998 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXIX. No. 756 



posterior pair of palato-pterygoid dental plates 

 in the new genus described by Dr. Hussakof 

 we are still without information, but the pres- 

 ence of the latter, at least, may be predicated 

 as a logical necessity. 



Newberry's recognition of M. terrelU as a 

 distinct species is justified by appreciable dif- 

 ferences between the mandible upon which it 

 was founded and those characterized by him 

 as M. variabile. Generic differences between 

 it and other Mylostomids are now indicated 

 by the characters of its (supposed) upper 

 dental pavement. Hence, in order to give 

 eSectiveness to the theoretical association of 

 parts here proposed, it becomes necessary first 

 of all to unite the two " species " of ferox and 

 terrelK; and secondly, to substitute the latter 

 specific title, on grounds of priority, as geno- 

 type of Dinognathus. 0. E. Eastman 



Habvard Univebsitt 



a lawyer on the nomenclature question 

 Discussions of the past year or two in 

 scientific journals — more particularly in Sci- 

 ence — move the undersigned to free his mind 

 on the above subject. Trained first as a zo- 

 ologist and later as a lawyer, he now follows 

 law as his vocation and zoology as his avoca- 

 tion. This is a good combination of school- 

 ings for the appreciation of some aspects of 

 the nomenclature question. 



In the first place, nomenclature as an art — 

 and it is already an art and a very specialized 

 one at that — is not science at all, but law pure 

 and simple. It is the art of interpreting and 

 applying to various states of natural fact the 

 unnatural man-made rules which have grown 

 up during the last century and a half, partly 

 by unwritten custom, partly by precedents, 

 and partly by conscious legislation, just ex- 

 actly as other systems of law have grown up. 

 Doubtless it is because the scientific men who 

 handle this body of law have no legal training 

 and try to handle it as if it were science (as 

 some undoubtedly suppose it to be) that they 

 make such a prodigious bungle of it. Their 

 chief blunder is that they endeavor to carry 

 on and administer and build up this system 

 of law without any courts! Consequently 



every piece of litigation (conducted most un- 

 economically and unsystematically by loose 

 correspondence and articles in scientific jour- 

 nals which ought to be reserved for better 

 things) is indeterminate and each litigant re- 

 mains of the same opinion still and acts ac- 

 cordingly. If merchants and business men 

 were so stupid as to try to administer the com- 

 plicated rules of their game for themselves, 

 to the ruinous neglect of their real interests, 

 without special training in the making and 

 interpreting of rules, and without tribunals 

 for the settlement of their questions, we 

 should have an exact parallel to the situation 

 which has arisen in zoology and botany. 



Some may doubt my dictum that the field 

 of nomenclature is a field of law, not science. 

 Let me add to this dictum one to the effect 

 that many, if not most, of the questions of 

 nomenclature (like many questions of law) 

 are of utterly insignificant importance so only 

 that they be settled one way or the other, 

 quicTcly, definitely and permanently. Then 

 let me cite an instance — and a fair one too — 

 illustrative of both dicta. 



Picking up the April number of the Pro- 

 ceedings of the Malacological Society of 

 London, I see that A. J. Jukes-Brown, a com- 

 petent authority in the malacological world, 

 differs widely and strenuously, though cour- 

 teously, from our own Dr. Dall (a highly 

 competent authority) as to the nomenclature 

 of certain groups of the Veneridse. In part 

 his difference turns on different findings and 

 interpretations of facts. These are scientific 

 differences. The scientific methods of which 

 each is master will enable the two men to 

 agree — or if they can not reach the same con- 

 clusion then to agree to differ. Neither can, 

 or should, after his final reexamination of the 

 evidence, yield his honest opinion a jot to 

 anybody or to any tribunal. But in part his 

 difference turns on the following point. Dr. 

 Paul Fischer, in his " Manuel de Conchyli- 

 ologie " (etc.), did much rearranging and col- 

 lating of generic and subgeneric groups. 

 For each group he had the habit of naming 

 one species with the prefix " ex." standing, of 

 course, for " example." Dr. Dall, perhaps not 



