Febru.-vry 22, 1918] 



SCIENCE 



195 



ted, as in the bibliography of the cucurbits. 

 The author has made a most useful book and 

 it should stimiilate botanists to get some of the 

 old lines of work back into botany, rather 

 than let it continue to be taught by men who 

 have other lines of interest, than botany. 

 The book is therefore a most welcome addition 

 to our literature of practical botany. 



L. H. P.\MMEL 



Iowa State College, 

 Ames, Ia. 



The Genera of Fishes, from Linnwus to Cuvier, 

 nSS-lSSS, Seventy-five Years, with the 

 accepted Type of Each. A contribution to 

 the Stability of Scientific Nomenclature. 

 By D.4VID Starr Jordan, assisted by B.ujton 

 Warren Evermann. (Published by Stan- 

 ford University, 1917.) 



It is a reproach to zoologists that so much 

 uncertainty exists about the proper names of 

 animals. To an outsider it appears inexplica- 

 ble that the numerous competent students of 

 taxonomy do not put their house in order, and 

 settle once for all the questions which they find 

 so vexatious. The difficulty is that these mat- 

 ters demand exhaustive bibliographical re- 

 search, and few have access to the necessary 

 books, even if they could afford to take the 

 time to digest them. Proposed changes, based 

 on fragmentary research, are naturally re- 

 garded with doubt, since other investigations 

 may show them to be needless. The only satis- 

 factory solution must come through reviews of 

 the whole of the pertinent literature of any 

 group under discussion. Such a review, so far 

 as it concerns the genera of fishes named from 

 1758 to 1833, is given by Dr. Jordan in a work 

 just published by Stanford University. The 

 various publications are enumerated in chrono- 

 logical order, and all the new generic names 

 are cited, with indications of the type species. 

 Explanatory notes, often of considerable 

 length, are added. Thus the reader is put in 

 possession of the facts, and is at liberty to 

 form his own opinions. The list is doubtless 

 substantially complete, although it is stated in 

 the introduction that other names may yet be 

 discovered in dictionaries and obscure publi- 



cations.' At the end is a series of lists, show- 

 ing the various necessary or possible changes 

 in nomenclature. These lists are as follows: 

 {A) Changes resting in priority, involving 73 

 names, though in nine of these the 

 generic name remains as currently ac- 

 cepted, only the authority being al- 

 tered. It is greatly to be regretted 

 that our common genus of darters, 

 Etheostoma of all modern authors, 

 must apparently be called Catonotus. 

 The names adopted from A. F. Rose 

 (1793) appear to me to be of doubtful 

 validity, being mere transliterations of 

 the Greek names of Aristotle. The 

 work itself being in Latin, the Aristo- 

 telian names were given with Latin 

 equivalents. The matter is of impor- 

 tance to entomologists as it involves 

 the name Phycis, used at present for a 

 genus of moths, the type of a subfam- 



ily. 



(B) Changes resulting from the operations of 



opinions 20 and 37 of the Interna- 

 tional Commission, admitting the 

 names of Gronow. Those of Klein are 

 held to be equally valid or invalid. 

 These authors do not use the Linnean 

 binomial system, and Dr. Jordan ques- 

 tions the validity of the names. In 

 spite of the opinions of the Commis- 

 sion, it appears evident that all these 

 names should be rejected. 



(C) Changes resulting from opinion 24 of 



the Commission, which if logically fol- 

 lowed must also admit four names of 

 Plumier. The Plumierian names were 

 polynomial and we must agree with 

 Dr. Jordan that they should be re- 

 jected. Although few, they involve 

 some very objectionable changes. 



(D) Hypothetical changes according to law of 



priority, but doubtfully eligible; ap- 

 parently to be rejected under opinion 

 57 of the Commission. 



1 1 hear from Dr. Jordan that he has found two 

 omissions: Congiopodus Perry, 1811, the same as 

 Agriopus; and Shomhoides Goldfuss, 1820, a sub- 

 stitute for Shombua Cuvier, preoccupied. 



