1896.] EXTLES OS ZOOLOGIOAI- NOMENOLATURB. 3l9 



7Aisammeugestellfc von der Deiitschen Zoologischen Gesell- 

 schaft. Leipzig, 1894. 

 11. Eegles de la Nomenclature des fitres organises adoptees 

 par les Congres Internationaux de Zoologie (Paris, 1889 ; 

 Moscou, 1892). Paris, 1895. 



A communication was read from Graf Hans von Berlepsch, 

 C.M.Z.S., expressing hia regret at not being able to be present on 

 this occasion, and giving his opinion on the three points specially- 

 discussed. He was not disinclined to give way on the first, but 

 maintained the necessity of the second and third alterations pro- 

 l)osed in the German llules. 



The Pubsidbnt (Sir William Flower) said that the question of 

 nomenclature was a most important one in the study of Natural 

 History. The existing confusion was caused, not only by the 

 absence of definite and universally accepted rules, but also by 

 divergences in the mode of interpretation of such rules as were 

 accepted— divergences which he feared would always exist, however 

 theoretically perfect the rules may be made. He allowed that the 

 tautonymic principle, unfortunate as it was in many respects, was 

 the logical outcome of the system of priority, the basis of the 

 Stricklandian and all other Codes. The evil arose from the use of 

 specific names in a generic sense, a practice which never ought to 

 have been permitted. With the various Codes now before ns it 

 was sometimes difficult to discriminate between regulations for the 

 introduction of new names, and those applying to the treatment 

 of names already in use — two objects which must be kept apart. 

 In the former case we could not be too strict, but in the latter 

 Sir William Flower contended that there should be some latitude 

 allowed in favour of universal usage, and he objected to the 

 supersession of a name known to the whole scientific world by one 

 which had been buried and forgotten almost as soon as it was 

 called into existence. For instance, he did not like the revival 

 of Anser fahalis for the well-known A. segeium, nor of the genus 

 Procavia for Hyrax. With regard to the 10th or 12th edition 

 of the ' Systema Naturae ' for a starting-point, he had always 

 preferred the British Association ruling in favour of the latter, 

 but it was evident that the former was gaining ground, and would 

 probably be eventually adopted. In conclusion, although he said 

 he was glad that Mr. Sclater had introduced the subject, as a dis- 

 cussion like this must help to clear up our ideas upon it, he was 

 not very hopeful of an absolute agreement ever being arrived at. 



Mr. HARTBETsaid that the Code of the German Zoological Society 

 was almost the same as that of the German Ornithological Society. 

 With regard to names used in Botany and Zoology, he considered 

 that from a practical standpoint it would be almost impossible to 

 create a name if the same rules applied to both, because it would 

 necessitate a search through botanical as well as zoological litera- 

 ture before a name could be settled upon. He therefore thought 

 Botany should be ignored, for mistakes as to whether a name was 



