l6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 'J'J 



I have previously shown (p. ii) that this phraseology in the Paris- 

 Moscow Code meant to include the generic names of the binary but 

 not hinominal authors after 1758. Although realizing as a fact that 

 the meaning in the revised edition was the same as. in the original 

 edition, nevertheless the present writer — agreeing as I did with the 

 French view and insisting upon as close a conformity as possible 

 with that of the A. O. U. — raised the question whether it would not 

 be advisable to amend the phraseology so as to put the exact meaning 

 beyond any possibility of misinterpretation, especially in view of the 

 fact that the code of the German Zoological Society had a rule to the 

 opposite effect. At this point I was interrupted by Cams, who had 

 rendered the Blanchard (Paris-Moscow) version into German, with 

 the remark that all doubt had been eliminated by the introduction 

 of the new wording of article i (art. 2, new Intern. Code) to the 

 effect that the scientific designation of animals is uninominal for sub- 

 genera and genera, etc. In this he was supported by F, E. Schulze 

 and by v. Mahrenthal, who was the author of the redrafted article I. 

 Accepting this as a definite abandonment of the German standpoint 

 as against the united views of the French and American zoologists 

 as well as the English entomologists (and to some extent the Strick- 

 landian code of 1865), I did not insist on a rephrasing of the article, 

 and as no motion had been made, no further formal record was 

 entered. This, then, was the sacrifice made by the German delegation, 

 meeting that made by the French with regard to the right to amend 

 faultily constructed or erroneously spelled names. It should be further 

 remembered that the French had already given in on the question of 

 generic names before 1758. One of the principal objects of the French 

 and American zoologists in adopting the edition of 1758 instead o£ 

 that of 1766 was the inclusion of the Brissonian and other post- 1758 

 genera without making a special rule of exception for their benefit 

 (as the Enghsh had been obliged to do), exceptions to the rules being 

 regarded as particularly obnoxious and to be avoided at any cost. 

 It is my firm conviction that if the German zoologists at the meeting 

 in Berlin had not conceded this point, the attempt to produce a gen- 

 erally accepted International Code would have failed as it had done 

 at Leiden and at Cainbridge. The result would have been three or 

 four different codes : The French ; the A. O. U. Code, backed bv most 

 American zoologists; the German Code, probably also accepted by 

 the Austrian and Scandinavian zoologists ; and the English adherents 

 of the revised Stricklandian rules. It will be remembered how long 

 the latter held out even after the new International Code had received 

 the sanction of the rest of the world. 



