September 28, 1900.] 



SCIENCE. 



477 



salutary regulation for determining the ap- 

 plication and precedence of generic names. 

 Although sometimes believed to have been 

 adequately dealt with, this question was 

 only indirectly touched upon by the Ro- 

 chester Rules, which simply re-enacted by 

 implication the generally neglected pro- 

 visions of the Paris Code of 1867. This 

 legislation can no longer be considered au- 

 thoritative, since it was based on the pre- 

 Darwinian doctrine that species are special 

 creations and that the categories of classi- 

 fication are mere mental concepts, instead 

 of groups of individuals having a common 

 origin and phylogenetic relationships. As 

 a concept, there is no particular reason 

 why a genus should not be emended, sub- 

 divided or set aside entirely if found er- 

 roneous, but as a group of related species 

 for which a permanent common name is de- 

 sired, the genus should no longer be treated 

 by the formal or conceptual method. Ob- 

 viously, it is far more important, as well as 

 more scientific and more practical, that a 

 part of organized nature have a fixed des- 

 ignation than that naturalists continue to 

 waste their energy in investigating the ap- 

 plicability and adjusting the claims of the 

 varied succession of rival concepts. Al- 

 though to many the genus appears to be 

 less tangible than the species, it is possible 

 to guarantee to it the permanence and 

 stability now enjoyed by the species under 

 the Rochester Code. By considering a 

 single species the nomenclatorial type of 

 its genus, to which the name is to remain 

 inseparably attached, we place upon firm 

 ground and solidify to the point of general 

 tangibility and comprehension the misty 

 fabric of conceptual classification. 



At the Springfield meeting of the Botan- 

 ical Club where the legislation begun at Ro- 

 chester was concluded by the acceptance of 

 the report of the ^Nomenclature Committee, 

 an attempt was made to secure attention 

 for this matter of definite priority for genera 



by the recognition of a method of fixing the 

 types. The necessity of some such pro- 

 cedure in carrying out a satisfactory re- 

 vision of at least one group of organisms 

 was explained in a paper entitled ' Personal 

 JSTomenclature in the Myxomycetes. '* 



It appeared, however, that those who had 

 been most zealous for the reform of specific 

 nomenclature had not the same appreciation 

 of the problems of generic taxonomy, per- 

 haps because the illogical and unstable re- 

 sults of the method of concepts are less 

 obvious in dealing with the higher plants, 

 and especially with the European and North 

 American floras in which the species of the 

 older writers are nearly always identifiable, 

 at least to the extent of determining their 

 generic relationships. It is thus usually 

 possible to apply the so-called method of 

 residues or elimination under which the 

 type species or a genus are held to be those 

 of the original complement which have not 

 been removed. But by this rule it is often 

 quite impossible to fix the application of a 

 generic name to one group of species when 

 several were enumerated under the generic 

 name at its first appearance. Thus if the 

 three original species of a genus are found 

 to belong to as many natural groups the 

 decision as to which shall have the use of 

 the name often depends, in final analysis, 

 not upon anything which can be learned by 

 consulting the original or subsequent de- 

 scriptions, or even the type specimens, but 



* Subsequently published in the Bulletin of the 

 Torrey Botanical Club, Oct. 1895, xxii, 431-434. 

 The present and related questions of taxonomy have 

 also been discussed under these titles : ' Stability in 

 Generic Nomenclature, ' Science, Aug. 12, 1898, viii, 

 186-190, 'The Method of Types,' Science, Oct. 14, 



1898, viii, 513--516, and ' Four Categories of Species,' 

 American Naturalist, April, 1899, xxsiii, 287-297. 

 In his ' Eeview of the Genera of Ferns proposed prior 

 to 1832,' Jfemoirs of the Torrey Botanical Club, Dec. 



1899, vi, 247-283, Professor Underwood has re- 

 stated and applied the method of types, with excep- 

 tions required by the present limitations of the 

 Rochester Eules. 



