310 ME. P. L. SCLATBE OK THB [Slar. 3, 



ornithologists have recently rejected the name Cypsehis in favour 

 of 3Iicropus and renamed the family Micropodidce accordingly. 



While I quite agree that it is not necessaiy that zoologists and 

 botanists should use exactly the same Code of Nomenclature, for 

 in many respects their practices have long been different, I think 

 it would be a great evil to allow Animals and Plants to be called 

 by the same names, as in some cases it would not be prhnd facie 

 apparent whether a particular term was intended to refer to an 

 animal or a plant. Besides this, we know that in some of the 

 lower forms it is by no means easy to decide whether certain 

 species should be referred to the animal or to the vegetable 

 kingdom. Strickland was very decided upon this subject, and I 

 see no reason at all why we should deviate from his practice, which 

 up to a recent period has been generally followed by zoologists. 



2. Under Sect. 5 of the German Rules the same term is to be 

 used for the generic and specific name of a species, if these names 

 have priority. This is contrary to the Stricklandian Code (Sect. 13). 



In the original Stricklandian Code (Section 13) it is enacted that 

 " a new specific name must be given to a species when its old name 

 has been adopted for a genus which includes that species." In the 

 British Association revision of the Code (Itecommendation IV.) it 

 was proposed to reverse this Rule, and to throw aside the generic in 

 order to retain the specific name. It was the American Ornitholo- 

 gists' Code, I believe (Canon XXX.), which first formally proposed 

 that specific names, when adopted as generic, should not be changed, 

 and this Rule has now been adopted in both the German Codes. 



It should be remarked that the proposal of the B. A. revision to 

 alter the generic name in these cases, instead of the specific, has 

 hardly met with acceptance in any quarter. In Mr. Ball's report 

 upon this subject (5) he well observes : — 



"This innovation, the sweeping character of which the Com- 

 mittee cannot have realized, if carried into effect, would uproot 

 hundreds of the generic names best known to science, and so 

 familiar that the fact that they were originally specific names has 

 been almost totally forgotten. Its spirit is opposed to the funda- 

 mental principles of nomenclature, and the end to be gained is of 

 the most trivial character." 



. Although I was a Member of the Bath Committee that agreed 

 to this Recommendation, I must confess that I am strongly 

 opposed to it, and have always followed the opposite course enacted 

 by the original Stricklandian Code, that in these cases the specific 

 name is the one to bo changed. Moreover,' this last practice has, 

 until recently, been generally adopted by English zoologists. Of 

 late years, however, the " Scomber-scomber " principle, as it is 

 familiarly called \ has met with many supporters. Though 

 inelegant and almost ridiculous, it has, at least, one merit. It 



' " Scomber scomber" (Linn. S. N. ed. xii. p. 492) eeems to be the only 

 instance in which Linnmus need the same generic and specific name for a 

 species. But it is doubtful whether this was not really a printer's error, for in 

 the tenth edition (p. 297) he wrote Scomber scombnis, and on referring to the 

 two copies of the twelfth edition, formerly belonging to Linneuus himself, and 



