818 
The method of elimination which was for 
some time in use was unsatisfactory in this 
respect. It proved impossible to formulate 
rules by which the type of a composite genus 
could be “ eliminated ” by several investigators 
with the same result.’ 
Systematists naturally demanded a simpler 
method which would give uniform results in 
the hands of different persons, and the “ first 
species” method met with very general sup- 
port when the question of a change was 
raised. The matter came before the Interna- 
tional Commission on Zoological Nomencla- 
ture at Boston in 1907 and resulted in the 
adoption, as a compromise, of the method now 
incorporated in the Code, whereby the action 
of the first author who designates a type for 
a polytypic genus is held as binding in all 
cases where the type is not settled by original 
designation, tautonymy, etc., as enumerated 
in Art. 30, rules “a” to “d.” 
This method is definite and has been ac- 
cepted by all zoologists who follow the Inter- 
national Code. The types of thousands of 
genera have been recently determined by this 
method and many complicated questions of 
nomenclature have been settled in accordance 
with its rules. The Commission, with the co- 
operation of subcommittees, has even begun 
to prepare lists of authoritative names for 
genera in various departments of zoology, 
based upon the rules now in use. 
Zoologists began to feel that stability and 
uniformity were at last in sight—but no! 
We are recently in receipt of a circular signed 
by a number of European zoologists advo- 
cating a return to the method of elimination 
and urging that the proposition be brought, 
not before the Commission on Nomenclature, 
but before the entire Zoological Congress! 
It is hard to see how any zoologist can 
seriously support such a proposition, espe- 
cially at the present time, when such satis- 
factory progress toward stability was being 
made. It is of course permissible to change 
the Code of Nomenclature where the rules are 
obscure or indefinite; but if we are to shift 
+Cf. ScIENCE, Vol. XXIV., p. 560. 
SCIENCE 
[N.S. Vou. XXXV. No. 908 
back and forth to accommodate the views of 
now one coterie of investigators, now another, 
we might as well abolish all codes and lapse 
into nomenclatural chaos. 
The return to the elimination method would 
not only reestablish the chaos in generic 
names from which we are just emerging, but 
would undo all the careful work in type de- 
termination which has been accomplished in 
the past five years as well as shake our faith 
in the permanency of any action of the Com- 
mission. 
The proposition, moreover, to bring such 
questions before the entire Congress instead 
of the Commission on Nomenclature is pre- 
posterous. The determination of questions of 
nomenclature can only be effected by men who 
have had long experience in this line of work 
and many members of the Congress who are 
not systematists have little or nothing to do 
with nomenclature. For this very reason the 
Commission was appointed by the Congress 
and now to propose to ignore it is little short 
of insult. 
One can not but suspect that some of the 
signers of this petition have been influenced 
by the entirely erroneous plea that the changes 
in well-known generic names are all due to 
the present method of type determination and 
that the return to elimination would restore 
the familiar names. Nothing is farther from 
the truth. Every method of type determina- 
tion will involve changes in generic names 
and probably in about equal numbers, but the 
greatest number of changes is due not to the 
method type designation nor yet to priority, 
but to excessive generic subdivision. There 
would probably be a great protest were it pro- 
posed to overthrow the genus Picus, the classic 
name for woodpeckers, but, as a matter of fact, 
such action would affect the name of but one 
species of bird, as all other woodpeckers have 
been removed from this genus! 
It is to be hoped that zoologists attending 
the Zoological Congress at Monaco in 1913 
will realize the seriousness of this matter and 
not permit a technical question of this kind 
to be taken outside of the Commission on 
Nomenclature expressly established for its 
