Si rid Application of the riiority Rule. 771 



consider should be studied in connection with the prepara- 

 tion of an olliciiil list of ^jeneric names, and, I'urtlicr, to send 

 a separate list of 50-100 generic names in their speciality 

 which they look upon as the most im[iortant and most gene- 

 rally used ; each of these latter names should be accomj)anied 

 by the full and complete original bibliograjjliical reference, 

 by the name of the type s|)ccies, and the name of the order 

 and family to which the genus belongs. 



On the base of the study of the lists sent in the Com- 

 mission promises to submit to the next Congress mi Official 

 List of Generic Xatnes, with their genotypes, [)roposing that 

 this list should be adopted ami that m the future " no 

 zoologist shall upon nomenclatorial grounds change any 

 name in said list unless he first submits to the Commission 

 his reasons for making the change and unless the Commission 

 considers the reasons valid/' 



The lists should be scut in before Jan. 1, lUll. 



This invitation was the result of a proposition presented 

 tf) the International Commissiou on Zoological Nomenclature 

 from the British Association lor the Advancement of Science 

 and the Eastern Branch of the American Society of Zoologists 

 reeomuicndiug t/iti/ rertain very cominoii/y vaed zoolorjical 

 names slionhf he t.irt^pled from, the Law of Priority. TUe 

 result shows that the Commission has found no reason to 

 accept the proposition of the two Societies ; what the Com- 

 mission proposes to construct on the basis of the hoped-for 

 lists is by no means a list of names excepted from the Law of 

 Priority — when valid nomenclatorial reasons are found for 

 changing them, they may be changed with the permission of 

 the (-'ommission ! It has been found by the Commission 

 that the desire to have the more important names excepted 

 from the Law of Priority and protected against being cliauged 

 is not so widespread and deeply rooted as is assumed by some 

 zoologists. An efl'ort made by the Secretary to collect 

 from Zoologists the most commonly used and most important 

 generic names has as yet met with such poor success that the 

 conclusion does not seem entirely unjustified that some of 

 our colleagues who may be in favour of such a list are not 

 as vet sufficiently enthusiastic over the proposition to induce 

 them to demonstrate their desire by placing into the hands 

 of the Commission the data upon which such a list must of 

 necessity be based. Further, there are many colleagues who 

 are known to us to be directly and enthusiastically opposed 

 to such a list. It may perhaps be allowed to suggest that 

 the conclusions drawn from the results of the enquiries of 

 the Secretary are not quite justified. That it is not seen to 



