57 
of the type species and the name of the order and family to which the 
genus belongs. 
On the base of the study of the lists sent in the Commission pro- 
mises to submit to the next Congress an Official list of generic 
names, with their genotypes, proposing that this list show. e adopted 
and that in the future ’’no zoologist shall upon nomenclatoriai grounds 
change any name in said list unless he first submits to the Commission 
his reasons for making the change and unless the Commission considers 
the reasons valid. 
The lists should be sent in before Jan. 1. 1911. è 
This invitation was the result of a proposition presented to the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature from the British 
Association for the Advancement of Science and the Eastern Branch 
of the American Society of Zoologists recommending that certain 
very commonly used zoological names should be excepted 
from the Law of Priority. The result shows that the Commission 
has found no reason to accept the proposition ot the two Societies; what 
the Commission proposes to construct on the basis of the hoped for 
lists is by no means a list of names excepted from the Law of Priority 
— when valid nomenclatorial reasons are found for changing them, they 
may be changed with the permission of the Commission. It has been 
found by the Commission that the desire to have the more important 
names excepted from the Law of Priority and protected against being 
changed is not so widespread and deeply rooted as is assumed by some 
Zoologists. ’’An effort made by the Secretary to collect from Zoologists 
the most commonly used and most important generic names has as yet 
met with such poor success that the conclusion does not seem entirely 
unjustified that some of our colleagues who may be in favor of such a 
list are not as yet sufficiently enthusiastic over the proposition to induce 
them to demonstrate their desire by placing into the hands of the Com- 
mission the data upon which such a list must of necessity be based. 
Further, there are many colleagues who are known to us to be directly 
and enthusiastically opposed to such a list‘. 
It may perhaps be allowed to suggest that the conclusion drawn 
from the results of the enquiries of the Secretary are not quite justi- 
fied. That it is not seen to whom the Secretary has applied may be of 
minor importance, but it should be pointed out that, what the Secretary 
appears to have asked previously from a number of Zoologists, and 
what the Commission is now asking from all zoologists, is a very con- 
siderable amount of labor, which it cannot reasonably expect many 
to undertake. To find out the bibliographical references of ca. 50 ge- 
neric names may involve a very great trouble, especially when old names 
