278 



NA TURE 



[J»iy >7> rl 



but almost universally rejected by, a meeting of geologists. He 

 did not consider that the time had arrived for any innovation, and 

 thought it desirable first to agree upon strict rules of zoological 

 nomenclature. 



Prof. Bell agreed with Mr. Blanfbrd that the method would 

 not be universally applicable. How could it be applied for 

 instance to cases where varieties were found living with one 

 another, as was often the case with littoral forms with free- 

 swimming embryos ? 



Mr. W. F. Kirby said that it was necessary to distinguish 

 sub-species and varieties at times, and there seemed to be only 

 two courses open to us, either to retain the binomial nomen- 

 clature, and to treat sub species, so far as nomenclature was con- 

 cerned, as equivalent to species, or to retain varietal names. 

 Still it was difficult to lay down hard and fast rules, applicable 

 to all cases ; and he feared that the system of naming varieties 

 was liable to great abuse, especially in entomology, where the 

 number of species is already so great. Thus we have 100,000 

 species of Coleoptera on our lists ; and one of the most variable 

 families is that of the Coccinellida, in which some entomolo- 

 gists have lately begun to name mere colour varieties of single 

 species by twenty and thirty at a time. Mr. Kirby thought, too, 

 that, whenever a named form previously regarded as a variety 

 was held by a later author to be worthy of specific rank, the 

 varietal name should, wherever practicable, always be retained 

 for the species, instead of a new one being imposed. He knew 

 that this was not always adhered to, but in his own work he 

 made it an invariable rule. 



Lord Walsingham said that, as Dr. Coues suggested that the 

 trinomial system should be used only in distinguishing grada- 

 tions, he would instance two species very common in England, 

 small species of the genus Terns ( Teras kastiana and Teras cris- 

 tcina). These exhibited a very extensive series of individual 

 variations, but some varieties, although perhaps reared from the 

 same brood of larvae, showed marked differences not distinctly 

 connected by intermediate gradations with other forms of colour- 

 ing. He asked how the method was to be applied to these if 

 indeed it was intended to be applied at all to such cases. He 

 himself knew several cases in North America in which variation, 

 according to latitude, is very marked. You get a form in Van- 

 couver Island gradually merging into the form in California, and 

 in Mexico something apparently distinct if taken by itself, and 

 probably only an extreme variety in colour and markings, but 

 you have no form for the South of California. Would it be 

 proposed to treat this Mexican form as a proper subject for the 

 trinomial system or to give it only two names as at present? The 

 principle appears to be right provided it facilitates the recognition 

 of the forms we are naming. He hoped there was no danger of 

 drifting into the inconvenient multiplication of names too com- 

 monly known in the catalogues of professional horticulturists. 



Dr. Sharp said that whatever names we gave to morphological 

 forms of less than specific value, whether we called them 

 varieties, or sub-species, or morphological forms, we could not 

 define or limit them ; and if we attempted to name them, as no 

 line could be drawn, we must go on till we gave a separate 

 name to every individual that had passed through the hands of 

 zoologists. He considered Dr. Coues' system of a third name 

 unnecessary, because all the purposes it sought to attain could 

 be accomplished without it by the old-fashioned system of 

 "var. (7, var. i," and so on. The adoption of a system of 

 names for forms lower than species he thought would lead to 

 complete chaos. 



Dr. Woodward, F. R. S., said he might mention two cases 

 which occurred to him in which perhaps the system would 1"' 

 convenient. It was considered desirable by many palaeontolo- 

 gists that the group of Ammonites should be broken up into a 

 number of genera, and he thought the present plan of erecting 

 specific names into generic ones was inconvenient. The student 

 was already hampered with too many names, and we ought to 

 remember that students were harder worked now than they were 

 twenty-five years ago. The system of cramming he considered 

 deteriorating to the stamina of the future naturalist. Every time 

 a group was broken up into genera, sub-genera, species, and sub- 

 species, the labour of the student was increased. Therefore it 

 appeared to him that the use of a third term following the 

 generic and specific one, as proposed, was very convenient if not 

 insisted on as a matter of instruction. 



Mr. H. T. Wharton would prefer not to see other names 



troduced unless they were absolutely necessary. But wdien 

 ell-marked intermediate forms had to be dealt with he ad- 



mitted the value of the trinomial system, but of course Dr. 

