May 10, 1912] 
ists will arise and, with more zeal than judg- 
ment, create havoc with existing and revered 
classification. These men have no exemption 
from the common quota of error which afilicts 
mankind in general, but their mistakes are apt 
to be more than ordinarily disturbing. There 
is such a thing as excessive pedantry in every 
class of students, as there are men who crucify 
the spirit of the law in order to maintain the 
letter. 
But, to return to the International Com- 
mittee on Zoological Nomenclature, it must be 
conceded that it has unraveled skillfully and 
patiently many knotty problems in nomencla- 
ture, and has performed a function which is 
surely an important one. 
But it has aroused a more or less active 
spirit of opposition by its strict application of 
the priority law, a rule that is at the very 
foundation of many of its decisions. This 
law reads as follows: 
Art. 25. The valid name of a genus or species 
can be only that name under which it was first 
designated on the condition (a) that this name 
was published and accompanied by an indication, 
or a definition, or a description; and (b) that the 
author has applied the principles of binary nom- 
enclature. 
While there have been individual zoologists 
who have vigorously objected to the rigid en- 
forcement of the priority rule, it remained for 
the Scandinavian and Finnish zoologists to 
make the first formal and organized protest. 
There was published in the Annals and Maga- 
zine of Natural History for December, 1911, 
an article entitled “ A Vote against the Strict 
Application of the Priority Rule in Zoological 
Nomenclature, with an Introduction by Dr. 
Th. Mortensen.” 
This introduction is interesting reading for 
the insurgents. It reviews the efforts that 
have been made to induce the International 
Commission to agree to the recommendation 
that “certain very commonly used zoological 
names should be excepted from the law of pri- 
ority,” and states that the Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature has shown no in- 
clination to accept the recommendation, claim- 
ing that such a desire for exceptions to the 
SCIENCE 
723 
tule is not indicated by any great number of 
zoologists. 
It seems that there was published in the 
number of the Annals and Magazine of Nat- 
ural History for December, 1910, a portion of 
an advanced copy of the Report of the Inter- 
national Commission in which the commis- 
sion invites all zoologists to send in, prior to 
November 1, 1910, a list of 100 zoological 
names. All systematists are invited, more- 
over, to send a separate list of 50 or 100 gen- 
eric names in their specialty which they look 
upon as most important and most generally 
used, each name to be accompanied by the full 
and complete bibliographic reference, by the 
name of the type species and the name of the 
order and family to which the genus belongs. 
This proposition Dr. Mortensen regards as 
“not very far from an absurdity.” Perhaps 
this language is too strong to apply to a re- 
quest from the International Commission on 
Zoological Names; but it is nevertheless ex- 
ceedingly frank. It would be interesting, 
moreover, to know how many systematists 
there are in this body who are so situated that 
they could drop their ordinary work and sup- 
ply, on short notice, such a list, with proper 
bibliographic references. 
Dr. Mortensen, with the help of some of his 
colleagues, secured a vote from 122 profes- 
sional zoologists in Scandinavia and Finland, 
and found that all but two of them were ready 
to sign the following statement: 
The undersigned Scandinavian and Finnish zool- 
ogists protest against the strict application of the 
law of priority in all cases, and express the desire 
that the most important and generally used names 
should be protected against any change on nom- 
enclatorial grounds. 
The names and official positions of the sign- 
ers are appended. Dr. Mortensen concludes 
as follows: 
It is to be hoped that the zoologists of other 
countries will follow the example given here. 
When this has been done, and it has been definitely 
proved that the great majority object to the strict 
application of the priority rule, it may perhaps 
be expected that the tyranny of that notorious 
law, which has already done so much harm to 
