July 17, 1884] 



NA TURE 



277 



Chinese ; by M. Ujfalvy, on the Aryans north and south of the 

 Hindoo Koosh ; and by Baron Vaux, on the Kanakas of New- 

 Caledonia. 



The additions to the Zoological Society's Gardens during the 

 past week include two Quebec Marmots (Arctomys monax £ 9 ) 

 from North America, presented by Mr. N. Stainfield ; a Prairie 

 Wolf (Cam's latians £ ) from North America, presented by Mr. 

 R. Payze ; three Suricates (Suricata teiradactyla] from South 

 Africa, presented by Mr. W. R. Dobbin ; two Red-beaked 

 Weaver Birds (Quelea sanguinirostris £ 9 ) from West Africa, 

 presented by Mrs. Nettleship ; two Swift Parrakeets (Lathamus 

 discolor £ 9 ) from Tasmania, presented by Mr. J. Abrahams ; 

 four Common Vipers ( Vipera berus), British, presented by Mr. 

 Walter E. Blaker ; two Smooth Snakes (Coronella kevis), British, 

 presented by the Rev. Charles Harris ; two Red Kangaroos 

 (Macropus ru/us £ 9 ), a Greater Sulphur-crested Cockatoo 

 (Ccuatua galerita) from Australia, deposited ; four Beautiful 

 Finches [Estrelda bclla £ £ 9 9 ) from Australia, a Lanner 

 Falcon (Falco lanarius), captured at sea, purchased ; a Hybrid 

 Luhdorf's Deer (between Cervus luehdorfi £ and C. cana- 

 densis 9 ), a Hybrid Mesopotamian Deer (between Dama nieso- 

 potamica £ and D. vulgaris 9 ), a Red Deer (Cervus claphus9 ), 

 four Australian Wild Ducks (Anas snperei/iosa), a Mandarin 

 Duck (s£x galericulaia), bred in the Gardens. 



ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLA TURE > 

 II. 

 TAR. COUES said that he was much gratified at the interest 

 -*-^ shown in the subject of zoological nomenclature, and indorsed 

 the words of the Chairman that names were of the greatest pos- 

 sible consequence. Nomenclature was a necessary evil, and the 

 point was always to employ that method of naming objects which 

 should most clearly reflect not only the characters of the objects 

 themselves, but our ideas respecting those characters and the 

 view we take of them. As to what constitutes a species, there 

 had been an absolute revolution in the definition of a species 

 since the time of Linnaeus, the opinion having been long held 

 that every species was a distinct and individual creation. But 

 that idea had passed out of existence in the minds of most 

 natural historians of the present day, who accepted a general 

 theory of the evolution of species by a gradual modification. 

 That being the case, it was idle to inquire " What is a species ? " 

 no such thing existing any more than a genus ; and so intimately 

 related were all forms of animal and vegetable life that, if they 

 were all before us, no naming would be possible, for each would 

 be found to be connected completely with another ; therefore the 

 possibility of naming any species was, as it were, the gauge and 

 test of our ignorance. Having thus touched very briefly upon 

 the subject of missing links, which alone enable us to name 

 objects which still exist, Dr. Coues proceeded to inquire, "What 

 of so-called species the connecting links between which are still 

 before our eyes ? " In illustration of this he would cite some 

 instances of connecting links which exist between certain forms. 

 He then referred to the case of one of the best-known Wood- 

 peckers in North America (Picus villosus), and discussed its 

 climatal and geographical variation. He was of opinion that all 

 these geographical races were indistinctly separable forms, and he 

 would indicate them by trinomial names, proceeding upon the 

 definite principle of geographical variation according to con- 

 ditions of environment, meaning by this all the external influ- 

 ences which modify the plastic organism. Moisture, the humidity 

 of the atmosphere, appeared to have the greatest effect, particu- 

 larly in regard to colour. Latitude, with its varying degrees of 

 heat, determined size more than any other influence. As a 

 matter of fact this condition of things was found to occur, and 

 the question was, How should we recognise it in our language ? 

