724 
science, will be thrown off; and then, perhaps, the 
International Commission will see that it is rather 
its duty to arrange for the codification of the 
desired names in accordance with the wishes of the 
zoologists. 
Upon looking up all of the evidence at hand, 
and also communicating directly with the sec- 
retary of the International Commission, I am 
forced to the conclusion that there is no dis- 
position on the part of that commission to 
except any names whatever from the mandate 
of the priority rule. 
Tt should be said here that prior to the pro- 
test from the Scandinavian and Finnish zoolo- 
gists, the British Association and the Amer- 
ican Society of Zoologists had recommended 
“that certain very commonly used zoological 
names should be excepted from the law of 
priority,” and, aside from these formal actions 
there has been developed a considerable 
amount of individual hostility to the strict 
application of the law; and in some cases there 
is open revolt. 
The practical working systematist is now 
confronted with a very serious and perplexing 
dilemma. He is forced to ask himself which 
of two courses he should pursue. Shall he 
adopt the ruling of the commission and ad- 
here strictly to the law of priority, in which 
he will not be followed by a large and impor- 
tant class of his colleagues? Or, shall he use 
his judgment in each particular case which 
comes up for decision, and thus bring down 
upon himself and his work the criticism of 
another important class and have both con- 
demned by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, a body created by 
the International Congress, and having plen- 
ary powers to enforce this rule? And it must 
be remembered that a large number of active 
systematists are thoroughly in accord with the 
commission. 
It surely seems as if the systematist here 
finds himself placed squarely between the Devil 
and the deep sea. It is, of course, not within 
the province of this paper to designate which 
is which. 
Now it must be confessed that there is much 
to be said in favor of the attitude taken by 
SCIENCE 
[N.S. Vou. XXXYV. No. 906 
the commission in this matter. In the first 
place, there is great virtue in a clear-cut and 
definite law, one without any “ifs” nor 
“ands” about it; and this advantage is un- 
doubtedly possessed by the law in question. 
And it is clearly to the advantage of the 
commission, as court of last resort, to have 
such a rule at its back. A law of this kind 
is administered with much more facility than 
a looser one, and the consistent administration 
of such a rule can bring no efficient criticism 
upon the commission, provided that the pri- 
ority rule has been legally enacted! 
As a matter of fact, the International Con- 
gress of Zoologists, although perhaps not a 
strictly legal body, is presumably the most 
thoroughly representative, indeed the only in- 
ternational body of zoologists in a broad sense, 
that exists, or has existed. 
This body formally adopted the code, as 
formulated by the duly authorized Interna- 
tional Commission on Zoological Nomencla- 
ture, at the Berlin meeting, in 1901. The 
commission itself was formally appointed in 
1895 at the Leyden meeting. 
Further amendments were submitted by the 
commission, and adopted by the International 
Congress at the Boston meeting in 1907. 
Meanwhile a number of zoologists expressed 
the wish that the commission serve as a court 
for the interpretation of the code, and it has 
consented to act in that capacity. 
A careful review of the records and history 
of the commission has forced upon the writer 
the conviction that the priority rule has as 
thorough a sanction in law as can be given by 
the International Congress of Zoologists, and 
that there is nothing in the records which 
authorizes the commission to deviate from 
that law. Moreover, it appears that the com- 
mission is correct in declaring that it “has no 
legislative power,” and it is difficult to see how 
it could assume the right to practically amend 
the priority rule. 
If ordinary parliamentary usages are to be 
followed, it seems to be plainly indicated that 
the only power that can amend or abolish this 
rule is the International Congress itself, either 
on its own motion, or in response to a recom- 
