January 3, 1896.] 



SCIENCE. 



18 



understanding of Nature in many of her 

 varied aspects is an essential part of the in- 

 tellectual equipment of the investigator. 

 Moreover, mankind, collectively, through 

 the agency of its men of science and in- 

 ventors, is an investigator, slowly unravel- 

 ling the complex of Nature and weaving 

 from the disentangled thread the fabric of 

 civilization. Its material, social and intel- 

 lectual condition advances with the prog- 

 ress of its knowledge of natural laws and 

 is wholl}' dependent thereon. As an in- 

 vestigator it makes each new conquest by 

 the aid of possessions earlier acquired, and 

 the breadth of its domain each daj' is the 

 foundation and measiire of its daily prog- 

 ress. Knowledge of Nature is an account 

 at bank, where each dividend is added to 

 the principal and the interest is ever com- 

 pounded ; and hence it is that human prog- 

 ress, founded on natural knowledge, ad- 

 A'ances with ever increasing speed. 



G. K. Gilbert. 



SOME FUNDA3IEXUALS OF NOMENCLATURE. 



The following paragraphs are a brief ab- 

 stract of two consecutive papers read before 

 the Biological Society, of Washington, on 

 November 16 and 30, 1895. And, though 

 averse to attempting the condensation of so 

 much matter into small space, the attempt is 

 made in deference to the expressed wishes 

 of several who are interested in the ques- 

 tions discussed in the original papers. 



It is certainljr time that inquiry should 

 be made into the remotest history of the 

 evolution of the binarjr nomenclature in 

 use by botanists and zoologists ; for it is 

 only by the way of the history of any 

 system that we may easily arrive at an 

 understanding of its fundamental prin- 

 ciples. Within the last thirty years there 

 has been much legislation attempted re- 

 specting nomenclature. There is talk of 

 further legislation in the future, and 

 certainly much need of it, if by it we may 



hope to establish a rational and acceptable 

 system. Yet very few of those who enter the 

 arena of nomenclatorial discussion seem 

 disposed to acquire anything more than a 

 superficial knowledge of the origin and 

 development of the binary system ; they 

 have never looked carefully to see whether 

 priority, or fitness in names, or the mere 

 convenience of the biological public at a 

 given period, or prevailing usage, is the 

 fundamental principle which has brought 

 the system to its present state ; or 

 whether the combined force of all these 

 and some other possible principles have 

 given us such a system — or such a set of 

 systems — as we have, and are more or less 

 content, or discontented. 



No subject is well understood, now-a- 

 days, it is everywhere conceded, until it has 

 been viewed from the evolutionary stand- 

 point. But research into the history and 

 evolution of our nomenclature is still neg- 

 lected ; and some are, I think vainly, hop- 

 ing to resolve all difficulties even b}' bury- 

 ing still more deeply in oblivion the early 

 history of nomenclature. This is really 

 a curious point in the present status of 

 things. But the present need of historical 

 I'esearch is clearly evinced by the absurdi- 

 ties which legislative bodies have already 

 given expression to when endeavoring to 

 state fundamentals. 



In attempting to set forth what it calls 

 ' Leading Principles ' even the celebrated 

 ' Paris Code ' is more remarkable for cheap 

 platitudes and skillful evasions than for 

 any distinct pronouncements regarding 

 principles. Botanists of that period were 

 beginning to awaken to a sense of the im- 

 portance of priority, but were not yet ready 

 to accord it a place among what were desig- 

 nated as the Leading Principles, yet pla- 

 cing it first among accessory, or secondary, 

 elements of nomenclature. 



The body of American botanists who, in 

 1892, promulgated what is known as the 



