1896.] RULES OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 309 
in May of that year (9). These Rules follow the American Rules 
very. nearly, especially as regards the three points which are 
proposed for special discussion this evening. 
In 1892 the International Congress of Zoology at their Moscow 
Meeting adopted a set of Rules of Nomenclature, which appear to 
differ little in effect from those of the Société Zoologique de 
France. These Rules (11) were separately published at Paris in 
1895. 
We now come to the Rules adopted by the Deutsche Zoologische 
Gesellschaft in 1894 (10), which are of special importance for 
reasons that I have already pointed out, and to some of which, 
as being in direct conflict with those of the Stricklandian Code, I 
wish to call your special attention this evening. In order to 
render them more easy of access upon the present occasion I have 
translated and printed the text of the Rules themselves (see 
Appendix I., p. 316), though I have not thought it necessary to 
add to each rule the commentaries and explanations which are 
appended to them, in smaller type, in the original. On reading 
them through it will be seen that these rules in many particulars 
conform to the excellent system originally put forward by Strickland 
and now generally adopted by zoologists all over the world. The 
usual sequence of divisions of animals into Orders, Families, 
Subfamilies, Genera, and Species is recognized. The families are 
to be formed ending in -id, and the subfamilies in -ine, and though 
priority is strictly enforced, corrections in orthography are not 
only permitted but approved of. In fact there seem to be only 
three principal points in which the Code of the German Zoological 
Society differs from ours, and it is to these three points to which 
I now propose to call your attention, after which I will say a few 
words on two or three points of minor importance. 
1. The German Rules (Sect. 1) disclaim any relation to Botany* 
so that, according to them, the same generic names may be used in 
Zoology and Botany. This is contrary to the Stricklandian Code 
(Sect. 10). 
It is quite certain that the Stricklandian Code did not allow 
the same name to be employed for a genus in Zoology and in 
Botany. But in the British Association revision of 1863, amongst 
the six alterations proposed to be made in that Code was ore 
“that Botany should not be introduced into the Stricklandian 
Rules and Recommendations.” This, however, I do not take to 
mean that the Rule alluded to is to be repealed, but merely that 
the Rules as a whole were intended for Zoologists and not for 
Botanists. But in the American Code (see Principle IV.) the 
contrary view was taken and it was enacted that the “use of a 
name in Botany does not prevent its subsequent use in Zoology.” 
We will take a salient example on this point. The Swifts until 
recently have been universally called by ornithologists Cypselus, 
and the family to which they belong Cypselide. Micropus of 
Meyer and Wolf, which has one year’s precedence over Cypselus, 
has been passed over, because Micropus is an old Linnean term for 
a genus of plants. In accordance with their Rules the American 
