778 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIV. No. 624. 



genera, no matter how differently the genera 

 may be constituted — whether containing two 

 species or a much greater number — all the 

 later genera become pure synonyms of the 

 earliest genus, necessitating the giving of new 

 names to the later genera and the consequent 

 changing of the generic designation for all the 

 species contained in them. 



It is thus evident that Mr. Stone's statistics 

 greatly underestimate the number of changes 

 in names that would result from the adoption 

 of the first species rule. 



In a footnote (I. c, p. 561) Mr. Stone sug- 

 gests that in the case of Linnajan genera we 

 may accept them arbitrarily, inasmuch as 

 there is * practical unanimity of opinion ' as 

 to their types. This may be true as regards 

 birds, and possibly some other groups, but it is 

 not true in general. The A. O. TJ. Committee, 

 if it sees fit, and is so authorized by the 

 A. O. TJ., can adopt such a rule with reference 

 to the A. O. U. Cheek List of North American 

 birds, but there is no assurance that such a 

 ruling would be generally adopted by other 

 ornithologists, while the contrary is quite cer- 

 tain as to zoologists at large. The appalling 

 results that would follow the adoption of the 

 first species rule without such a reservation 

 might force its adherents to its adoption, since 

 otherwise its strict enforcement would result 

 in such radical changes as the transference of 

 many Linnsean genera to other families than 

 those with which they are now associated, and 

 entail also the changing of many family 

 names, and bring in endless confusion in 

 nomenclattye instead of the stability we all 

 profess to be striving to secure. 



Mr. Stone in his endeavor to show "the 

 various ways in which ' elimination ' is ap- 

 plied in practise," publishes a series of hypo- 

 thetical questions sent out by him to various 

 naturalists, with a summary of their replies. 

 These show practical unanimity in only about 

 50 per cent, of the eases, and that in many 

 others the answers were widely divergent. 

 The real cause of the discrepancy is not diffi- 

 cult to discover. The questions were stated 

 in so ambiguous a manner that they were 

 open, in a number of instances, to diverse in- 



terpretations. I have met personally at least 

 one third of those who sent replies, and thus 

 know that in several cases two and sometimes 

 three different interpretations were put upon 

 the same question. If actual cases had been 

 cited, with proper references to the book and 

 page, so that the real conditions could be 

 studied, it might then have been claimed that 

 a real test had been made of how * elimina- 

 tion ' works in practise. 



One of the most surprising statements in 

 this remarkable paper is the assertion : " Elim- 

 ination has never been practised in Europe 

 and does not seem to be understood by foreign 

 writers, and in the majority of cases the first 

 species is taken by them as the type." The 

 history of nomenclature gives no warrant for 

 such a statement. In the first place, the first 

 species rule has never been included in any 

 zoological code. On the contrary, the provi- 

 sions for determining generic types either ex- 

 pressly prescribe elimination or distinctly in- 

 volve that method. The ' Proceedings ' of the 

 fourth International Zoological Congress, held 

 in London in 1898, includes a report, some 70 

 pages in length, of an International Commit- 

 tee of Entomologists on the ' Nomenclature 

 of Lepidoptera.' The burden of the report is 

 any method except the first species rule. One 

 prominent entomologist says : " The selection 

 of the first in the list of those originally in- 

 cluded has no justification whatever ; we might 

 as well choose the last, and better the middle 

 one. The species placed first is usually not 

 the most typical but the most exceptional." 



The first species rule has been tried in the 

 past and found wanting. More than half a 

 century ago it was adopted by prominent 

 leaders in different branches of zoology, par- 

 ticularly in ornithology and ichthyology; they 

 secured a small following, which soon dropped 

 away, leaving ortly here and there, among the 

 older authors, a disciple who consistently per- 

 sisted in its use. 



' Elimination,' or the rule of priority 

 method, is interwoven throughout the whole 

 fabric of nomenclature. It is practised every- 

 where in delimiting the * type form ' in a 

 heterotypic species, in which the earliest name 

 is reserved for the form first described. Here, 