 Coues knew that the method advocated by him was not new to 

 naturalists, for trinomial names were to be found in botanical 

 catalogues. He should be glad to know how it was proposed to 

 deal with such a form as Coivus comix, for example, which in 

 the new edition of Yarrell's "British Birds " had been united 

 with Corvus corone. 



Mr. H. Saunders said he would like to direct attention to a 

 practical point of the question. Most of those present were 

 aware that there was an unpretending annual called the Zoo- 

 logical Record, which consisted now of about Soo pages, and that 

 il trinomialism were adopted, it would make the volume of too 

 great a size. He would also remind those present that Mr. Sharpe 

 was the recorder of Aves, and he did not know how that gentle- 

 man would relish the additional labour which would be thrown 

 upon him if this system were generally adopted. 



Dr. Traquair said : — I think I quite understand the scope and 

 limits of the system so ably advocated by Dr. Coues, but I feel 

 convinced that were any such system to receive the authoritative 

 sanction of naturalists, these limits would not be observed by the 

 ordinary crowd of name manufacturers. My own studies in 

 recent zoology have been more especially of an anatomical and 

 morphological character, but in the subject of fossil ichthyology 

 I have been brought face to face with the question of the defini- 

 tion and naming of species. Here I conceive that the "species" 

 must include all those forms which can be indubitably shown to 

 graduate into each other. For such species, the only idea of a 

 species which seems to me practicable, one generic and one 

 specific name are quite enough, and I would leave each author 

 to deal with "sub-species" and varieties as he pleased, but 

 without permitting him to apply any authorita'ive name to such. 

 So great, in many cases, is the amount of variation observed in 

 fossil fishes and fish remains, and so difficult is it also to arrive 

 at safe conclusions as to specific identity or distinction with the 

 material before us, that, were the proposed system of trinomial 

 nomenclature to receive the authoritative sanction of naturalists, 

 I am convinced that in this department the flood-gates would 

 simply be opened for a deluge of new names, from people whose 

 sole function in life seems to be to invent such on the most 

 trifling pretext. If the binomial system is at present often 

 abused by such people for the creation of " species " which have 

 no existence, save in their own imaginations, what might we not 

 expect them to do if the adoption of a trinomial system afforded 

 them further scope for their faculties ! 



Mr. J. E. Halting said if he could be satisfied that the intro- 

 duction of a system of trinomial nomenclature, as proposed, 

 would be of any real benefit to science, he should have no hesi- 

 tation in adopting it. But, so far from any advantage resulting 

 from it, he feared that a positive disadvantage would accrue from 

 its adoption in a way which had not been sufficiently considered. 

 The tendency to describe as new species mere individual varia- 

 tions had already (with certain specialists at least) become very 

 p evalent, and had led to an expression of regret and dissatisfac- 

 tion amongst those who were content to take a broader view of 

 things, and who regarded such a process of refining as tending to 

 perplex, while in no way advancing science. All workers in 

 zoology found themselves sooner or later in one of two classes, 

 which had been named, expressively, if not elegantly, " lumpers " 

 and "splitters." Now, if the proposed system of trinomial no- 

 menclature were to be adopted, the former class would have 

 either to surrender at discretion to the latter, or a wider gap than 

 ever would be created between them, a result which would 

 surely lead to great inconvenience ; while the latter, who had 

 already gone to great lengths in what he had termed the process 

 of refining, would receive fresh encouragement to go to 

 still greater lengths in that direction, to the disadvantage, 

 as he conceived, of those who were to come after them. 

 We had been told by the advocates of the trinomial system 

 that it was impossible not to recognise climatic variations in any 

 given species when they were found to be constant and well 

 marked. In this he agreed : he only dissented from them in 

 regard to the mode by which such recognition was to be effected. 

 To say that the only mode of recognising such variations was to 

 add a third name to the generic and specific names was begging 

 the question. If any such variation as that alluded to was suf- 

 ficiently well marked to distinguish it at once from the species of 

 which it was said to be a variety, he would prefer to regard 

 it as an allied species, and bestow on it a specific name, retaining 

 a binomial nomenclature. The binomial system had been found 

 to work well enough in practice, from its simplicity ; and it was 



