May 3, 1901.] 
under one incapable of producing the desired 
uniformity. If we may trust President Jordan’s 
frank statement of the results of his extensive 
experience with the method advocated by Pro- 
fessor Britton, ‘‘ The process of elimination 
has never been consistently followed, nor can 
the process be so defined that it can yield fixed 
results in the case of the complex genera of the 
last century.’’* 
Instead of supplying an argument for continu- 
ing longer on the same lines, the variety and 
instability inevitable under the method of elim- 
ination afford an excellent reason for seeking 
a more satisfactory rule of procedure. And to 
obtain this it is not, as Professor Britton seems 
to imply, necessary that ‘historical types’ or 
the expressed wishes of the authors of genera 
shall be disregarded. Those who are inter- 
ested in the possibility of such improvements 
should, however, consider the several steps in 
the order of their importance and cease to make 
confusion between the taxonomic principles 
and the merely nomenclatorial incidents of the 
process. 
The first essential of systematic biology is a 
convenient and stable taxonomy. 
A satisfactory degree of convenience was at- 
tained over a century ago by the adoption of 
the binomial system, involving the joint recog- 
nition of generic and specific names. 
Stability can be secured by the uniform use 
of the oldest names applied under the binomial 
system of nomenclature. 
Generic and specific names have nomencla- 
torial standing when they have been used as 
parts of binomials. 
Priority requires that a species shall bear the 
oldest name applied to it, and, conversely, that 
a specific name shall be used only for the first 
species to which it was applied. 
Effective priority or stability in the applica- 
tion of a generic name can be attained by re- 
stricting its use to the congeners of the first 
species to which it was applied as part of a 
binomial. 
All such principles and methods have, how- 
ever, their logical and practical limitations and 
exceptions, but it is quite illogical and unprac- 
tical to ignore or set aside a more important for 
* SCIENCE, November 23, 1900, XII., 786. 
SCIENCE. 
713 
a less important consideration. It is essential 
that we have some one species permanently 
designated as the nomenclatorial type of each 
genus, but it is not essential that it be the first 
species, and there are good reasons for admitting 
two exceptions, not of the method of types, but 
of this suggestion for its nomenclatorial appli- 
cation. 
Exception 1.—Describers of genera may desig- 
nate their type species in the papers in which 
their generic names are published. 
Exception 2.—Generic names adopted into 
binomial nomenclature from older writings 
should be used in their original application. 
It is not, however, desirable or expedient that 
such restorations be carried in botanical litera- 
ture farther back than Tournefort’s ‘Institu- 
tiones’ (1700). 
The first provision enables us to conserve 
such parts of systematic literature as can be 
readily adjusted to present ideals and methods, 
while the second avoids too abrupt a break 
between the binomial and the prebinomial 
literature of botany, and at the same time ob- 
viates the principal objection to 1753 as the 
initial date for botanical nomenclature. 
Until an equally practicable alternative 
proposition is brought forward, the use of the 
first species as generic type should receive the 
support due to the idea of stability in biological 
taxonomy, whether the above exceptions be 
admitted or not. The exceptions do not, how- 
ever, militate in any sense against the principles 
involved, and will but slightly increase the 
labor of applying the method of types. It is 
accordingly to be hoped that they will be 
deemed a sufficient concession by those who 
have approached biological studies from the 
traditional and historical standpoints, but who 
are still able to realize the difference between a 
rule of nomenclature and a primary requisite 
of biological taxonomy. 
O. F. Coox. 
WASHINGTON, D. C., April 15, 1901. 
THE PROPER NAME OF THE ALPINE CHOUGH. 
To THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: My suggestion 
in a recent number of SclENCE(N.S. Vol. XIII., 
p. 282) that the name of the alpine chough 
should stand as Monedula pyrrhocoraa Li. (Hass), 
