EDITORIAL 
‘“ApouT a Reform in Nomenclature” is the title of a com- 
munication in the issue of Sczence for July 28, by A. L. Herrera, 
of the National Museum of Mexico. Preliminary to a specific 
suggestion, attention is called to the almost insupportable burden 
into which the nomenclature of the natural sciences has grown 
and to the imminent need of reform. The meaninglessness of 
many current names is a serious hindrance to the dissemination 
of science. ‘‘The language of science is more difficult than sci- 
ence itself.’ 
The need of reform can scarcely be urged too strenuously, 
and every voice raised. in its interest is welcome. There is, 
nevertheless, occasion for great circumspection in the adoption 
of substitutes for the present names. It is possible, perhaps, to 
make matters even worse than they now are. There is some 
ground for the suspicion that this might be true of the proposed 
reform, the chief features of which are as follows: 
The generic names of animals to end in ws, those of plants 
in a, and those of minerals inz,; minerals, to have generic names 
formed from abbreviations of the names of their chemical con- 
stituents, as sulphurzinct, sphalerita; the generic names of plants 
to be preceded by abbreviations of the family names, as Rosa- 
spirea limbata ; with a similar device for the names of animals. 
One of the most serious faults of the present binomial sys- 
tem is its instability, due to changes of reference of species to 
genera. This is especially true in paleontology where the 
original data were imperfect and new discoveries are being con- 
stantly made, and are sure to continue to be made for a long 
time to come. Now, to add the name of the family in the form 
of an abbreviation-prefix would introduce another variable factor, 
one, perhaps, even more subject to change than the generic 
509 