 Specification had ceased to be of use, and the question was 

 whether the system in favour in America was sufficient or insuf- 

 ficient to meet the case. On these points he would be glad to 

 hear opinions ; and in concluding he would read a paragraph 

 from the new edition of the "Key to North American Birds," 

 giving formally the rule for the employment ot trinomials as now 

 1 Continued from p. 259. 



in use by American ornithologists and many other zoologists of 

 the United States. This rule is as follows : — 



" No infallible rule can be laid down for determining what 

 shall be held to be a species, what a con-species, sub-species, or 

 variety. It is a matter of tact and experience, like the apprecia- 

 tion of the value of any other group in zoology. There is, how- 

 ever, a convention upon the subject, which the present workers 

 in ornithology in this country (America) find available — at any 

 rate, we have no better rule to go by. We treat as ' specific ' 

 any form, however little different from the next, that we do not 

 know or believe to intergrade with that next one ; — between 

 which and the next one no intermediate equivocal specimens are 

 forthcoming, and none, consequently, are supposed to exist. 

 This is to imply that the differentiation is accomplished, the 

 links are lost, and the characters actually become 'specific' We 

 treat as varietal of each other any forms, however different in 

 their extreme manifestation, which we know to intergrade, having 

 the intermediate specimens before us, or which we believe with 

 any good reason do intergrade. If the links still exist, the dif- 

 ferentiation is still incomplete, and the characters are not specific, 

 but only varietal, in the literal sense of these terms. In the 

 latter case, the oldest name is retained as the specific one, and 

 to it is appended the varietal designation." ' 



Dr. Giinther, F.R.S., said that during the whole of this discussion 

 it appeared to him that this new movement was in fact a reaction. 

 It had always appeared to him that ornithologists went too far in 

 attaching to the slightest modification of colour the rank of a 

 species ; and when he looked over the list of species of a genus 

 well known to him, he found there a number of different forms 

 distinguished for very different reasons, and could not help being 

 struck by the great diversity of value which was attached to the 

 distinctive characters of these various forms. There was nothing 

 to show that there was any system in distinguishing and naming 

 the species of birds. He looked with favour on the method 

 proposed by Dr. Coues and his compatriots. It was a system he 

 had himself employed occasionally in his systematicVritings since 

 1866, and Dr. Coues would find that in some cases he had adopted 

 it pure and simple. He (Dr. Giinther) had been disappointed in 

 looking over the new edition of Dr. Coues' " Key to North 

 American Birds," for he found there that Dr. Coues adopted 

 trinomials in some cases and binomials in others. He main- 

 tained that logically one ought to adopt the trinomial nomen- 

 clature for all other forms, and keep ihe binomial only for that 

 category in which these varieties may be contained. If Dr. 

 Coues and those who were with him adopted that system, he 

 for one would gladly employ it in all those cases in which the 

 geographical range of certain forms is clearly ascertained. 



Dr. Sclater, F.R.S., would remind Dr. Coues that this mode 

 of designating the forms of animal life was by no means a new 

 one, as might be seen on reference to Schlegel's "Revue Critique," 

 published in 1S44. He thought the only difficulty lay in the 

 extent to which it was likely to be carried out. Dr. Coues, in 

 his preface to the new " Key to the Birds of America" had hinted 

 at this difficulty. If too much stress were laid upon the value of 

 trinomialism we should open the flood-gates to an avalanche of 

 new names by naturalists who have not taken enough trouble to 

 investigate the matter under consideration. The time had now 

 come when it would be advisable to a certain extent to use 

 trinomials. He could not at all agree with Dr. Coues when he 

 said that no such thing as species exists, for forms were known 

 which had all the characters of well-marked species. It was 

 only in cases where faunae had been fully worked out that trino- 

 mial names would come into use, and for such forms he was 

 quite prepared to adopt the system. 



Mr. Blanford, F.R.S., said that he would add one word to 

 the discussion, as nobody else had taken up the one or two 

 points which might be advanced in opposition to the proposed 

 system. He thought the movement an unfortunate one, for the 

 reason that it would certainly have the effect of rendering 

 nomenclature in general less certain than it was before. An 

 equation containing three variables was much more complicated 

 than one in which there were only two, and when one had three 

 names any one of which was liable to be changed to suit personal 

 views the fixture of nomenclature would be even further off than 

 it is now. Then the case of ornithology was not nearly, in point 

 of fact, so complicated as some other classes, as, for instance, 

 in the Mollusca. Trinomial nomenclature had been proposed to, 



1 A more formal and elaborate presentation of Dr. Coues' views may be 

 found in the Zaologisi for July, 1884. p. 241, being tbe verbatim report of the 

 address delivered before the National Academy of Sciences at Washington 

 U.S.A., in April last.— Ed. 



