310 MR. P. L, SCLATER ON THE [Mar. 3, 
ornithologists have recently rejected the name Cypselus in favour 
of Micropus and renamed the family Micropodide accordingly. 
While I quite agree that it is not necessary that zoologists and 
botanists should use exactly the same Code of Nomenclature, for 
in many respects their practices have long been different, I think 
it would be a great evil to allow Animals and Plants to be called 
by the same names, as in some cases it would not be prima facie 
apparent whether a particular term was intended to refer to an 
animal or a plant. Besides this, we know that in some of the 
lower forms it is by no means easy to decide whether certain 
species should be referred to the animal or to the vegetable 
kingdom. Strickland was very decided upon this subject, and I 
see no reason at all why we should deviate from his practice, which 
up to a recent period has been generally followed by zoologists. 
2. Under Sect. 5 of the German Rules the same term is to be 
used for the generic and specific name of a species, if these names 
have priority. This is contrary to the Stricklandian Code (Sect. 18). 
In the original Stricklandian Code (Section 13) it is enacted that 
“a new specific name must be given to a species when its old name 
has been adopted for a genus which includes that species.” In the 
British Association revision of the Code (Recommendation LY.) it 
was proposed to reverse this Rule, and to throw aside the generic in 
order to retain the specific name. It was the American Ornitholo- 
gists’ Code, I believe (Canon XXX.), which first formally proposed 
that specific names, when adopted as generic, should not be changed, 
and this Rule has now been adopted in both the German Codes. 
It should be remarked that the proposal of the B. A. revision to 
alter the generic name in these cases, instead of the specific, has 
hardly met with acceptance in any quarter. In Mr. Dall’s report 
upon this subject (5) he well observes :— 
‘This innovation, the sweeping character of which the Com- 
mittee cannot have realized, if carried into effect, would uproot 
hundreds of the generic names best known to science, and so 
familiar that the fact that they were originally specific names has 
been almost totally forgotten. Its spirit is opposed to the funda- 
mental principles of nomenclature, and the end to be gained is of 
the most trivial character.” 
Although I was a Member of the Bath Committee that agreed 
to this Recommendation, I must confess that I am strongly 
opposed to it, and have always followed the opposite course enacted 
by the original Stricklandian Code, that in these cases the specific 
name is the one to be changed. Moreover, this last practice has, 
until recently, been generally adopted by English zoologists. Of 
late years, however, the ‘“ Scomber-scomber” principle, as it is 
familiarly called*, has met with many supporters. Though 
inelegant and almost ridiculous, it has, at least, one merit. It 
1 « Scomber scomber” (Linn. S. N. ed. xii. p. 492) seems to be the only 
instance in which Linnzus used the same generic and specific name for a 
species. But it is doubtful whether this was not really a printer’s error, for in 
the tenth edition (p. 297) he wrote Scomber scombrus, and on referring to the 
two copies of the twelfth edition, formerly belonging to Linneeus himself, and 
