1896. ] RULES OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 321 
specific names were given to natural objects only in order that 
naturalists might know what they were talking and writing about. 
He thought that uniformity was much more important than pro- 
priety, and the only way of solving a difficulty that was yearly 
increasing would be to appoint International Committees in various 
branches of science, which should be empowered to fix as a starting- 
point for specific nomenclature some very much more recent period 
than that of Linneus. Whenever a catalogue or standard work 
in any branch of Zoology could be found, such as Staudinger’s 
‘Catalogue of Palearctic Lepidoptera,’ 1871, the nomenclature of 
which was based on a careful study, and a sufficient knowledge of 
the natural objects of which it treated, so that its nomenclature 
had been almost universally accepted and adopted, he would accept 
its specific names right or wrong, and look on any attempt to go 
back to earlier authors, many of whom knew little or nothing of 
the species they attempted to describe, as a great injury to science. 
It was very often impossible to know with certainty what these 
authors meant, and even when the types existed they were 
frequently, as in the case of many of Walker’s so-called types of 
Lepidoptera, worse than useless. Such changes would not, of 
course, apply to generic names, which must be altered as our know- 
ledge increased. He saw no reason why names used in Botany 
should not also be used in Zoology, and agreed with Mr. Hartert, 
that no practical confusion resulted from this being done. With 
regard to trinomials, he saw no means of doing without them, 
but preferred them to be used with the prefix of var., ab., hybr., or 
gen., 80 as to indicate, more precisely than could be done without 
such a prefix, their relation to the species from which they spring. 
Such prefixes had been employed most properly in Staudinger’s 
catalogue, and their proper use was well understood, though there 
was some danger of their undue multiplication without sufficient 
definition. He thought that Dr. Sclater had done a great service to 
science in raising this discussion, which he hoped would not be 
allowed to drop without result. 
Dr. D. Suarp, F.R.S., said the German Rules were not drawn 
up in a way to be practically useful. In the case of each one it 
should have been stated whether it was merely prospective or was 
intended to be also retrospective in application ; and if limited to 
the former, to what extent neglect of the rule was to disqualify a 
name. If these points were not agreed on, the adoption of these 
rules would add to the existing confusion. He further pointed out 
that the application of the law of priority had in Entomology failed 
to produce the agreement that its advocates claimed it would pro- 
mote. Some names had now been in use for generations with two 
different applications, naturalists being apparently divided into 
two schools. 
Mr. W. T. Buayrorp, F.R.S., said that nomenclature was simply 
a matter of convenience, and he thought it hardly worth the labour 
to draw up another code of rules, because they would be sure to be 
subject to different interpretations. He objected to the use of 
Proc. Zoou. Soc.—1896, No. XXI. 21 
