428 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LI. No. 1322 



gradually breaking down from the inipossibl« 

 burden. 



A generic name as we use it to-day is made 

 to serve two purposes. It is, (1) a term by 

 which we indicate to others what we are talk- 

 ing or writing about, and (2) a term by which 

 the 'systematist indicates what he r^ards as 

 a recognizable phylogenetic group. 



It is suicidal for any system of nomenclature 

 that names for " things " should be constantly 

 changed to fit our ever changing ideas of their 

 relationships. Surely there Should be some 

 way of indicating the progress of our studies 

 in the relationships of birds, for instance, 

 without rendering unintelligible to all save a 

 few specialists, the very names by which we 

 refer to those birds. 



We are already striving to find a solution of 

 this problem, as is evidenced in the growing 

 tendency to abandon the technical name en- 

 tirely in semi-scientific publications in favwr 

 of the English name, and restricting the con- 

 stantly increasing generic terms to systematic 

 or phylogenetic discussions. It seems to me, 

 however, that there is another way open. If 

 we could be content to use the broader generic 

 terms of a few years ago for nomenclatural 

 purposes and use another term, call it sub- 

 genus or what you will, for further systematic 

 refinementis, without incorporating it in the 

 name itself, we should accomplish our aim. 



We make no effort to incorporate in the 

 scientific name of an animal or plant its fam- 

 ily relationship, and we arrange animals and 

 plants according to geographical relationships 

 withoTit insisting ujyon modifying the name to 

 indicate such relationship. Why then should 

 we insist upon imparing our system of nomen- 

 clature by constantly changing the generic 

 names every time we change our minds as to 

 how many minutely different subdivisions we 

 are going to recognize in the group? 



It is very easy to ridicule my proposal to use 

 broader generic terms for nomenclatural pur- 

 poses by saying that we do not wish to return 

 to the ideas of Linnffius, and place for example 

 the Swallow, the Swift and the Pratincole in 

 the same genus, or to have oiJy one generic 

 name for the sparrows and one for the warb- 



lers. This is very true and it is perfectly ob- 

 vious that we must adopt some position mid- 

 way between the two extremes, while at the 

 same time we must frankly adknit that such a 

 position can only be reached by a purely arbi- 

 trary decision as to how many genera we are 

 going to recognize. In any Gheck-list or mono- 

 graph, however, we settle this matter by arbi- 

 trary decision anyway, as we have no criterion 

 as to what constitutes a distinct genus. There- 

 fore why not adopt an arbitrary set of genera 

 de convenience so far as nomenclature is con- 

 cerned and use subgeneric terms when we de- 

 sire to call attention to more refined phylo- 

 genetic groups. At the present time we con- 

 stantly make u^e of " group " names in dis- 

 cussing the relationAips of different sets of 

 species in a large genus without in any way 

 interfering with the nomenclature and 1jhe 

 practise could just as well be extended. 



I do not propose any radical action in the 

 way of lumping present-day genera. In birds, 

 with which I am most concerned, the genera 

 of the A. O. IJ. and B. 0. U. Checklists could 

 be taken as a jwint of departure and with some 

 slight alterations and adjustments be adapted. 

 The main point would be to check the exces- 

 sive generic subdivision which is to-day ram- 

 pant in certain quarters. If some such reform 

 be not inaugurated technical nomenclature will 

 soon be — if it is not already — useless to any- 

 one but a narrow specialist. 



For example the botanist has long known of 

 the differences between the so-called flowering 

 dogwoods and those without involucral leaves, 

 but what profit does he gain by changing the 

 generic name of the former to Conoxylon com- 

 pared to the loss that he infiicts upon the 

 ornithologist, the entomologist, or the student 

 of general scientific interests, who knew them 

 under the name Oomus and who, unless they 

 be Greek scholars — a rapidly expiring race by 

 the way — have no conception of what sort of 

 herb, shrub or tree a Gynoxylon may be. So 

 too the unfortunate botanist who may have 

 learned to know certain sparrows as species of 

 Ammodramus fails utterly to recognize his old 

 friends under the names Thryospiza, Ammo- 

 spiza and Passerherhulus. 



