340 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXIX. No. 739 



names proposed without any definite mention 

 of species to be included under them. The 

 controversy over " genera without species " is 

 especially agitating entomologists at the pres- 

 ent moment, because of a proposal to bring 

 into use a number of names for the most com- 

 mon genera of flies, and thus greatly disturb 

 the nomenclature of dipterology. Professor 

 Aldrich has ably contended against this pro- 

 posal, fortifying his opinion with the code; 

 but another very eminent dipterologist reaches 

 exactly the opposite result, also using the code. 



The matter is one which concerns all zoolo- 

 gists and botanists, and whatever may be the 

 ultimate decision regarding it, it will be gen- 

 erally admitted that it is of the highest im- 

 portance to determine current opinion, as a 

 step toward securing unanimity. With the 

 editor's permission, I will ask for a post-card 

 vote from working zoologists and botanists, 

 and will publish the lists of names in Science. 

 The vote is asked on the question whether a 

 generic name published without any mention 

 of included species is to be regarded as valid, 

 even though it is accompanied by a definition 

 or diagnosis.' It has seemed to me that names 

 so published were rejected by the code, because 

 article 25 states that one of the conditions of 

 the validity of a generic name is "that the 

 author has applied the principles of binary 

 nomenclature." This means, as I understand 

 it, that he must not merely believe in those 

 principles, or apply them elsewhere, but he 

 must apply them to the case in hand, to the 

 proposed new genus. If this is correct, I am 

 totally unable to see how he can do this with- 

 out designating any species by name. In abso- 

 lute strictness, he ought not merely to desig- 

 nate an included species, but also make the 

 proper combination with the generic name. 

 This is recommended by the present code, but 

 not made obligatory. 



Those who take a different view, support 

 their contention by reference to article 2 of 

 the code, which states that " the scientific 



'This does not include names proposed (on ac- 

 count of preoccupation) to replace others which 

 already have included species. Such cases are 

 covered by the code. 



designation of animals is uninominal for sub- 

 genera and all higher groups." This, it seems 

 to me, merely states the obvious fact that the 

 names of subgenera, genera, families, etc., are 

 single words; it does not appear to offer any 

 opinion as to the proper manner of publishing 

 the various designations. Who can define a 

 genus, except as including species; a family, 

 except as including genera; an order, except 

 as including families? It is not possible to 

 upset our fundamental conceptions of these 

 things, any more than it is possible to vn-ite 

 sentences without words, words without letters 

 of the alphabet. A genus without species has 

 no type, no content, and apparently has no 

 place in our systems of classification. 



On the other hand, various generic names, 

 first proposed without any designated species, 

 have later been given full validity by the 

 designation of specific types, and the publica- 

 tion of the necessary combinations. Some 

 writers have held that when the first mention 

 of an included species was made by some 

 author other than the original one, the generic 

 name should be credited to the author citing 

 or describing the species. I think this should 

 not be strictly necessary, but that while the 

 generic name must be dated from the later 

 publication, it may properly be credited to the 

 original writer, whose work may be considered 

 to be included and republished in the valida- 

 ting work. This is a matter on which opinions 

 will differ, and as it does not affect the names 

 themselves, it is not of the first importance. 

 Another difficult class of cases is that in which 

 a generic name has been proposed with the 

 name of an undescribed species. The late 

 Dr. Ashmead has left us a large number of 

 such genera. If the genus was also without 

 definition, both generic and specific names 

 would be nomina nuda; but I have ventured 

 to hold that any diagnosis of the genus might 

 also be interpreted as a diagnosis of the spe- 

 cies (only one being mentioned), and hence 

 . both generic and specific names would be avail- 

 able for adoption. 



T. D. A. COCKERELL 

 UnTVEESITT op COLOEADO, 



BoiTLDEB, Colo. 



