1896.] UTILES OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENOLATITEB. 309 



in May of tbat year (9). These Eules follow tbe American Eules 

 very nearly, especially as regards the three points which are 

 proposed for special discussion this evening. 



In 1892 the International Congress of Zoology at their Moscow 

 Meeting adopted a set of Rules of Nomenclature, which appear to 

 differ little in effect from those of the Societe Zoologique de 

 Prance. These Eules (11) were separately published at Paris in 

 1895. 



We now come to the Eules adopted by the Deutsche Zoologische 

 Gesellschaft in 1894 (10), which are of special importance for 

 reasons that I have already pointed out, and to some of which, 

 as being in direct conflict with those of the Stricklandian Code, I 

 wish to call your special attention this evening. In order to 

 render them more easy of access upon the present occasion I have 

 translated and printed the text of the Eules themselves (see 

 Appendix I., p. 316),thoixgh I have not thought it necessary to 

 add to each rule the commentaries and explanations which are 

 appended to them, in smaller type, in the original. On reading 

 them through it will be seen that these rules in many particulars 

 conform to the excellent system originally put forward by Strickland 

 and now generally adopted by zoologists all over the world. The 

 usual sequence of divisions of animals into Orders, Families, 

 Subfamilies, Genera, and Species is recognized. The families are 

 to be formed ending in -ida, and the subfamilies in -ince, and though 

 priority is strictly enforced, corrections in orthography are not 

 only permitted but approved of. In fact there seem to be only 

 three principal points in which the Code of the German Zoological 

 Society differs from ours, and it is to these three points to which 

 I now propose to call your attention, after which 1 will say a few 

 words on two or three points of minor importance. 



1. The German Eules (Sect. 1) disclaim any relation to Botany 

 so that, according to them, the same generic names may be used in 

 Zoology and Botany. This is contrary to the Stricklandian Code 

 (Sect. 10). 



It is quite certain that the Stricklandian Code did not allow 

 the same name to be employed for a genus in Zoology and in 

 Botany. But in the British Association revision of 1863, amongst 

 the six alterations proposed to be made in that Code was one 

 "that Botany should not be introduced into the Stricklandian 

 Eules and Eecommendations." This, however, I do not talte to 

 mean that the Eule alluded to is to be repealed, but merely that 

 the Eules as a whole were intended for Zoologists and not for 

 Botanists. But in the American Code (see Principle IV.) the 

 contrary view was taken and it was enacted that the " use of a 

 name in Botany does not prevent its subsequent use in Zoology." 

 We will take a salient example on this point. The Swifts until 

 recently have been universally called by ornithologists Cypselus, 

 and the family to which they belong Cypselidce. Micropus of 

 Meyer and Wolf, which has one year's precedence over Cypselus, 

 has been passed over, because Micropus is an old Linnean term for 

 a genus of plants. In accordance with their Eules tbe American 



