a : 
ab Me 
i 
1896.]  - RULES OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 319 
zusammengestellt von der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesell- 
schaft. Leipzig, 1894. 
11. Régles de la Nomenclature des Etres organisés adoptées 
par les Congres Internationaux de Zoologie (Paris, 1889 ; 
Moscou, 1892). Paris, 1895. 
A communication was read from Graf Hans von Berlepsch, 
C.M.Z.S., expressing his regret at not being able to be present on 
this occasion, and giving his opinion on the three points specially 
discussed. He was not disinclined to give way on the first, but 
maintained the necessity of the second and third alterations pro- 
posed in the German Rules. 
THE PresipEent (Sir William Flower) said that the question of 
nomenclature was a most important one in the study of Natural 
History. The existing confusion was caused, not only by the 
absence of definite and universally accepted rules, but also by 
divergences in the mode of interpretation of such rules as were 
accepted—divergences which he feared would always exist, however 
theoretically perfect the rules may be made. He allowed that the 
tautonymic principle, unfortunate as it was in many respects, was 
the logical outcome of the system of priority, the basis of the 
Stricklandian and all other Codes. The evil arose from the use of 
specific names in a generic sense, a practice which never ought to 
have been permitted. With the various Codes now before us it 
was sometimes difficult to discriminate between regulations for the 
introduction of new names, and those applying to the treatment 
of names already in use—two objects which must be kept apart. 
In the former case we could not be too strict, but in the latter 
Sir William Flower contended that there should be some latitude 
allowed in favour of universal usage, and he objected to the 
supersession of a name known to the whole scientific world by one 
which had been buried and forgotten almost as soon as it was 
called into existence. For instance, he did not like the revival 
of Anser fabalis for the well-known A. segetum, nor of the genus 
Procavia for Hyrax. With regard to the 10th or 12th edition 
of the ‘Systema Nature’ for a starting-point, he had always 
preferred the British Association ruling in favour of the latter, . 
but it was evident that the former was gaining ground, and would 
probably be eventually adopted. In conclusion, although he said 
he was glad that Mr. Sclater had introduced the subject, as a dis- 
cussion like this must help to clear up our ideas upon it, he was 
not very hopeful of an absolute agreement ever being arrived at. 
Mr. Harrerrsaid that the Code of the German Zoological Society 
was almost the same as that of the German Ornithological Society. 
With regard to names used in Botany and Zoology, he considered 
that from a practical standpoint it would be almost impossible to 
create a name if the same rules applied to both, because it would 
necessitate a search through botanical as well as zoological litera- 
ture before a name could be settled upon. He therefore thought 
Botany should be ignored, for mistakes as to whether a name was 
