BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF WOODS HOLE AND VICINITY. 83 



zoological nomenclature. Indeed, it is upon the authors of works like this, who make 

 extensive use of taxonomic names, while having very little share in their creation or 

 transmutation, that these evils perhaps fall most heavily. 



On the other hand, we realize that there are many sides to this perplexing question, 

 and that many of the generic and specific names in current use among Woods Hole 

 biologists are entirely unjustified, as judged by any standard except local usage. Those 

 who revolt because the long-cherished name of a favorite species has been replaced by a 

 totally unfamiliar one, must be reminded that this is not always due to the caprice of 

 some perverse "species monger." Nor are these changes in all cases due to the dis- 

 covery that some long-forgotten name has "priority." There are several other (legiti- 

 mate) reasons for changing the name of a species, of which mention may be made of 

 two. (i) Careful comparison may reveal the fact that two supposedly distinct species 

 dwelling in different parts of the world are, in reality, identical. One or the other name 

 must be given up. Thus, we have over and over again been obliged to abandon names 

 given by earlier American zoologists to species found upon the shores of the New World. 

 We need only mention the "Spongia sulphurea" of Desor {^CUonacelata Grant), the 

 " Hydractinia polyclina" of Agassiz (now believed to be identical with H. echinata 

 Fleming), or the " Ascidia tenella" of Stimpson {=Ciona intestinalis (Linnaeus)). In 

 such cases, the changes may at first jar upon our nerves, but they must be accepted. 

 (2) More complete knowledge of a species may show that its systematic position has 

 at first been misunderstood. Here, as in the first case, we are not dealing with rules of 

 nomenclature, but with facts. If the facts demand it, the species must be assigned to 

 another genus. The most severe critics of our systematic brethren would hardly doubt 

 the wisdom of removing the toadfish from the genus Gadus, to which it had been assigned 

 by Linnaeus; nor the expediency of so restricting the genus Nautilus as to exclude the 

 spiral Foraminifera ! 



Many cases are sure to arise, however, when the mere user of zoological names — and 

 to this class belong the great majority of present day zoologists — may well query whether 

 the more refined grouping of species could not better be carried out within the limits 

 of the genus itself. The latter procedure has the advantage of leaving the generic 

 name (and therefore the full name of the species) unaltered. It is not so much for the 

 changing of their conceptions of relationship that systematic zoologists are criticised so 

 sharply as for their persistent changing of the names which we are all obliged to use 

 and which we must learn anew as often as substitutes are offered by accredited 

 authorities. This criticism derives particular force from the fact that there is no general 

 agreement as to how inclusive a division the genus shall be. It is safe to say that at the 

 present time the "genera" of some groups of the animal kingdom are as inclusive as the 

 "families" of certain others, while the "genera" of these latter may correspond more 

 nearly to the "subgenera" of the first. 



It will be understood without further explanation why we have not adopted the 

 practice, current among certain systematists, of including the subgeneric name, in 

 parenthesis, as an integral part of the name of a species. The subgenus is of interest 

 only to the systematist, who may readily find it by reference to the appropriate sys- 

 tematic treatise. The name of the species is complete without it, and the biologist at 

 large should not be burdened by having to learn trinomials of this sort. 



