Strict Apidicution of the Prioritt/ Rah. 7 73 



tills Coniiuission of Nomcuclafurc lias obtained its mandate 

 as iiittTuatioiial. This ])art ot" the question may, however, 

 be passed over, since evcrvljoily (lonl)tless will a<^ree that it is 

 most desirable to have the zoologieal nonionclatiiiv rcf^nlated 

 by iuteruational rules, i^ut the eondition should he that 

 such rules are reasonable, which does not hold good for the 

 striet application of the priority rule in the oijiuiou of many 

 zoologists. Of fioir inauii ? 



A way of ascertaining h(jw many zoologists desire to follow 

 the priority rule strictly in all cases and how many waut to 

 liave the more important names excepted from the rule 

 would be to send au inquiry round to all zoologists of the 

 world — and it would involve no trouble worth speaking of 

 to the zoologists asked to answer the question. In this way 

 a reliable proof of the position of the majority of zoologists 

 towards this much disputed rule might be obtained. 



That it will be possible to cany out such a general vote 

 without great ditficulty seems beyond doubt, and as a proof 

 of this is here offered the vote of the Scandinavian and 

 Finnish zoologists. 



The result of the vote is very striking. Of the 122 names 

 there are 2 (two) for the strict application of the priority rule 

 in all cases, which means less than 2 per ceat. It may, jjcrhaps, 

 not be unreasonable to conclude from this result that the 

 number of those zoologists who swear to the strict applica- 

 tion of the priority rule is upon the whole very small, the 

 great majority wishing to have the more important names 

 preserved unaltered. 



It is to be hoped that the zoologists of other countries 

 will follow the example given here. When this has been 

 done, and it has been definitely proved that the great majoritv 

 object to the strict ap[)lication of the priority rule, it may 

 perhaps be expected that the tyranny of that notorious law, 

 which has already done so much harm to science, will be 

 thrown off; and then, perhaps, the International Commission 

 will see that it is rather its duty to arrange for the codifica- 

 tion of the desired names in accordance with the wishes of 

 the zoologists. 



It should be pointed out that for the above introductory 

 notes the author (Dr. Th. Mortensen) is alone responsible. 



He begs to oHer his sincere thanks to the followino- 

 colleagues, who have assisted him in collecting the names : — 

 Prof. A. Appellof, I'rof. O. Carlgren, Dr. A. Luther, 

 Dr. O. Nordgaard, Dr. I. Triigardh, Prof. II. Wallengreu, 

 and Dr. A. AVolIebfek. 



One of the chief difficulties in arranging this vote has been 



