NO. I HISTORY OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE^ — STEJNEGER 9 



pece " and by article 4a : " II n'y a pas lieu de fixer dans le temps une 

 limite a la loi de priorite ; toute denomination generique ou specifique 

 conforme aux regies de la nomenclature binominale devra etre 

 adoptee, meme si elle est anterieure a Linne." In his " rapport " 

 Douville elaborates this principle further by referring to Tournefort 

 who in 1700 " repartit I'ensemble du regne vegetal en un certain nom- 

 bre de genres comprenant chacun une serie d'especes, caracterisees 

 par leur differences" (p. 596). 



Stirred by the action of the geologists the Zoological Society of 

 France in the meantime (January ii, 1881) decided not to stand aside 

 as a spectator but to take an active part in the discussion. A commis- 

 sion, consisting of Blanchard, Chaper, Jousseaume, Jullien, Kiinckel 

 d'Herculais, Lataste, and Simon, was appointed charged with pre- 

 paring " un corps de regies applicables a la nomenclature des etres 

 organises " — consequently covering the same field as the paleontologi- 

 cal committee. The commission promptly submitted during the same 

 year a code of " Regies," almost as brief as that of the paleontologists, 

 consisting as it did of only 17 articles, and accompanied by a " Rap- 

 port " by Mr. Chaper. It is first to be noted that the zoologists follow 

 the paleontologist in accepting Tournefort as father of the system of 

 generic-specific nomenclature, and consequently in not incorporating 

 in the code a definite date as a starting point for the generic and the 

 specific denominations, both affirming in the identical language that 

 " le nom attribue a chaque genre et a chaque espece est celui sous 

 lequel ils ont ete le plus anciennement designes " (Paleont. Code, 

 art. 3 ; Zool. Code, art. 11). Altogether, the two codes are based 

 essentially on the same principles, embodied in the same language, 

 and but slightly altered in the sequence of their articles. Thus 

 articles i and 2 of the Paleontological Code correspond to articles 1-7 

 of the zoologists' code; 8, 9 and 10 of the former are identical 

 with 8 and 9 of the latter. Article 10 of the zoological code is addi- 

 tional and refers to the names of families. P. C. articles 3-5 cor- 

 respond to the Z. C. art. 11, and P. C. 5 has become Z. C. 12 and 13 ; 

 6 has become 14; and 7 embraces 15 and 16. Article 17 of the 

 zoologists' code is additional and provides only for the rejection of a 

 later name having in Latin a pronunciation so little different from 

 the earlier one that confusion might arise. 



But while thus there is general agreement both in principle and 

 verbal expression, there is a significant amplification of one phrase 

 in the zoological code which merits special consideration. 



Article i of the Paleontological Code began as follows : " La 

 nomenclature exclusivement adoptee est la nomenclature binomi- 



