814 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXIX. No. 751 



unless tte nuMiber is very large. In the latter 

 event, representative opinions, with names, 

 could be published. 



Whether a plan of this sort could be ex- 

 tended to include the scientiiic workers of the 

 world (or such of them as might be concerned 

 with the particular matter under discussion) 

 is a difficult question. Efforts of various 

 kinds are being made at the present time to 

 bring the scientific men of the world into 

 closer touch with one another, and it is x>er- 

 haps not quixotic to suppose that eventually 

 they will be at least as ready and as competent 

 to act together as are those of America at the 

 present time. 



t. d. a. cockerell 



Univeesity of Colorado, 

 March 28 



THE FUTURE OF NOMENCLATURE 



Professor T. D. A. Cockerell's discussion 

 under the heading " Genera without Species " 

 recently published in Science,^ is of great per- 

 tinency at the present time. 



Without discussing the question concerning 

 the validity or non-validity of genera de- 

 scribed without species named in connection 

 with them, or genera proposed with unde- 

 described types, a question familiar to every 

 Bystematist, and one which I hope to see dis- 

 cussed by others more competent and learned 

 than myself, I desire merely to make one or 

 two general observations concerning nomen- 

 clature as a whole, its function and its future. 



Before doing this, however, some remarks 

 concerning the cases considered by Professor 

 Cockerell may not be out of place or without 

 some use. 



In the first class of cases, a genus described 

 in the past without a species named in con- 

 nection with it, I consider as being non-ex- 

 istent — a nomen nudum — and it remains such 

 unless subsequently its author or some other 

 refers to it a properly described type species. 

 The genus being non-existent, its name does 

 not have to be recognized again as being that 

 of a zoological unit, excepting as a matter of 

 wisdom ; if used again, it has no status unless 

 used as a name based on some definite type 



'■ N. S., XXIX., February 26, 1909, pp. 339-340. 



species designated subsequent to its original 

 description, and in such cases the original 

 author of the name should be held responsible 

 for it, mainly as a matter of clearness. I 

 agree with Professor Cockerell's interpreta- 

 tion of the code in cases of this kind. 

 Whether or not these nomina nuda made in 

 the past should be used again depends largely 

 on circumstances, and is almost a matter of 

 individual judgment. I think they should be 

 used in most cases to prevent questions of ob- 

 scure homonymy, and confusion arising from 

 other sources. These remarks bring me to 

 the point I had in mind in regard to this class 

 of cases. I have referred to them as occur- 

 ring in the past. Should they be allowed to 

 occur in the future? There is no excuse at 

 the present time for eases of the kind being 

 made, but some provision should assuredly be 

 made in the code to prevent them. The code 

 should state that after such a date (1900 

 recommended) genera proposed or described 

 without species named in connection with them 

 should be considered as being without status 

 in nomenclature and ignored accordingly, as 

 newspaper descriptions are ignored. If this is 

 possible, the systematists of the present and 

 future will not have constantly accruing cases 

 of the kind to deal with, or be in danger of 

 their common occurrence, and the old cases 

 would be gradually cleared up. 



As to the second class of cases. We may not 

 know, or attempt to define, the exact diSer- 

 ences between a species and a genus in mono- 

 typical genera; still we do know as a matter 

 of experience that when an author briefly de- 

 fines a new genus in a diagnostic table of 

 genera of a group and merely mentions a 

 species as type, without describing it and yet 

 follows the rules of binary nomenclature, he 

 has not done all that is necessary to make it 

 recognizable. As a matter of fact, we know 

 that he has not described the species by diag- 

 nosing the genus, for the simple reason that 

 the species can not be recognized. As a case 

 in point : In a group of insect parasites of the 

 Hymenoptera, the late Dr. Ashmead, in a 

 table of the genera of a tribe of the Sphegi- 

 gasterinse describes or defines a new genus 

 called Pachycrepoideus, merely naming a type 



