58 
are concerned — and this will, of course, be a considerable percentage 
of the names, it being especially the old names about which there is 
nomenclatorial trouble. Probably not many will be able to afford the 
necessary time for such a work, and to do it just at the moment they 
are asked to! For many Zoologists it would be nearly impossible to get 
access to the literature necessary for the purpose — not to speak of 
the fact that only systematists can be expected to have any routine in 
that kind of work! In short, what the Commission here has demanded 
is not very far from an absurdity. 
As stated above the number of the » Zool. Anzeiger«, in which the 
invitation has appeared was published the 22 November; it must cer- 
tainly be supposed that many Zoologists did not see the number before 
about the middle of December or even later — but the list had to be 
prepared before the 1st January! The note was also published in the 
Annals and Magazine of National History; in this case in December 
and the list had to be sent in by the 1st of November! 
We may then expect that the result of this invitation will be as 
poor as that of the Secretary’s previous efforts. But if the Commission 
concludes therefrom, that the desire to have the more important zoolo- 
gical names protected against change is not very general among Zoolo- 
gists, that conclusion is certainly ill-founded. On the contrary, it is 
doubtless the desire of the great majority of Zoologists to have the more 
important, commonly used names protected against the tyranny of this 
rule of priority, which leads to such extremely unfortunate results when 
carried out literally in all cases!. — It may perhaps also be justifiable 
to ask, how or wherefrom this Commission of Nomenclature has ob- 
tained its mandate as international. This side of the question may, how- 
ever, be passed over since everybody doubtless will agree that it is most 
desirable to have the zoological nomenclature regulated by international 
rules. But the condition should be that such rules are reasonable, 
which does not hold good for the strict application of the priority rule 
in the opinion of many Zoologists. Of how many? 
A way of ascertaining, how many Zoologists desire to follow the 
priority rule strictly in all cases and how many want to have the more 
1 To name only a few of the consequences of the strict application of the pri- 
ority-rule: We must not hereafter speak of Actiniae, because the name Actinia was 
first used for a Holothurian; the Actiniae shall now carry the beautiful name Priapidae. 
Holothuria, on the other hand, was, strictly taken, first used for a Salp; therefore 
the Holothurians are hereafter to be called » Bohadschioideans«; likewise the Salps 
are blessed with a new name, Dagysidae. The name Rhombus, used for 2000 years 
for the turbot, and even used binominally for a hundred years before Linnaeus, 
shall be given away to a genus of Molluscs, because it was so used in 1797 (by Hum- 
phreys), while Linnaeus gave the name Pleuronectes to all flatfishes. 
