OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 

 COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 



JULY, igio 



Bv THE Ri:\'. THOMAS R. K. STEHIUXC., M.A.. F.R.S. 



'■ I WENT by the field of the slothful, ami 1>\ tlie 

 vineyard of the man void of understanding; ; and. 

 lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles 

 had covered the face thereof." So spoke one of 

 old, reputed to be the greatest naturalist of his age, 

 supremeK' con\'ersant alike with the \'egetable and 

 animal kingdoms of nature. Well, here, nearly 

 three thousand years later. \\e ha\e the field of the 

 industrious and the vine\ard of distinguished 

 ;?o6logists, and. lo. it is all grown over with thorns. 

 and nettles cover the face thereof. What these 

 thorns and nettles are I shall seek to e.\i)lain, with 

 ready recognition that to a large extent they may be 

 due much more to the soil which has to be culti\'ated 

 than to an\- fault of the cultivators. 



To begin with, we are at an ejioch when the unitx' 

 that underlies the diversitv of natural phenomena is 

 making itself more and more appreciated. Yet 

 botanists and zoologists have chosen this ver\- 

 period for settling how to name the objects of their 

 respective sciences by separate sets of rules. Though 

 alike accepting the introduction b\' Linnaeus of the 

 binominal or binomial system as a starting jioint for 

 the scientific nomenclature of living organisms, the\' 

 have nevertheless chosen each a different date for 

 that starting point. E\-entuall\' the zoologists, who 

 have already harked back from A.D. 1767 to 1758. 

 will perhaps do themselves the credit of joining the 

 botanists in dating the beginning of the world 

 (of Natural History) from 1751. 



In the ne.xt place, we have to consider the main 

 purpose of the jiresent International Commission. 

 A brief history of it is given in the pamphlet under 

 review.* Its appointment dates from 1895, at the 

 Third International Zoological Congress. The 

 following Congress, the only one that has been held 

 in England, was a brilliant gathering at Cambridge, 

 in 1898. On that opi^ortune occasion all public 

 discussion of the question in hand was deliberately 

 quashed. The commissioners, five in number, were 

 authorised privateh- to coopt ten others. No fault 

 can be found with the standard of abilit\- in the men 

 chosen to serve. Rather, in some cases, one might 

 feel that a razor was being used to cut through a 

 whetstone. B}- the arrangement that at each 

 triennial Congress a group of fivt' members should 

 retire, the term of office for each group becomes 

 normall}' nine years, sufficient, one would think, to 

 secure continuit\' without stagnation in the methods 



and resolves of the Commission. Ikit this salutary 

 rule is at once stultified b\- a rider permitting the 

 immediate re-election of retiring members. .Xjiart, 

 however, from any faults in its constitution, the 

 purpose of the Commission is on the face of it 

 highh- laudable, namelw to secure uniformit\' among 

 zoologists all o\er the workl in the technical 

 designation of the objects they study. 



How, then, is this purpose being pursued, and 

 w ith what chances of success ? Confessedly, '" the 

 Commission has no legislative power," nor, for 

 that matter, has the Congress which appoints it. 

 The work nuist be done bv persuasion and consent. 

 Yet. so far as appears, the numerous societies in 

 Great Britain and Ireland more especialh' con- 

 cerned with zoology have not been in an\- way 

 approached for an expression of their wishes or 

 opinions. An\- society, or any private individual, 

 ma\' submit to the Commission views or problems, 

 but no judgment upon them can be hoped for unless 

 they have been sent in at least one year prior to the 

 meeting of the next Congress; thus, perhaps, leaving 

 an unhappy enquirer with an interval of three years 

 and eleven months or more betw een his question and 

 the tortoise-like response. When these dilatory 

 tactics are understood, it is probable that writers will 

 act on their own advice with more satisfactory 

 promptness. If a member of the Commission were 

 himself bringing out a treatise, he would assuredly 

 tr\' to bring it u[) to date by critical citation of the 

 latest arguments, whether for or against his own 

 point of view. Wh)' should the Commission pursue 

 a different policy ? It is evident that they do, for 

 in Januar\-, 1903, the Zoologisclter Anzeiger published 

 a long article by Dr. von Linstow. which in May, 

 1907, was translated in the Annals and Magazine of 

 Natural History, under the heading " Modern 

 Helminthological Nomenclature," while the Com- 

 mission in its recently published opinions does not 

 condescend to argue with Dr. von Linstow, or to 

 notice him at all. But to ignore is not to conciliate, 

 much less to convince. 



Without trespassing on the science of the 

 Helminthologists, which has thus been left in the 

 lurch, I shall venture to challenge certain opinions 

 here rendered in a branch of study with which I am 

 more familiar. Opinion 1 1 deals with " The 

 Designation of Genotypes by Latreille. 1810." The 

 case is stated h\ Miss M. J. Rathlum. the eminent 



Piililislu'd li\' I hr SmilliMiiiiuii Instilutimi. \\'ahliini;toii 



46« 



