832 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVI. No. 937 



It thus appears that slightly more than 73 

 per cent, of the members of the Central 

 Branch of the American Society of Zoologists 

 who voted on the priority rule are opposed to 

 the strict (inflexible) application of the rule 

 as now interpreted by the International Com- 

 mission on Nomenclature. 



ANALYSIS OF THE VOTE 



The three members of the committee who 

 opened the ballots think it of interest to 

 present the following brief analysis of the 

 ■vote, based on a division of the voters into 

 classes of voters. The classification of voters 

 is made on the concurrent judgment of the 

 canvassers, and would probably vary some- 

 what had the selection been made by another 

 committee. It is not likely, however, that the 

 result of the analysis would be materially 

 changed by any one having a somewhat wide 

 acquaintance among the voters. 



1st class. — Zoologists that may properly be called 

 non-systematists. 



Total number of voters in class 25 



Number in favor of priority rule 3 



Number opposed to priority rule 22 



Majority against rule 88 per cent. 



2d class. — Systematists in a broad sense. Including 

 those who have had considerable experience 

 in identifying species and some experience in 

 naming and describing new species. 



Total number of voters in class 23 



Number in favor of priority rule 10 



Number opposed to priority rule 13 



Majority against rule 56i per cent. 



3d class. — Systematists in a strict sense. Including 

 those who have done monographic work in 

 systematic zoology; work that can be regarded 

 as authoritative in its own field. This class is 

 a selected group from the 2d class. 



Total number of voters in class 7 



Number in favor of priority rule 3 



Number opposed to priority rule 4 



Majority against rule 665 per cent. 



The number in this class is so small that it 

 would probably be fair to conclude that the 

 systematists in a strict sense are about equally 

 divided in opinion regarding the priority rule. 



REMARKS 



A space on T;he ballot headed "Eemarks" 

 was utilized by twenty-one of those who voted. 

 An attempt is made below to summarize these 

 remarks : 



" Eemarhs " on Ballots in Favor of 

 Priority Rule 



Three voters believed that the adherence to 

 the rule would be best for future generations 

 of zoologists. 



One believes " in the establishment of au- 

 thority by legislation and not in individual 

 judgment." 



One considers adherence to the rule " the 

 only way out of the present confusion of 

 tongues." 



One, who votes for the rule, says : 

 I am strongly in sympathy with what I under- 

 stand to be the spirit of the "law of priority," 

 but am certain that as it is being applied in the 

 group of organisms with which I am particularly 

 familiar it is producing results exactly the reverse 

 of what, in the spirit of it, it is expected to pro- 

 duce; that is, it is adding to, not diminishing, 

 confusion. 



This is one of the voters of the 3d class, as 

 defined above. 



" Remarks " on Ballots Opposed to the 

 Priority Rule 



There were four who believed that it should 

 be possible for a committee of experts to 

 modify or make exceptions to the rule. 



Four believed that names of long standing 

 and general acceptance should be exempted 

 from the application of the priority rule. 



Two believed that a more flexible applica- 

 tion of the rule would make for greater con- 

 venience. One says: 



Nomenclature is a tool, and serves its best pur- 

 pose when it operates with the greatest conveni- 

 ence. It is certainly not convenient when a name 

 knonm to everybody as applying definitely to a 

 definite object is changed on the discovery that 

 some long forgotten name has priority. 



Another voter voices practically the same 

 opinion. 



One is opposed to the strict application of 



