40 AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 



satisfied. Nor can the at best negative evidence adduced by Mr. 

 Woodward and Mr. Dall be considered a.s satisfying the provision, 

 for the name "auctor" was not universally used in case the re- 

 spondent was actually the author of the thesis. What is on the 

 thesis title page or in the thesis itself is the only thing which should 

 determine the systematist's judgment. As Dr. vStiles has said, 

 " I do not see how I could be supposed to know the regulations 

 regarding the theses presented at the foreign Universities, X, 

 Y, Z." 



(4.) The argument of probabilities as to authorship is brought 

 forward. Yet it must be remembered that we are not dealing 

 with possibilities or probabilities — should not, indeed — in the fixing 

 of the responsibility for the names in question. Whether Phil- 

 ipsson did or did not publish any other zoological contributions 

 either before or after 1788 is a matter that does not concern us 

 here. The chief reason for ascribing the genera to Retzius is 

 simply this: the argument of probabilities. This, together with 

 the university usage of Lund, is the sole ground for erroneously 

 referring the genera to Retzius as the nomenclatorial authority. 



Despite the recent discussions in German zoological circles 

 relative to the work of the International Commission of Zoological 

 Nomenclature and the Code, the work of the Commission has 

 been most helpful and of far reaching value. It is highly important 

 that we should have an International court of last appeal in things 

 nomenclatorial, in order that we may progress from conflicting 

 codes and a chaos of scientific names to order and uniformity of 

 usage. The International Code, while it may be in some cases 

 apparently unjust in its verdicts, if universally followed, would 

 bring us to the haven of nomenclatorial uniformity, and remove 

 one of the most wearisome and useless tasks of the zoologist, 

 the untangling of the skein of synonyms and homonyms. 



Then, clearly, because of the assumed responsibility for the 

 publication of the thesis, Philipsson must be considered the pub- 

 lisher. Since no other person is indicated in the thesis as responsi- 

 ble for its contents, we must consider him the author. Neither 

 the absence of the words "auctor respondens" from the thesis 

 titlepage, nor the tacit law of the University of Lund satisfies 

 the requirements of Art. 21 of the Code. Consequently, again we 

 must consider him the author. The argument of probabilities does 



