588 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLVII. No. 1224 



mueli to say about the grammatical sins of 

 biologists in the use of systematic names. 

 These I am not defending, nor is it my in- 

 tention here to analyze the motives which in- 

 duced the International Zoological Congress 

 to refuse to sanction subsequent correction of 

 such errors. But the case which serves him 

 for a heading is of a different nature. He 

 characterizes Spencer F. Baird's use of the 

 comibination Desmognathus fuscus as a " mis- 

 take " which " was followed by several illus- 

 trious men, both anatomists and systematists, 

 among others by Wiedersheim (1887), W. K. 

 Parker (18Y9), Boulenger (1882), and as late 

 as 1909, by Gadow." I think it can be shown, 

 however, that these illustrious men, as far 

 as the grammar is concerned, were as correct 

 as the other zoologists quoted by him, who 

 vsTote Desmognathus fusca, both forms being 

 grammatically correct. 



The rule governing the gender of Greek 

 composite words is, as I understand it, that 

 the unmutated composites follow the gender of 

 the final component. Thus dermatochelys is 

 feminine because chelys is feminine, chelys 

 being Greek for turtle, and dermatochelys for 

 a leather-back turtle. 



Mutated composite words, on the other 

 hand, except personal names, are of common 

 gender, that is, they may be used either as 

 masculines or feminines. Thus Jcallithrix as 

 a zoological appellative may be used either as 

 a masculine or as a feminine noun, notwith- 

 standing the fact that thrix, hair, is feminine. 



As an example of the above rule, let us ex- 

 amine a familiar word commonly used in 

 forming zoological generic appellatives, for in- 

 stance, rhynchos, a beak, a bill (rhamphos 

 might just as well have been chosen). The 

 gender of this Greek word is neuter. Now, 

 were I to describe and classify beaks only, 

 I might speak of a goniorhynchos and of an 

 orthorhynchos according to whether the beak 

 were angular or straight, and these composite 

 words being unmutated would also remain 

 neuters. But when I designate a fish or a 

 bird as Goniorhynehus or Orthorhynchus 

 meaning a fish with an angular beak or a bird 

 with a straight bill, these appellatives assume 



the common gender and the specific adjectives 

 may be masculine or feminine according to 

 my choice. Thus it would be grammatically 

 correct to say either Goniorhynehus alhus or 

 Goniorhynehus alba, but certainly not Go- 

 niorhynehus album, in spite of the fact that 

 rhynehos is neuter. 



Similarly, if one were to speak of a jaw as a 

 desmognathos, its gender is undoubtedly fem- 

 inine, gnathos being feminine, but naming, 

 as Spencer F. Baird did, a salamander Des- 

 mognathus he created an appellative of the 

 common gender and he was at perfect liberty 

 to use the masculine form of the adjective 

 fuscus in conjunction with it. He certainly 

 committed no grammatical blunder " in all its 

 shame." Equally correct was Dr. J. P. Moore 

 when he instituted the genus Leurognathus 

 for another salamander and named the species 

 Leurognathus marmorata.^ 



It will thus be seen that Baird and those 

 who follow him have not " changed the gram- 

 matical gender of the noun gnathos," but have 

 simply availed themselves of their right to 

 select from the common gender of the sala- 

 mander Desmognathus that which in their 

 opinion was most consistent with general zo- 

 ological practise. This, it is interesting to 

 note, has been to regard the mutated appella- 

 tives formed by combination with gnathos as 

 of the masculine gender. 



Thus the mammalian genus Perognathus of 

 Wied was originally proposed as masculine and 

 generally so accepted. Erignathus was pro- 

 posed by Theo. 'N. Gill as masculine and has 

 been universally so accepted. Among snakes 

 we have Leptognathus, by Dumeril and Bibron 

 designated as masculine and so accepted by 

 Giinther, Jan and Cope; Lycognathus, Isch- 

 nognathus and Petalognathus, similarly pro- 

 posed, and also accepted by Boulenger. Among 

 the frogs we have Cystignathus fuscus 

 Giinther; C ocellatus Tschudi, Peters; C. 

 lahyrinthicus Dumeril and Bibron, Eeinhardt 



1 The erroneous quotation Leurognathus marmo- 

 ratus in the check list referred to by Professor 

 "Wilder was due to a lapsus and the use of the 

 masculine gender in this case was quite uninten- 

 tional. The incorrect citation of Dunn's D. 

 ochrophcea carolinensis is also greatly regretted. 



