September 13, 1912] 



SCIENCE 



345 



such a mass of uncertainty, doubt and con- 

 fusion as could never be remedied. The prob- 

 able result would be that most experts would 

 refuse to accept the new system and without 

 their acquiescence nothing good could be 

 hoped for. 



The nature of nomenclature in science is 

 such that to be stable it must be arbitrary. 

 Past experience as well as common sense 

 prove that such matters of controversy left to 

 individual opinion are never finally settled. 

 Individuals must fall back on a general rule 

 of action. Let us examine the proposals. 

 We shall find them containing both good and 

 evil. The first section of the Austrian cir- 

 cular is stated to restrict nomenclature to 

 binomial works, in which I heartily concur, 

 and which, with certain arbitrary exceptions 

 (like Brisson), has always been the rule. The 

 second " provides that when a species has once 

 been removed from a genus it shall not be 

 considered as the type of the genus in any fu- 

 ture revision." Here we have uncertainty 

 piled upon doubt. When is a species " removed 

 from a genus " ? What constitutes " removal " ? 

 K a species is the type of a genus and some 

 one " removes " it, does it for that reason lose 

 its character? If an error has been com- 

 mitted by some blundering tyro, is it to re- 

 main forever uncorrected? Here is arbitrari- 

 ness with a vengeance! 



The third section proposes that the decision 

 of questions in nomenclature be taken away 

 from experts and settled by popular vote. 

 Anybody willing to subscribe five dollars may 

 vote. It needs no comment. 



The German Zoological Society begins with 

 an eminently rational proposition, i. e., that 

 special eases be arbitrarily settled according 

 to their merits by a committee of experts. In 

 the list of examples there are few wliieh call 

 for dissent, though it may be remarked that 

 Terebratula and Liothyrina are different 

 groups, and that the species now referred to 

 Liothyrina are not members of the traditional 

 Terebratula; also that the entire group of 

 students of the Brachiopoda, without a dis- 

 senting- voice so far as I know, are in accord 

 on this point. If the change be made it would 



in this ease be solely for the benefit of those 

 unwilling to give up a familiar blunder. 



Their second proposition opens the way to 

 chaos. Who is to decide when a given situa- 

 tion " will lead to lasting confusion or error " ? 

 Hardly the authors of this circular. 



The third proposition returns to sanity. 

 " Certain works are not to be considered in 

 the determination of questions of priority." 

 If these are settled, case by case, by expert 

 committees, the rule is one I have long advo- 

 cated; but it should not be decided by a vote 

 of heterogeneous subscribers of five dollars. 

 Looking over the list submitted as examples 

 we find many of which the exclusion would 

 probably meet with general approval; some 

 which would probably be by expert Tote re- 

 tained. It should not be in any case decided 

 without grave consideration of the effect on 

 existing systematics. 



The fourth proposition relapses into an ap- 

 peal for chaos again. " Articles in encyclo- 

 pedias, popular works of travel, journals of 

 hunting and fishing, catalogues, garden jour- 

 nals, agricultural periodicals, political and lo- 

 cal newspapers and other non-scientific jour- 

 nals which are without influence in systematic 

 science " are to be ignored. 



No one even moderately acquainted with 

 the history of systematic zoology could make 

 such a proposition as this, except in the haste 

 which obscures clear thinking. All the above 

 denounced journals which have influenced 

 systematic science are, of course, not to be 

 ignored (by the terms of the last clause of 

 the proposal), but who cares what is done to 

 those which have not? Systematists are only 

 concerned with those which have; and which 

 by the language of this self -contradictory an- 

 nouncement are endorsed, though not inten- 

 tionally. Accepting the real intent of this 

 proposal it seems impossible that those who 

 propose it can have any conception of the new 

 confusion and uncertainty it would create. 



To sum up, the only practicable method 

 of settling disputed questions of this sort is 

 that adopted by the International Commis- 

 sion as now established. Each case to be de- 

 cided on its merits, and decided by experts. 



