NO. I HISTORY OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE STEJNEGER I5 



International (Paris-Moscow) Code was made the basis of the revi- 

 sion and not the codification submitted by Carus (and conditionally 

 adhered to by Stiles) to the Cambridge Congress. 



Disagreements manifested themselves at the very first paragraph. 

 It will be remembered that in the original code, the nomenclature was 

 declared to be " binaire et hinominale." 



Dr. Stiles, who was the secretary of the Commission, and the pres- 

 ent writer, who had had considerable to do with the framing of the 

 A. O. U. Code (Science, vol. 7, Apr. 23, 1886, p. 374) considered 

 themselves called upon to represent the viewpoint of the American 

 zoologists. While admitting that the system of nomenclature was 

 binary in the sense that generic and subgeneric designations are of a 

 class by themselves and that the specific and subspecific designations 

 belong to a second category,^ they were not prepared to accept the 

 modern nomenclature as binominal with the subspecifical denomina- 

 tion thrown in as a merely tolerated appendix such as contemplated 

 in the French and German codes. Nor would a declaration that Zoo- 

 logical Nomenclature is binary and trinominal cover the ground. 

 Their view being finally adopted, one of the German members, 

 Dr. von Mahrenthal, offered the following substitute : 



" Die wissenschaftliche Bennennung der Tiere ist f iir das Subgenus 

 und alle iibergeordneten Kategorien mononominal, fiir die Species 

 binominal, fiir die Subspecies trinominal " (the nomenclature of sub- 

 genera and higher groups is mononominal, of species binominal, of 

 subspecies trinominal). 



This version, which clearly established the modern zoological 

 nomenclature as trinominal as against the former binominal method, 

 being considered sufficiently explicit and embodying the idea of the 

 A. O. U. canons vi and viii, was adopted unanimously (among those 

 voting being Carus, Schulze, v. Mahrenthal, Blanchard, Stiles, 

 Stejneger, consequently representatives of all three codes). 



The discussion of the Code then progressed article by article, until 

 article 44 (Paris-lMoscow Code; art. 33 Blanchard Rep. 1897; Qiapt. 

 vii. Art. I, Stiles-Carus Rep.; art. 25 present Intern. Code), which 

 was read : 



" Le nom attribue a chaque genre et a chaque espece ne pent etre 

 que celui sous lequel ils ont ete le plus anciennement designes, a la 

 condition : b. — Que I'auteur ait efl:'ectivement entendu appliquer les 

 regies de la nomenclature binaire." ^ 



^ The nomenclature of the A. O. U. Code is still binary in that sense, although 

 trinominal. 



^ Remember that the other versions had practically accepted this identical 

 wording, except Stiles', in which binominal was introduced in place of binaire. 



