August 13, 1909] 



SCIENCE 



211 



who is concerned with the hundreds of thou- 

 sands of names rather than he who deals 

 with the thousands that sees most clearly the 

 hopelessness of gaining stability by methods 

 where personal opinion is given full sway. 

 Dr. Allen attributes the remarkable unanimity 

 of opinion of those opposed to his views to 

 inexperience or ignorance of the subject. If 

 the worthy doctor himself was more experi- 

 enced in the fields of entomology or botany, 

 where the forms are countless as compared 

 with animals or birds, he might be less posi- 

 tive in his position on this question. It may 

 not be absurd to state that an ornithological 

 genus based on an unnamed woodpecker with 

 three toes can not be mistaken because but 

 one such bird was known. But would it seem 

 80 plausible to state that a genus of insects 

 based on an unnamed specimen of parasitic 

 hymenoptera, or a minute fly, with a certain 

 vein of the wing forked before the middle was 

 unmistakable because but one such species was 

 known while many thousands of such little 

 creatures are flying undescribed about us? 



It is true that this question is not definitely 

 covered by the International Code, but certain 

 statements do have a bearing on the subject. 

 On page 11 of the code the generic and 

 specific name is likened to the family and 

 individual names of persons. Now who can 

 conceive of a family of Smiths without a John 

 or a Jane in it? Would it not seem silly to 

 have a name Johnson before any one was bom 

 to bear it? Getting back to genera, what is a 

 genus ? " An aggregation of one or more 

 species " would seem to be a good definition. 

 If such a definition was accepted it would 

 certainly invalidate the genus without species, 

 so I presume Dr. Allen has another definition. 

 Not knowing what it is, I can not discuss it. 

 The code does not define the genus. However, 

 it is now quite universally agreed that a genus 

 should have a type designated. Article 30 of 

 the code, paragraph 2, says : " . . . nor can a 

 species be selected as type which was not 

 originally included in the genus. . . ." This 

 being true, how can we get a type for a genus 

 where there were no species originally in- 



cluded? In the amendments to the code, pub- 

 lished in Science for October 8, 1907, is the 

 following : " The commission is unanimously 

 of the opinion that a name, in the sense of the 

 code, refers to the designation by which the 

 actual objects are known." Now a genus 

 without a species has no object; it is a name 

 applied to a conception, not to an object and 

 can therefore have no place in systematic 

 nomenclature.' 



No one, I think, claims infallibility for the 

 international code; but it is certainly not to 

 the best interest of nomenclatorial stability 

 to knowingly violate its recommendations. 

 An able board of chosen nomenclaturists has 

 passed on and sanctioned these rules and 

 formulated them into an accessible code, and 

 it should be incumbent upon systematists to 

 comply with them so far as possible. There 

 are enough questions not covered by the code 

 to furnish constant contention without bring- 

 ing up problems that are capable of being dis- 

 posed of under the rules already formulated. 

 That which is best in one group may not be 

 the best for another, but for the sake of uni- 

 formity and in the hope of future stability let 

 us accept the dictvun of the International Zo- 

 ological Congress and foUow the code. 



A. N. Caudell, 



U. S. National Museum 



A NOTE ON UROPHLYCTIS ALFALFA (v. LAGERH.) 

 P. MAGN. IN CALIFORNIA 



A CROWN gall of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) 

 which occurs in Europe, but which, so far as 

 known by the writer, has not before been noted 

 in this country, has recently come to our at- 

 tention in California. 



The disease was first observed in Ecuador 

 in 1892 by Lagerheim, who placed the parasitic 

 fungus causing it in the genus Cladochytrium. 

 In 1902 it was found in Alsace, Germany, by 

 Magnus, who transferred the organism to the 

 genus Urophlyctis. It has since been observed 

 in other localities on the continent, where it 

 has done considerable damage. 



The galls are usually very numerous at the 



' 'Nomen nudum does not seem inappropriate in 

 this connection. 



