304 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. III. No. 61. 



the problem are simple, others more diffi- 

 cult. Thus there is little or no difference 

 of opinion as to the I'ule that the name of a 

 species is the first binomial which it re- 

 ceived. This is not a single date for all 

 species, since some early authors who used 

 trinomials and polynomials occasionally 

 used binomials. A second rule which is 

 found in all the codes, is that a name in 

 order to be a candidate for adoption, must 

 be accompanied by a descriptive diagnosis 

 or a plate. As divisions above species can- 

 not be defined by a plate, a description is 

 essential in every such case. 



It is on the question of description that a 

 certain amount of difference of opinion ex- 

 ists. From the codes of the associations 

 for the advancement of science, and of 

 the zoological congresses, no difference of 

 opinion can be inferred, but the practice 

 of a number of naturalists both zoologists, 

 and paleontologists in America, and paleon- 

 tologists in Europe, is not in accord with 

 the rule requiring definition of all groups 

 above species. It has always appeared to 

 me remarkable that a rule of such self-evi- 

 dent necessity should not meet with uni- 

 versal adoption. However, the objections 

 to it, such as they are, I will briefly con- 

 sider. It is alleged that the definitions 

 when first given ai'e more or less imper- 

 fect, and have to be subsequently amended, 

 hence it is argued they have no authority. 

 However, the first definitions, if drawn up 

 with reference to the principles enumerated 

 in the first part of this address, need not be 

 imperfect. Also an old-time diagnosis of a 

 division which we have subsequently found 

 it necessary to divide, is not imperfect on 

 that account alone, but it may be and often 

 is the definition of a higher group. But you 

 are familiar with all this class of objections 

 and the answers to them, so I will refer only 

 to the positive reasons which have induced 

 the majority of naturalists to adhere to the 

 rule. 



It is self-evident that so soon as we 

 abandon definitions for words, we have left 

 science and have gone into a kind of liter- 

 ature. In pursuing such a course we load 

 ourselves with rubbish, and place ourselves 

 in a position to have more of it placed 

 upon us. The load of necessary names is 

 quite sufficient, and we must have a reason 

 for every one of them, in order to feel that 

 it is necessary to carry it. ISText, it is es- 

 sential that every line of scientific writing 

 should be intelligible. A man should be 

 required to give a sufficient reason for 

 everything that he does in science. Thus 

 much on behalf of clearness and precision. 

 There is another aspect of the case which 

 is ethical. I am aware that some students 

 do not think that ethical considerations 

 should enter into scientific work. To this 

 I answer that I do not know of any field of 

 human labor into which ethical considera- 

 tions do not necessarily enter. The reasons 

 for sustaining the law of priority are partly 

 ethical, for we instinctively wish to see 

 every man credited with his own work, and 

 not some other man. The law of priority 

 in nomenclature goes no further in this di- 

 rection than the nature of each case re- 

 quires. Nomenclature may be an index of 

 much meritorious work, or it may represent 

 comparatively little work ; but it is to the 

 interest of all of us that it be not used to 

 sustain a false pretence of work that has 

 not been done at all. By insisting on this 

 essential test of honest intentions we retain 

 the taxonomic and phylogenetic work within 

 the circle of a class of men who are compe- 

 tent to it, and cease to hold out rewards to 

 picture makers and cataloguers. 



Another contention of some of the no- 

 menclators who use systematic names pro- 

 posed without description, is, that the spell- 

 ing in which they were first printed must 

 not be corrected if they contain ortho- 

 graphical and typographical errors. That 

 this view should be sustained by men 



