in 

 respect to all generic, specific, and subspecific names. 



Whenever a worker in the fieid of zoolog- 

 ical science discovers a form of animal life 

 which differs in some essential particular 

 from all other known forms, and which, 

 therefore, can not be recognized by compar- 

 ison with any published description as a 

 certain genus or species, he is entitled to 

 give the new group a fainily name, a gener- 

 ic name, or a specific name, as the case 

 may warrant. His own surname is always 

 attached, then, to the name ol the group in 

 question as the original describer of the 

 group and the authority for the name. The 

 first specimen thus described is known as 

 the type specimen. Actual publication (put- 

 ting in print) of the name with such a 

 technical description of the object as will 

 enable others to recognize and determine 

 exactly the familj-, genus, and species of a 

 similar specimen, is the only proof which is 

 accepted of the right of the name to remain. 

 It is expected that a student of a given 

 group of plants or animals will familiarize 

 himself with all of the species that have 

 been described in that group, or at least 

 with all that are likely to come within his 

 range. But some specialists, less industri- 

 ous than others, do not take the time and 

 trouble to look up all of the described spe- 

 cies of a group. They simply name and 

 describe whatever seems new to them. Thus 

 the science is encumbered with synon3ms 

 which, sooner or later, must give place to 

 the earlier-published naines when soine 

 careful investigator points out these. (See 

 Rule XV. above. ) 



Now, it happened that the great Swedish 

 naturalist, Linnseus, described the honey- 

 bee in 1761 under the name Apis niellifica, 

 and published this description. All down 

 through the years writers have used this 

 term, although some at different periods 

 endeavored to introduce a change. The 

 name mellifica prevailed, however, in the 

 main, although the modern rules for scien- 

 tific nomenclature were not formulated (or 

 at least not adopted) till the congress of bot- 

 anists, held in Paris in 1867; and their more 

 definite form now governing in this country 

 was not adopted until 1886. But in 18% an 

 indefatigable worker in the field of insect 

 life, Prof. K. W. von Dalla Tcrre, of Aus- 



tria, published a catalog of the known Api- 

 dcr, or bee family, this being Vol. X. of his 

 great work, " Catalogus Hymenoptorum." 

 Dr. von Dalla Torre had unearthed in an 

 old volume an earlier description of the 

 honey-bee than that published under the 

 n me Apis mellifica by Linnjeus in 1761. 

 Oddly enough, the older name and descrip- 

 tion were by Linnseus himself in the tenth 

 edition of his Systema Natures, 1758. Here 

 the name Apis mellifera was given. 



Considering the vast field covered by 

 Linnaeus, and the great number of scientif- 

 ic names which he bestowed upon plants 

 and animals in his work of bringing order 

 out of the existing chaos of scientific no- 

 menclature, it would not have been surpris- 

 ing had he, three years later, overlooked 

 the fact that he had already named and 

 described the honey-bee. I do not know, 

 however, that any testimony bearing on 

 this point exists. What seems more likely 

 is that Linn^us merely desired to change 

 the name because he had come to the con- 

 clusion that mellifica (honey maker) would 

 be more appropriate than mellifera (honey- 

 bearer). No law of zoologists interfered 

 then with such a change. It was merely a 

 question as to whether scientific writers 

 would adopt it or not. 



But undtr the present rules of zoological 

 nomenclature which are quoted above, it is 

 plain that the name published in 1761 had 

 to give way for the earlier published name, 

 mellifera. It is equally plain (Rules XII. 

 and XIII.) that no older synonym, even 

 though a hundred might be found, could 

 now or hereafter replace the name mellifera. 

 As a matter of fact, a dozen or more writ- 

 ers (Aldrovandi, Moufet, Swammerdam, 

 Riiaumur, etc.) had used the name mel- 

 lifera for the honey-bee before 1758; but 

 Rule Xlll. bars the name of each and 

 every one of them from standing now as the 

 authority for the specific name mellifera. 



It is further seen that the change from 

 mellifica to mellifera was not one adopted 

 arbitrarily nor at the whim of any person, 

 but that the present name is one which takes 

 its place as the result of the application of 

 rules now universally recognized — rules 

 which were adopted only after m jst careful 

 consideration and criticism by the foremast 

 biologists of the world. As such it must 

 and will be generally accepted whenever 

 known. 



For my own part I prefer the specific 

 name mellifica, believing, as I do, that bees 

 do really make honey; for surely the prod- 

 uct when they have finished their work is 

 ver}^ different from the raw nectar c irried 

 into the hives. The carrying or bearing is 

 but incidental to the process of making the 

 honey and securing it for their stores. How- 

 ever, this is not a matter which is decidt d by 

 fashion, individual taste, nor precedent as 

 to present usage. The settled rule makes 

 it clear for all, and but one of the two 

 terms can be correct. Cowan and Cheshire, 

 cited by the editor of Gleanings, wrote 

 their works on apiculture before Dalla Tor- 



